/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210928.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 28, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 188 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Adkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Valladares Says 3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Wynn Suit Claims 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Voss Alleges 3M COMPANY: Faces Volz Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components 3M COMPANY: Palmer Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Parker Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Rusnack Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Schell Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 723 EDIBLES INC: Marroquin Seeks Unpaid Wages, Proper Payslips AETNA INC: Goidel Slams Biased Fertility Treatment Coverage AHOLD USA: Valcarcel Files Mislabeling Suit Over Flavored Crackers ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ARDIAN CORP: Avila Suit Seeks to Certify Class BAHCHE INC: Salazar Sues Over Restaurant Staffs Unpaid Wages BALL METAL: Westfall Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod BANK NAT'L ASS'N: Discusses Trial Plan in Misclassification Lawsuit BEST COURIER: Class Certification Bid Due November 1 BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Class Suit BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Unopposed Bid for Approval of Class Notice OK'd BOEING CO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Earl Suit BOSTON BEER: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit BOW PLUMBING: Bid for More Definite Statement in Braswell Suit OK'd BUILDING INDUSTRY: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Benefits BUILDING SERVICE: New York Court Narrows Claims in Lardo Class Suit BUSINESS CONTROL: Faces Dickerson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Cyber Attack Class Action CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Rieger Suit CLASSIC DINING: Pettingill Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana CLASSIC DINING: Ross Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana COCA-COLA COMPANY: Simmons FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix Suit Against USCF & USO Pending CONNECTED INVESTORS: Bid to Stay Discovery in Silva Suit OK'd CONSUMER SAFETY: Dover Appeals CLA Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. CORMEDIX INC: Levon Hits Share Price Drop DEBTSY INC: Hollingsworth Gets 90-Day Class Cert Deadline Relief DILLON LOGISTICS: Hogg Slams Termination Sans 60-day Notice DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Remand of Creve Coeur Suit to 8th Cir. DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Class Suit Over Practice of Placing Robocalls ENDEAVOR ENERGY: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Lowe Suit Says ENERGY TRANSFER: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ETOH MONITORING: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Meade Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Mader Appeals Ruling in FCRA Suit to 2nd Cir. GC SERVICES: Didonato Loses Class Certification Bid GERBER PRODUCTS: McCoy Suit Removed to C.D. California GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Suit Seeks to Certify Class GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delcham Claims HONEST COMPANY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ICONIX BRAND: Hayes Loses Bid to Reconsider Approval of Settlement JEFF HOBBY: Court Reopens Sauls Class Suit for Settlement Approval JUMEI INT'L: Haideri Securities Fraud Suit Tossed W/ Leave to Amend JUUL LABS: Faces Winfield School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Limestone School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Marion County Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Winston School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Alabama KERRY INC: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fernandez BIPA Suit KEVIN DAVIS: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed Pending Settlement KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Savage Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Summer Files Suit in S.D. Alabama LASER CARE: Cabral Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: 5th Cir. Affirms Callinan Suit Dismissal LOANDEPOT INC: Doban Hits Share Price Drop LONE STAR PJS: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Livingston Says LONGEVERON INC: Malespin Hits Share Price Drop MATTERPORT INC: March 2022 Deadline for Class Cert Filing Sought MIKEY AUTO: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Marvens Suit Alleges MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL: Nyamoti Files Suit in S.D. New York MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Thompson Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Denial of Arbitration in Sitzer Suit Affirmed NEW ORIENTAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 19 NEW YORK CITY, NY: Sued for Unlawful Vaccine Mandate NEWREZ LLC: Court Enters Class Certification Scheduling Order NISSAN OF STOCKTON: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OAK AND EMBER: Faces Kriberney Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages OCWEN LOAN: Parties Seeks to Hold Class Cert Ruling in Franklin OILEX INC: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT, Edwards Suit Says OMNI RECYCLING: Manzanarez Sues Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages PAXTON MEDIA: Bowen Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky PIVOTAL INVESTMENT: Laidlaw Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty POP WARNER: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Order in Archie Suit PORTLAND GENERAL: March 11, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SASOL LIMITED: Appeal on Denial of Bid for Reconsideration Pending SHORE SYSTEMS: Farez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SONG OF THE SON: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages SOUTH STATE BANK: Faces Suit Over Improper Bank Transaction Fees STATE FARM: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Moffit Suit STEMCYTE INC: Faces Steinberg Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices STRATA EQUITY: South Carolina Court Tosses Zito Suit W/o Prejudice T-MOBILE USA: Faces Glinoga Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO: Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action TEMPORARY HOUSING: Yutze Sues Over Residence Specialists' Unpaid OT TIAA BANK: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in DeSimone Suit TIMOTHY WARD: Middleton Files Suit in M.D. Georgia UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Sues for Discrimination, Retaliation UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Ruling in Huisha-huisha Suit Appealed UNITED STATES: Deadlines for Summary Judgment, Class Cert Stayed VACATION EXPERTS: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes VI-JON LLC: Court Enters Case Management Order in Macormic Suit VOLTAGE PICTURES: Federal Ct. of Appeals Reopened Infringement Suit WAWA INC: Settles Class Action Over 2019 Data Security Incident WB MAINTENANCE: Faces Fajardo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. WELLS FARGO: Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in Bruno FLSA Suit WILMINGTON TRUST: Loses Bid to Toss Henry Suit to Arbitrate Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: Adkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Adkins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02934-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout California and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Valladares Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE VALLADARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03070-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Wynn Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ BILLY JOE WYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03073-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Voss Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY WILLIAM VOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03072-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Faces Volz Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN VOLZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03071-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Palmer Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MANUEL PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03068-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Parker Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL PARKER and DONNA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03052-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and loss of consortium. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities, military and/or civilian firefighters, including Mr. Parker, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. Mr. Parker used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, Mr. Parker was diagnosed with bladder cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald J. Diaz, Jr., Esq. Christopher P. Williams, Esq. James R. Segars, III, Esq. DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 208 Waterford Square, Suite 300 Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 607-3456 Facsimile: (601) 607-3393 E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com chris@diazlawfirm.com tripp@diazlawfirm.com - and – M. Kyle Moore, Esq. COTTON, BOLTON, HOYCHICK & DOUGHTY, L.L.P. 607 Madeline Street Rayville, LA 71269 Telephone: (318) 728-2051 Facsimile: (318) 728-5293 E-mail: kmoore@cottonbolton.com 3M COMPANY: Rusnack Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS WALTER RUSNACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03069-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities, military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Schell Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH KEITH SCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03080-RMG (D.S.C., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and liver cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 723 EDIBLES INC: Marroquin Seeks Unpaid Wages, Proper Payslips -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Marroquin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 723 Edibles, Inc., Joseph Benmoha and Solomon Benmoha, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07977 (S.D. N.Y., September 10, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid earned wages, overtime wages, statutory penalties, compensatory and punitive damages, and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. 723 Edibles operates a restaurant "TSQ Brasserie," where Marroquin worked as a kitchen staff. He claims to have regularly work more than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime and denied wage statements containing accurate information about hourly rate, overtime rate and the number of regular and overtime hours worked per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com AETNA INC: Goidel Slams Biased Fertility Treatment Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------- Emma Goidel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07619, (S.D. N.Y., September 13, 2021), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Aetna is an insurance provider that supplies and administers health insurance plans for educational institutions, employers, and individuals in New York State. Aetna operates its business throughout the United States, including in the State of New York. Goidel has had health insurance provided through the Columbia University student health plan supplied and administered by Aetna. Goidel cannot conceive through intercourse with her partner (being a lesbian couple) and can become pregnant only through fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Aetna's policy provides immediate coverage, without any out-of-pocket cost, to individuals based on their representation that they have not gotten pregnant after having unprotected sex for 12 months. But Aetna's same policy requires individuals who cannot conceive through intercourse due to their sexual orientation or gender identity to pay out of pocket for 12 cycles of IUI before Aetna will provide them with coverage for fertility treatments. Thus Goidel and her spouse paid $45,000 for one successful pregnancy. Goidel claims that this is discriminatory against couple with different sexual orientations.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zoe Salzman, Esq. Noel R. León, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10020 Tel: (212) 763-5000 - and - Sunu Chandy, Esq. Michelle Banker, Esq. Lauren Gorodetsky, Esq. Alison Tanner, Esq. NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 588-5180 AHOLD USA: Valcarcel Files Mislabeling Suit Over Flavored Crackers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Idalia Valcarcel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ahold U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07821 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells cinnamon flavored crackers purporting to be made predominantly with whole grain graham flour under its Stop and Shop brand. The Product's complete name is read as "Naturally Flavored Cinnamon Graham Crackers," pictured on the front label, with images of dark hued crackers, and a seal promising a "100% Quality & Trust Guarantee." However, the ingredient list reveals "Enriched Wheat Flour" is the predominant flour, indicated by its listing ahead of "Graham Flour (Whole Grain Wheat Flour)," says the complaint. The Defendant sold more of the product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this alleged misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it, adds the complaint. Ahold U.S.A., Inc. operates superstores and conventional supermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate LLC, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joel Steinmetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05059-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Interstate LLC -- https://www.allied-interstate.com/ -- is a collection agency that is attempting to collect a debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com ARDIAN CORP: Avila Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORIO VELASCO AVILA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. ARDIAN CORP. d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, MACCG LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, TK BELL LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES ARDIAN SKENDERI and CATERINA SKENDERI, Case No. 1:18-cv-04795-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class and appointing class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iaasnq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24 th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BAHCHE INC: Salazar Sues Over Restaurant Staffs Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ GLENN SALAZAR and MARIO JUAREZ AGUILAR on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. THE BAHCHE, INC. d/b/a BISON & BOURBON, MEHMET VURGUN, and YEHOSHUA SHAGALOV, Case No. 1:21-cv-05257 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2021) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages including overtime due to time shaving, unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Salazar was hired by Defendants to work as a busboy and food runner from in or around March 13, 2018 until his termination in or around May 6, 2021. Plaintiff Aguilar was hired by Defendants to work as a busboy from June 2018 until his termination in March 2020. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant as a single integrated enterprise under the trade name "Bison & Bourbon" in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BALL METAL: Westfall Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Westfall, et al., v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller entered an order: 1. granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement but cautions that the deficiencies identified above must be remedied before final approval is appropriate. 2. dismissing the doe defendants; 3. preliminarily approving the class definitions, and the settlement of the collective claims under California law; 4. approving and appointing Heffler Claims Group as Settlement Administrator; 5. approving and appointing attorneys Matthew Eason and Kyle Tambornini of Eason & Tambornini, ALC to represent the Settlement Class as Class Counsel; 6. approving notice of settlement; and 7. setting the following schedule, as set forth within the Settlement Agreement and proposed by the plaintiff: a. BMBC shall provide class member data within 45 days from entry of this order. b. Heffler Claims Group shall mail Notice Packets to California Class and Collective Members within 30 days after delivery of class data. c. Class members shall have 45 days from the mailing of notice packets to opt-out and/or submit disputes concerning class member status or workweeks calculated. d. Class members shall submit objections, if any within 45 days of the mailing of notice packets. e. Plaintiff's motion for final approval and attorney's fees and costs shall be filed 40 days in advance of the final approval hearing. f. The Final Approval Hearing is set for March 25, 2022. Ball Metal provides packaging services. The Company serves food, beverages, household products, aerosol, paint, and custom tin industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ubjO78 at no extra charge.[CC] BANK NAT'L ASS'N: Discusses Trial Plan in Misclassification Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Oncidi at casetext.com reports that in Duran v. U.s. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, S200923 (Cal. May 29, 2014), plaintiffs in this case are loan officers for U.S. Bank ("USB") who claim they were misclassified as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the trial court devised a plan to determine the extent of USB's liability to all class members by extrapolating from a random sample of 21 plaintiffs. Based on testimony from the small sample group, the trial court found the entire class had been misclassified and ultimately rendered a verdict of approximately $15 million (an average recovery of over $57,000 per employee). The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal reversing the trial court's judgment and holding that the trial plan's reliance on a representative sampling to determine liability denied USB its due process right to litigate affirmative defenses. The Court concluded that "[i]f statistical methods are ultimately incompatible with the nature of the plaintiffs' claims or the defendant's defenses, resort to statistical proof may not be appropriate. Procedural innovation must conform to the substantive rights of the parties." See also Hall v. Rite Aid Corp., 226 Cal. App. 4th 278 (2014) (suitable seating class action was improperly decertified where order was based on an assessment of the merits of plaintiffs' theory rather than whether the theory was amenable to class treatment). [GN] BEST COURIER: Class Certification Bid Due November 1 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Swickheimer v. BEST COURIER, INC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03706 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order continuing class certification motion due by Nov. 1, 2021. The nature of suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Best Courier, Inc. is a courier company in Northeast Columbus, Ohio.[CC] BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the employment class action suit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Unopposed Bid for Approval of Class Notice OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the court in the New York consolidated class action suit granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of the class notice plan. Between October and December 2013, several purported class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada alleging that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects and that certain of the Company's financial statements contain material misstatements. The individual lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to continue. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional plaintiffs Cho and Ulug. On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. The District Court removed the case from its suspense calendar on May 29, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020. All discovery was completed as of November 13, 2020. On January 26, 2021, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class includes "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BlackBerry Limited on the NASDAQ during the period from March 28, 2013, through and including September 20, 2013 (the Class Period)." The class excludes (a) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BlackBerry Limited common stock between March 28, 2013, and April 10, 2013, and who sold all their BlackBerry Limited common stock before April 11, 2013, and (b) the Defendants, officers and directors of BlackBerry Limited, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. On February 9, 2021, the defendants filed a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review of the class certification order with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Rule 23(f) petition on June 23, 2021. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment dismissing Cho and Ulug's claims on March 11, 2021, and denied Cho and Ulug's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 28, 2021. On April 19, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and both parties filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of the oppositions' marketing and accounting experts. Both sides filed oppositions to these motions on June 21, 2021. Defendants filed a reply in support of their summary judgment motion and a motion to strike Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' separate statement of undisputed facts on July 22, 2021. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to strike on August 5, 2021, and Defendants filed a reply in support on August 10, 2021. On August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of a class notice plan. On September 10, 2021, the Court (i) granted in part and denied in part the parties' Daubert motions and (ii) granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of the class notice plan. On May 5, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation with the Hon. Layn Phillips (ret.), which did not result in an agreement. The Court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BOEING CO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Earl Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Boeing Company, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DAMONIE EARL, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. THE BOEING COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-507, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman. The lawsuit is an action seeking to hold Southwest and Boeing responsible for their reckless, greedy conspiracy to launch the defective 737 MAX 8 and to keep it flying. Plaintiffs purchased tickets on either Southwest Airlines or American Airlines for flights from the date Southwest first took delivery of the MAX 8, August 29, 2017, until the date that all 737 MAX Series aircraft were grounded by the FAA, March 13, 2019. According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs bought a ticket to fly on a safe airline that flew safe planes. None of them would have bought a ticket, let alone for the price they paid, to potentially fly on a plane that Southwest and Boeing knew was fatally defective. Put simply, Southwest and Boeing conspired to cover up this indisputable fact: The 737 MAX 8 was so defective and poorly designed that it could easily kill you. Plaintiffs wanted their money back. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sep. 20, 2021, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants now seek a review of the said order entered by Judge Mazzant. The appellate case is captioned as Earl v. Boeing Company, Case No. 21-90044, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Sept. 17, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Boeing Company and Southwest Airlines Company are represented by: Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 571-9191 E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com - and - Benjamin L. Hatch, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P. 101 W. Main Street World Trade Center Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 640-3727 E-mail: bhatch@mcguirewoods.com - and - Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P. 800 E. Canal Boulevard, Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4746 E-mail: bschmalzbach@mcquirewoods.com - and - Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq. Peter B. Siegal, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P. 799 9th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-4501 Telephone: (202) 662-0466 - and - Michael Alan Swartzendruber, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P. 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-7932 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 E-mail: michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com Plaintiffs-Respondents Damonie Earl, Linda Rugg, Alesa Beck, Timothy Blakey, Jr., Stephanie Blakey, Marisa Thompson, Muhammad Muddasir Khan, John Rogers, Valerie Mortz-Rogers, James LaMorte, Brett Noble, Ruben Castro, Fritz Ringling, Litaun Lewis, and Lance Hogue, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P. 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 - and - Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq. CAPSHAW DERIEUX, L.L.P. 114 E. Commerce Avenue Gladewater, TX 75647 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P. 633 W. 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 - and - Edward Maxwell Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P. 7000 N. MoPac Expressway Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 575-8848 BOSTON BEER: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Sept. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Siegel v. The Boston Beer Company, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-7693) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The Boston Beer Company, Inc. ("Boston Beer" or the "Company") (NYSE: SAM) securities between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from September 15, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. On July 22, 2021, after the market closed, 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. The Company 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, the Company's share price fell $246.54, or 26%, to close at $701.00 per share on July 23, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On September 8, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer withdrew its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard seltzer products. The Company 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, the Company's share price fell $21.09, or 3.7%, to close at $538.31 per share on September 9, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the Company was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) 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 Boston Beer securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from September 15, 2021, the date of this notice 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 Boston Beer 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] BOW PLUMBING: Bid for More Definite Statement in Braswell Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROSELYN BRASWELL, Plaintiff v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:21CV25-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Motion for More Definite Statement. Background The Plaintiff, Roselyn Braswell, filed a class action complaint on behalf of herself and a class of people who are owners of property, residents, and holders of property interests constructed with cross-linked polyethylene plumbing tubes ("PEX tubing"). She brings claims for breach of express warranty (count I), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (count II), breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (count III), unjust enrichment (count IV), negligence/wantonness: failure to warn (count V), negligence/wantonness: defective design and manufacture (count VI), strict liability -- design defect and manufacture defect (count VII), suppression (count VIII), and declaratory and injunctive relief (count IX). Ms. Braswell lives in a home Montgomery, Alabama, which has a residential plumbing system that uses PEX tubing manufactured by Bow Plumbing. In June 2013, Braswell's home experienced a water leak as a result of a failure of the PEX tubing which was repaired by a licensed plumber. Braswell experienced additional PEX tubing leaks in her home in 2018 and 2020. Ms. Braswell seeks to recover losses associated with the plumbing failures. She also seeks to represent a nationwide class. In her complaint, Braswell defines the class as all persons or entities who sustained damages proximately caused by defects in Bow Plumbing's PEX tubing in homes or other structures and require remediation. Ms. Braswell alleges that the putative class contains hundreds of individuals or entities that own properties using Bow Plumbing's PEX tubing. She further alleges that she and the members of the putative class could not have reasonably discovered the true, latent, defective nature of the PEX tubing until shortly before the litigation was commenced. The cause is before the Court on a Motion for More Definite Statement. Discussion Bow Plumbing argues that Braswell's complaint is a shotgun pleading, and that she is required to plead facts as to the years or type of PEX tubing at issue and to define the geographic scope of the class. Bow Plumbing specifically points to the claim in count VII, which incorporates all previous counts, and argues that it is unclear whether Braswell is asserting claims based on the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) or strict liability claims under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Bow Plumbing points to district court decisions which have identified a conflict between those two theories. Another judge within this district, however, has determined that a claim pleaded as a strict liability claim can be construed to be an AEMLD claim -- Chilton Water Authority v. Shell Oil Co., 1999 WL 1628000, at *3 (M.D. Ala. 1999)(Thompson, J). Bow Plumbing also requests that Braswell identify the "putative class members' states of residence and/or damage, and reasonably limit the scope of the putative class," or else, Bow Plumbing argues, it will be forced to prepare a response based on guesswork. With respect to the geographic limitation, Bow Plumbing contends that Braswell has to identify the states and/or territories in which putative class members own property because it cannot respond to her complaint as alleged. In response, Braswell does not dispute that she has to identify the location of the class, but argues that her complaint adequately identifies a "nationwide" class. 9). Bow Plumbing also contends that it cannot assert the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations because there is no temporal scope to Braswell's claims. In summary, Judge Marks holds that some of Bow Plumbing arguments are appropriately raised as a challenge to a motion for class certification rather than in support of a motion for more definite statement, but Braswell's complaint, which incorporates into each count all previous counts for relief, is a shotgun pleading. Additionally, the Judge says, there are some ambiguities which make it so that Bow Plumbing cannot reasonably make a response to the complaint; specifically, the reference to "nationwide" without further definition, and a strict liability claim by an Alabama plaintiff with no reference to the AEMLD. Order Accordingly, Judge Marks granted the motion for more definite statement to the following extent and denied in all other respects: 1. The Plaintiff given until Oct. 11, 2021 to file a new, amended complaint which is complete unto itself and complies with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The Plaintiff must include in her amended complaint a more definite statement of her nationwide class action so as to make it clear whether people in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of the United States are included in her class definition. 3. The Plaintiff must include a more definite statement of her strict liability claim in count VII to specify whether it is asserted pursuant to the AEMLD, or must plead more than one count for relief, separately stating an AEMLD claim and other strict liability theory. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j6nfaj2 from Leagle.com. BUILDING INDUSTRY: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN CUDJOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDING INDUSTRY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION; UNITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION a/k/a UNITED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF JOURNEYMEN & ALLIED TRADES, a/k/a IUJAT; UNITED SERVICE WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 363, a/k/a UNITED ELECTRICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, IUJAT, LOCAL 363; ELECTRICIAN'S RETIREMENT FUND; BUILDING TRADES ANNUITY BENEFIT FUND; BUILDING TRADES WELFARE BENEFIT FUND; BUILDING TRADES EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT FUND; FRANK RAPPO; and ERIC OLYNIK, Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-05084 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2021) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants in this case have completely and utterly disregarded this critical rule to the significant detriment of the participants and beneficiaries of the Defendant Benefit Funds and members of Defendant United Service Workers Union, IUJAT, Local 363 ("Local 363" or the "Union"), participants in those funds. The Defendant Benefit Funds were established and have continued to operate solely with employer-side trustees appointed by an employer organization and without any trustees appointed by the Union, says the suit. The various Agreements and Declarations of Trust of the Defendant Benefit Funds ("Trust Agreements") expressly provide that each respective "Fund shall be administered by the Board of trustees, which shall consist of two (2) [or five (5)] Trustees appointed by the Association." Despite being multiemployer plans designed to provide retirement, apprenticeship and welfare benefits to its members, there is no indication that Local 363 has any authority under the Trust Agreements, or its collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the Association, to appoint its own trustees to the boards of the Benefit Funds - even though Taft-Hartley mandates that it do so, and ERISA's duties of prudence and loyalty require the Trustees to operate the Benefit Funds in a legally compliant manner, in the best interests of plan participants, added the suit. Building Industry Electrical Contractors Association is an unincorporated association and tax-exempt organization, headquartered in Holbrook, New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com BUILDING SERVICE: New York Court Narrows Claims in Lardo Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL LARDO, Plaintiff v. BUILDING SERVICE 32BJ PENSION FUND, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 5047 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Background Defendant Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund denied Plaintiff Lardo a disability pension because he lacked documentation from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") reflecting a permanent disability. Lardo now brings the putative class action alleging that (1) the Pension Fund and the pension plan's administrator, Defendant Trustees of the Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund (the "Board of Trustees"), wrongfully denied his benefits claim and (2) the Board of Trustees and its individual Trustees breached the fiduciary duties they owed to Lardo and others similarly situated. Both causes of action lie under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Lardo worked as a unionized handyman for Hyde Park Owners Corporation from 2002 to 2014. Members of his union, the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, receive benefits from the Building Service 32BJ Benefit Funds. The Benefit Funds include the Pension Fund, which is governed by a pension plan. The Pension Plan allows certain workers who are "permanently and totally disabled" to retire with a disability pension. The Pension Plan also sets out requirements for seeking judicial review of benefits determinations. First, it gives claimants 180 days to appeal adverse benefits decisions to the Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees. Second, the Pension Plan requires the Plaintiffs to seek judicial review of decisions within three years of the Appeals Committee's decision. In December 2014, Lardo developed a variety of serious health conditions that have left him unable to work since. On April 22, 2015, Lardo applied to the Pension Fund for a disability pension. Lardo alleges that, based on his service credits, he would have been entitled to a disability pension of approximately $500 per month prior to an offset for his Social Security Disability benefits. In a letter dated May 12, 2015, the Benefit Funds advised Lardo that his application for a disability pension had been denied because he failed to submit a notice of award letter from the SSA showing a permanent disability. On June 27, 2015, following Lardo's application for Social Security Disability Income, the SSA sent Lardo an award letter informing him that the agency had found that he became disabled under its rules on Dec. 18, 2014 and that this determination would be reviewed every three years. Lardo forwarded that award letter to the Pension Fund. On July 20, 2015, the Benefit Funds approved Lardo's continued receipt of extended health coverage and long-term disability benefits but denied him a disability pension. That letter noted that the SSA "deems Lardo's disability permanent if it sets review of his continuing eligibility for payments once every 5 to 7 years," but the SSA advised that it would review Lardo's eligibility every three years. Thus, the Benefit Funds explained, the SSA's award letter "establishes that his is disabled but that his disability is not considered permanent." Mr. Lardo renewed his efforts to obtain a disability pension in the summer of 2018. On July 11, 2018, he sent the Pension Fund another copy of the SSA's June 27, 2015 award letter. Then, on July 30, 2018, Lardo forwarded to the Pension Fund a July 19, 2018 award letter from the SSA that notified him of his continued eligibility for Social Security Disability Income, but noted that the SSA was "NOT REVIEWING MR. LARDO FOR A MEDICAL REVIEW." These efforts too were unsuccessful. On Oct. 16, 2018, the Benefit Funds sent Lardo a letter, which amended a letter dated four days earlier, and once again denied his request for a disability pension because the SSA's July 19, 2018 letter "indicates that 'SSA is not reviewing Mr. Lardo for a medical review' and does not show that his disability is permanent." The Oct. 16, 2018 letter further instructed Lardo that he "would need to submit a Social Security Disability Notice of Award that shows Lardo became disabled while he was working in Covered Employment and his disability was permanent." On Oct. 22, 2018, Lardo submitted additional documents from the SSA to the Benefit Funds. One was a letter from the SSA, also dated Oct. 22, 2018, which confirmed the amount of Lardo's Social Security Disability Income benefits and stated that "THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT MAKE DETERMINATIONS REGARDING 'PERMANENT DISABILITY.'" He alleges that the SSA's Oct. 22, 2018 letter "expressly contradicts" the SSA regulation, upon which the Pension Fund and the Trustees relied in denying him a disability pension. Lardo submitted another document from the SSA that indicated that Lardo was not scheduled for any medical reviews. On Aug. 16, 2019, in response to a letter from Lardo's counsel threatening litigation, the Benefit Funds claimed that Lardo failed to comply with the Pension Plan's 180-day deadline for appeals and declined to extend the Pension Plan's statute of limitations for seeking judicial review. On Oct. 25, 2019, after further letters from Lardo's counsel, the Benefit Funds mailed Lardo's counsel another letter that, among other things, again "declined to extend Lardo's time to appeal and to extend the 3 year state of limitations within which a lawsuit may be filed." On July 1, 2020, Lardo filed his original Complaint. The case was reassigned from the Honorable Alison J. Nathan to Judge Cronan on Oct. 19, 2020. After the Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on Nov. 2, 2020, Lardo filed the Amended Complaint on Nov. 23, 2020. In light of the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Court denied the Nov. 2, 2020 motion as moot on Dec. 11, 2020. In the Amended Complaint, Lardo purports to bring claims on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated participants in the Pension Plan. He pleads two causes of action. First, Lardo alleges improper denial of benefits against the Pension Fund and its administrator, the Board of Trustees, pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). For this, he "seeks relief on behalf of all members of the Class in the form of disability retirement benefits that should have been awarded previously but for Defendants' unlawful denial." Second, Lardo alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the Board of Trustees and by the individual Trustee Defendants, pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). For this second cause of action, Lardo seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction, a surcharge or restitution, a constructive trust, and "other equitable relief." On Dec. 23, 2020, the Defendants again moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for summary judgment. Lardo opposed that motion on Jan. 22, 2021, and the Defendants filed their reply on Feb. 12, 2021. Discussion A. Section 502(a)(1)(B) Mr. Lardo's first cause of action alleges improper denial of benefits by the Pension Fund and its Board of Trustees. ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), allows participants in plans to sue for benefits owed to them under the plans' terms. The Defendants argue that Lardo's claim is barred because he did not exhaust the Pension Plan's appellate procedures and because he failed to file his claim in federal court within the Pension Plan's statute of limitations. Judge Cronan opines that under the Pension Plan, Lardo had 180 days to appeal the denial of pension benefits to the Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees. Since Lardo's request was denied in July 2015, his time to file an internal appeal expired in early 2016, but he never sought review by the Appeals Committee. Nor was this judicial action timely filed under the Pension Plan. Lardo never sought review by the Appeals Committee. Nor does he contend that the time limit under section 7.07(h) was unreasonable or contrary to law. Mr. Lardo contends, however, that the Pension Fund waived the deadlines for an internal appeal as well as for judicial review, because the Pension Fund failed to assert its exhaustion and statute of limitations defenses. But the Benefit Funds' communications with Lardo tell a different story, Judge Cronan finds. Because Lardo alleges that the Pension Fund deceived him into believing that he still had a potential claim, Juduge Cronan also evaluates his argument under the doctrine of equitable tolling. But equitable tolling requires a plaintiff to be diligent and to lack knowledge of the accrual of a cause of action. Since the Benefit Funds' letters repeatedly informed Lardo of the deadlines, he cannot show such diligence or a lack of knowledge, the Judge holds. C. Section 502(a)(3) Mr. Lardo's second cause of action alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the Pension Fund's Board of Trustees and by the individual Trustees. ERISA section 404, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, creates fiduciary duties of loyalty and care from an ERISA plan's trustees to the plan's participants and their beneficiaries. Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), in turn, allows ERISA participants to seek equitable relief in response to violations of those fiduciary duties. A plaintiff alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA must show that: (1) the defendant is a fiduciary of the plan, (2) the defendant acted in its capacity as a fiduciary, and (3) the defendant breached a fiduciary duty. Mr. Lardo's breach of fiduciary duty claim primarily stems from the response of the Board of Trustees after Lardo forwarded the SSA's October 22, 2018 letter. According to Lardo, the failure to do so harmed him "and others similarly situated because the Trustees' independent determination of whether a participant is totally and permanently disabled relies upon an outside agency (the SSA) that does not engage, or no longer engages, in making determinations regarding permanent disability." The Defendants' primary argument for dismissal of Lardo's breach of fiduciary duty claim under section 502(a)(3) is that the claim is redundant with his section 502(a)(1)(B) wrongful denial of benefits claim. They argue that Lardo's section 502(a)(1)(B) claim "is predicated on precisely the same allegations" as his fiduciary breach claim, and Lardo cannot save that fiduciary claim by purporting to seek equitable relief. But unlike Lardo's wrongful denial of benefits claim, Judge Cronan finds that Lardo's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not seek only declaratory and monetary relief. In his second cause of action, Lardo seeks some equitable forms of relief, such as an injunction and a constructive trust. A private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties under Section 502(a)(3) may exist even "when another potential remedy is available." Indeed, section 502(a)(3) claims for breaches of fiduciary duties persist even after section 502(a)(1)(B) claims fail, as section 502(a)(3) provides a safety net for breaches for which other relief is not available under ERISA. Turning to the merits of Lardo's pleading of this claim, Judge Cronan finds that there does not appear to be any dispute that the Board of Trustees and its individual Trustees were fiduciaries of the Pension Plan and, when considering Lardo's eligibility for a disability pension, were acting in their fiduciary capacities. The question is whether those Defendants breached that duty. The Judge holds that the Defendants' arguments challenging Lardo's breach of fiduciary duty claim on the merits are not persuasive, at least in the present posture. He says, the Pension Plan does not obligate the Trustees to require the specific form of proof of permanent disability from the SSA that they chose to require of Lardo. The Defendants also argue that the SSA's Oct. 22, 2018 letter to Lardo and the regulation on which the Pension Fund relies do not actually contradict. But Judge Cronan finds that the SSA's actual regulations are in some tension with the Defendants' explanation. According to one regulation, the states determine whether and when applicants are disabled, but not the permanence of their disabilities, the relevant question in the case. Moreover, it appears that the SSA, not the state, classifies disabilities as permanent for purposes of the review schedules that the Plan relies on. And if the SSA, not the state, determines whether a disability is permanent, the SSA's insistence that it "does not make determinations regarding 'permanent disability'" is difficult to reconcile. To be sure, some valid explanation may exist, but based on the face of the Amended Complaint, the existence of a breach is "more than a sheer possibility," Judge Cronan opines. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cronan grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss Lardo's section 502(a)(1)(3) claim and denies their motion to dismiss Lardo's section 503(a)(3) claim. Because he concludes that oral argument in the case is unnecessary, the Judge denies Lardo's motion for oral argument. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 76 and 81. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pyyh3xvc from Leagle.com. BUSINESS CONTROL: Faces Dickerson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CECELIA DICKERSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BUSINESS CONTROL SYSTEMS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-02224-N (N.D. Tex., September 20, 2021) is a collective action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Dickerson alleges that she only received "straight time" pay for the overtime hours she worked rather than receiving time and a half as required by the FLSA. She was employed by the Defendant as a project drill specialist from May 2015 until October 2020. Business Control Systems, LP is a staffing company that provides workers to the various industries including the power industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is pending. On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action). Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, which the Court granted on November 30, 2020, with leave to amend the complaint. On January 15, 2021, the plaintiff filed its second amended consolidated complaint. The second amended consolidated complaint again names as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and alleges that, in public statements between August 31, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The second amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 10, 2021 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action." Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Cyber Attack Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- blg.com reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed another class action in which the plaintiff used 'intrusion upon seclusion' to claim damages for a cyber attack. Justice Perell's decision in Del Giudice v Thompson (Thompson) reinforces recent findings in similar cases where the intrusion upon seclusion tort was not upheld and organizations were not found vicariously liable for their employees. Thompson also shows how important carefully drafted contract and privacy policy terms can be to an organization's cyber risk management. The context Organizations and their insurers have been carefully watching plaintiff counsel's use of the intrusion upon seclusion tort, especially its application to data loss claims and resulting class actions, since the Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized the tort in 2012. While plaintiff counsel can rely on many causes of action when seeking a remedy for the consequences of data loss, intrusion upon seclusion was a novel way to attempt to obtain a sizeable award for moral damages when there was no compensable injury. Almost immediately after the tort was recognized, plaintiff counsel began using it to claim that organizations intentionally or recklessly "intruded" upon the privacy of affected individuals when personal information was compromised by those outside the organization. In cases involving a malicious insider, plaintiff counsel began to allege that organizations were vicariously liable for the insider's intentional intrusion. Fast forward to early 2021, when the Divisional Court issued a significant favorable decision for Ontario organizations and insurers in Owsianik v Equifax Canada Co (Owsianik). This decision held that custodians of personal data cannot be liable for intrusion upon seclusion when third parties steal or access that data. The Divisional Court's majority decision was brief and focused on the lack of wrongful intent held by organizations who fall victim to attack. The decision did not address the issue of vicarious liability. The Thompson case: Attack and data theft by a former insider Thompson is about the theft of credit card application data by a former employee of a bank's cloud service provider. The former employee, who faces criminal charges in the United States, is alleged to have used the understanding she developed while working for the service provider to exploit system misconfigurations and perpetrate her attack. The plaintiff sued the bank, the service provider and the former employee (among others) and sought certification. She pleaded 19 causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion and vicarious liability. She alleged that the bank: -- collected application information for one purpose and retained and used it for other purposes; -- continued to retain the information despite increasing security risks (including risks arising from its outsourcing to a service provider in the United States); -- failed to warn of the increasing security risks; and -- lost the information in breach of various duties. The Thompson decision on intrusion upon seclusion and vicarious liability The Court struck the claim in Thompson without leave to amend because the claim did not set out a reasonable cause of action. In disposing of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, the Court adopted and reinforced the key finding from Owsianik: "A failure to prevent an intrusion, even a reckless failure to prevent, is not an intrusion." It also stated that recklessness should take its meaning from established criminal and civil law jurisprudence -- jurisprudence that defines recklessness as conceptually distinct from negligence and involving a state of mind exhibiting conscious indifference to risk. The Court went further. While the Owsianik panel found that the organizational loss of data was "highly offensive," Justice Perell did not. He said: As pleaded against them, [the bank's and the service provider's] conduct amounts to making mistakes in safeguarding not particularly sensitive information that largely consists of information to identify the applicant for a credit card and to provide means to contact them. [The defendants'] conduct, which might be wrongful and expose them to some other cause of action, is not offensive in the requisite legal sense that would constitute the tort of intrusion on seclusion. In dismissing the plaintiff's vicarious liability claim, it was of no consequence to the Court that the former employee was alleged to have used the knowledge she gained while working for the service provider to perpetrate her attack. It said it would be "absurd and unfair" to impose liability on a defendant for the actions of a former employee. The Court quoted the bank's credit application terms, privacy policy, and cardholder and credit card agreement in detail and used the terms to invalidate numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion. It then struck the action without leave to amend based on a finding that the plaintiff's entire case theory, which focused on data misuse, "imploded" based on the contract terms. Conclusion Cyber attacks are inevitable, and even the best-defended organizations can expect to suffer cyber attacks and data loss. The degree to which organizations and insurers are exposed to third-party civil liability will be influenced heavily by whether the law provides a remedy on a strict basis and without proof of negligence and compensable loss. The law in Ontario has taken a noticeable turn with the Owsianik and Thompson decisions because they limit the degree of exposure. It remains to be seen how the Court of Appeal for Ontario will treat these types of cyber attack claims, however. Thompson also illustrates the importance of contractual terms. Data misuse claims, in particular, will put the focus on notifications, privacy policies and other "contractual" documentation that define the scope of an organization's authorized use of data. Thompson shows how careful attention to these documents will help limit all kinds of privacy violation claims, including claims that follow a cyber attack. Contact your BLG privacy lawyer or any member of BLG's Cybersecurity, Privacy & Data Protection team to ensure that your contract and privacy policy terms will strengthen your case in the event of a data or privacy dispute. If you would like to learn more about the use of intrusion upon seclusion -- or any other cause of action in a data, privacy or cyber attack case -- reach out to any of the key contacts listed below. [GN] CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Rieger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Rieger & Company, LLC, et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00681 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order amending the scheduling order as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' deadline to designate expert witnesses is extended to on or before November 15, 2021; (2) Defendant's deadline to designate expert witnesses is extended to on or before January 4, 2022; (3) Dispositive motions are due on or before January 10, 2022; (4) Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification is extended to on or before January 10, 2022; (5) Defendant's opposition brief to the motion for class certification is due on or before February 15, 2022; (6) Plaintiffs' reply brief to the motion for class certification is due on or before March 2, 2022. The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. J. Rieger & Co. is a Kansas City, Missouri distillery, founded by Jacob Rieger in 1887 and was shut down in December 1919 due to the onset of federal Prohibition. The brand was reestablished in 2014 by co-founders Andy Rieger and Ryan Maybee and is the first legal distillery in Kansas City, Missouri since Prohibition. Cincinnati Financial offers property and casualty insurance.[CC] CLASSIC DINING: Pettingill Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Dining of Greenwood, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Pettingill, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Classic Dining of Greenwood, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02493-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind, Sept. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Classic Dining of Greenwood, Inc. doing business as Denny's -- https://www.dennys.com/ -- is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Drive Bldg. II, Suite 165 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com The Defendant is represented by: Renee L. Koehler, Esq. Stephanie M.G. Dinkel, Esq. KOEHLER & PASSARELLI, LLC 900 S. Frontage Road, Suite 300 Woodridge, IL 60517 Phone: (630) 505-9939 Fax: (630) 505-9969 Email: rkoehler@kdllclaw.com sdinkel@kdllclaw.com CLASSIC DINING: Ross Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Dining Post Road, Inc. The case is styled as Crystal Ross, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v Classic Dining Post Road, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02492-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind, Sept. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CLASSIC DINING POST ROAD, INC is a Domestic For-Profit Corporation from Algonquin in Indiana, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Drive Bldg. II, Suite 165 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com The Defendant is represented by: Renee L. Koehler, Esq. Stephanie M.G. Dinkel, Esq. KOEHLER & PASSARELLI, LLC 900 S. Frontage Road, Suite 300 Woodridge, IL 60517 Phone: (630) 505-9939 Fax: (630) 505-9969 Email: rkoehler@kdllclaw.com sdinkel@kdllclaw.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Simmons FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIAN SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 21STCV24965, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 22, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07561 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay wages and failing to compensate the Plaintiff and Class members for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Robinson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 383.3033 Facsimile: (615) 383.3323 E-mail: jenrobinson@littler.com - and – Sophia Behnia, Esq. Alexandra H. Hemenway, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com ahemenway@littler.com - and – Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: aly@littler.com CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix Suit Against USCF & USO Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740, is pending. On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and has moved for their dismissal. Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing, selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting, playback and security features as conceptualized to provide historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California. CONNECTED INVESTORS: Bid to Stay Discovery in Silva Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO ANNE SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONNECTED INVESTORS, INC., Case No. 7:21-CV-74-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. entered an order allowing the Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings; In the event the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, the parties shall file a new discovery plan within 14 days of the court's order denying the motion. The court finds the balance of factors narrowly favors allowing the motion to stay. First, Defendant's pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, if allowed, will terminate the litigation. Second, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is strongly contested, and Plaintiff asserts there are factual issues in dispute that are necessary to resolve the ultimate question of Defendant's liability. However, discovery is not necessary to resolve to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If Plaintiff is correct that there are disputed issues of material fact, then the motion should be denied or, if the motion is converted to one for summary judgment, the parties should be given "a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." The Plaintiff filed this putative class case alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), by using prerecorded messages to market its goods and services to individuals' cellular phone numbers without first obtaining the required express written consent. Connected Investors allows real estate buyers, sellers, and private investors connect. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i7KAIP at no extra charge.[CC] CONSUMER SAFETY: Dover Appeals CLA Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Anthony Dover filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY DOVER, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC, d/b/a INTOXALOCK, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04321, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 30, 2021, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant Intoxalock's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Dover brought this putative class action against Defendant Intoxalock under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1667, and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. Section 1013, et seq. ("Regulation M") on Aug. 24, 2020. Defendant Intoxalock leases its ignition interlock devices through the use of "consumer leases" to lessees. On May 18, 2020, the Defendant installed an ignition interlock device in Mr. Dover's vehicle. In connection with that installation, Plaintiff signed the lease at issue. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the CLA and Regulation M in multiple respects by failing to make Plaintiff's payment obligations as "clear and conspicuous" as the statute and regulation require. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order dismissing his case. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Dover v. Consumer Safety Technology, LLC, Case No. 21-3835, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Sept. 17, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY DOVER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Harold Lee Thompson, Esq. THE THOMPSON LAW FIRM 85 E. Gay Street, Suite 810 Toledo, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 461-9000 E-mail: thomlaw@msn.com Defendant-Appellee CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC, dba Intoxalock, is represented by: Aneca E. Lasley, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 41 S. High Street, Suite 2000 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-2700 E-mail: aneca.lasley@squirepb.com CORMEDIX INC: Levon Hits Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------- John V. Levon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cormedix Inc., Khoso Baluch, Matthew David and Phoebe Mounts, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-16855 (D. N.J., September 13, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws. CorMedix is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases in the U.S. and internationally. Khoso Baluch, Matthew David and Phoebe Mounts are members of its Board of Directors. CorMedix's lead product candidate, DefenCath is an antibacterial and antifungal solution designed to prevent costly and dangerous catheter-related bloodstream infections. In July 2020, CorMedix completed submission of a New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for DefenCath as a catheter lock solution with an initial indication for patients with end-stage renal disease who are receiving hemodialysis via a central venous catheter. According to the complaint, CorMedix failed to disclose deficiencies in DefenCath's manufacturing process and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath's New Drug Application in its present form. On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or 19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021. Levon acquired Cormedix common stock at artificially inflated prices and lost when its share price went down, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq. Constantine P. Economides, Esq. ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 971-5943 Email: ingo@rcfllp.com vel@rcfllp.com ceconomides@rcfllp.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 Email: brian@schallfirm.com DEBTSY INC: Hollingsworth Gets 90-Day Class Cert Deadline Relief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELYN HOLLINGSWORTH and JEFFREY EUBANKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DEBTSY, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00479-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order granting Plaintiff relief from the 90 days deadline for filing class certification. The Court will set a new date along with the proposed scheduling order to be submitted following the Rule 26(f) conference. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ub6UWN at no extra charge.[CC] DILLON LOGISTICS: Hogg Slams Termination Sans 60-day Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Hogg, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dillon Logistics, Inc. and Cotton Creek Capital Partners II, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01299 (D. Del., September 13, 2021), seeks pay for accrued but unused vacation time including damages in the amount of 60 days pay, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. Dillon maintained a facility in Ellabell, Georgia where Hogg worked. In January 2017, Cotton Creek acquired a majority interest in Dillon. Hogg and other employees were terminated without cause on August 31, 2021 when Dillon ordered a mass layoff and/or plant closing of their Ellabell facility. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-1112 Fax: (302) 888-1119 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Johnathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, Alabama 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Remand of Creve Coeur Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant DirecTV LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CITY OF CREVE COUER, MISSOURI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTV, LLC, DISH NETWORK CORP., and DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00122-AGF, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The lawsuit arises from a dispute between Plaintiff City of Creve Coeur and Defendants DirecTV, LLC, Dish Network Corp, and Dish Network, L.L.C. over whether Defendants are required to pay fees to Creve Coeur and other municipalities under Missouri's Video Services Providers Act. Creve Coeur first brought this putative class action in state court in 2018. The Defendants removed the case for the first time in August 2019 based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Creve Coeur sought remand, invoking the Tax Injunction Act and broader principles of comity. The Court granted the motion because the "state court is more familiar with Missouri's tax laws and the intent of the Missouri legislature" and the TIA reflects a "strong preference for the litigation of state tax issues in state courts." The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. A motion to stay filed by the Defendants was also denied as moot. The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Remand Order. The appellate case is captioned as City of Creve Coeur v. DirecTV LLC, Case No. 21-3090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on Sept. 17, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on Oct. 27, 2021; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT DirecTV LLC is due on Oct. 27, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Defendant-Appellant DirecTV LLC is represented by: Ava Conger, Esq. Jeffrey H. Fisher, Esq. John P. Jett, Esq. KILPATRICK & STOCKTON 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 E-mail: aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com - and - Katie Lee, Esq. Booker T. Shaw, Esq. Robert J. Wagner, Esq. Roman Paul Wuller, Esq. THOMPSON & COBURN One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700 505 N. Seventh Street Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 E-mail: klee@thompsoncoburn.com bshaw@thompsoncoburn.com rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com Plaintiff-Appellee City of Creve Coeur, Missouri on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Garrett Ray Broshuis, Esq. John W. Hoffman, Esq. KOREIN & TILLERY 3600 U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. Seventh Street Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com gbroshuis@koreintillery.com jhoffman@koreintillery.com - and - Elkin Leland Kistner, Esq. KISTNER & HAMILTON 1406 N. Broadway, Suite 1280 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 571-6823 E-mail: elkinkis@bick-kistner.com - and - Carl J. Lumley, Esq. CURTIS & HEINZ 130 S. Bemiston, Suite 200 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 725-8788 E-mail: clumley@lawfirmemail.com - and - John Francis Mulligan, Jr., Esq. 8000 Maryland Avenue Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 727-5002 E-mail: jfmulliganjr@aol.com DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Class Suit Over Practice of Placing Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------------- Abramson v. Discount Power, Inc. FILED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 3:21-CV-01223 Read Complaint Discount Power faces a lawsuit over its alleged practice of placing robocalls that advertise the company's energy services to consumers who never provided their consent. DEFENDANT(S) Discount Power, Inc. LAW(S) Telephone Consumer Protection Act STATE(S) Connecticut Discount Power, Inc. faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of placing robocalls that advertise the company's energy services to consumers who never provided their consent to be contacted. The nine-page lawsuit claims the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) given they were placed using technology "capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day" to cell phone and residential phone numbers owned by consumers who had never given the company permission to call them. Per the case, Discount Power uses this technology because it allows for thousands of calls to be placed at a time while the company's sales agents, who are paid hourly or based on completed sales, need to speak with only consumers who respond. "Therefore, the Defendant shifts the burden of wasted time onto consumers," the complaint contests. The plaintiff claims to have received in August 2021 a call from the energy services company that played the following prerecorded telemarketing message: "Dear Valued Customer. If you haven't missed any payment in your electric bill you're eligible to receive fifty dollars and a gift card. Please press one now to redeem your reward[.]" According to the case, the plaintiff had received at least three prior calls that contained the same prerecorded message, and pressed "one" on his phone in order to identify the caller. The sales agent informed the plaintiff that he was calling on behalf of Discount Power, who the agent said could provide the man with a better price for electricity than his current provider, the complaint relays. The suit says the plaintiff then agreed to undergo a recorded verification process, through which he was informed that "Trusted TPV" was conducting the verification on behalf of Discount Power. The complaint claims other consumers have complained online about Discount Power's alleged telemarketing practices, with one individual stating to the Better Business Bureau that the defendant is behind robodialed calls that begin with "This is an apology call," purportedly from the recipient's energy provider. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff and other call recipients were harmed by the defendant's practices, which the suit says temporarily deprived them of use of their phones, caused them to be charged for calls they never consented to receive and invaded their privacy. [GN] ENDEAVOR ENERGY: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Lowe Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDEAVOR ENERGY RESOURCES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00166 (W.D. Tex., September 20, 2021) arises from the Defendant's improper classification of Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paying them a daily rate with no overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lowe worked for Endeavor as a safety consultant from approximately August 2019 to April 2020. Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. operates as an independent oil and gas company. The Company provides oil and natural gas production, exploration, and development services. Endeavor Energy Resources serves customers in the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, DENVER EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, and IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL MCCREA, and MATTHEW S. RAMSEY., Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the following Class: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer LP between February 25, 2017 and December 2, 2019, inclusive" Excluded from the Class are (i) Energy Transfer; (ii) any directors and officers of Energy Transfer during the Class Period and members of the immediate families; (iii) the subsidiaries, parents and affiliates of Energy Transfer; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation or other entity in which Energy Transfer has or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assign of any such excluded party; 2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Barrack Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. The Lead Plaintiffs are Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, the Denver Public Employees Retirement Plan, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers National Pension Fund, and the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System. A copy of the Plainitffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oa3JOd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Browne, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael M. Mathai, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com james.fee@blbglaw.com - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Robert A. Hoffman, Esq. Jeffrey A Barrack, Esq. Meghan J. Talbot, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & RACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com rhoffman@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com mtalbot@barrack.com - and - John D. Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street, 52nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 E-mail: jzaremba@zarembabrown.com ETOH MONITORING: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Meade Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HAKEEM MEADE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PAUL A BONIN, ET AL. SECTION: "J" (3), Civil Action No. 20-1455 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendant ETOH Monitoring, LLC's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Background The proposed class action arises from an alleged conflict of interest in the operations of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court ("OPCDC"). Former Defendant Paul Bonin was a judge on that court and at times required defendants released from pretrial custody to wear ankle monitoring devices. OPCDC does not operate its own ankle monitoring service; consequently, when a defendant is ordered to sign up for ankle monitoring, they must choose from among three ankle monitoring providers operating in Orleans Parish, one of which is Defendant ETOH. The Plaintiffs allege that former Judge Bonin had personal, financial, professional, and political relationships with ETOH's principals, Leonard L. Levenson and Christian W. Helmke, such that his practices of requiring defendants to pay ankle monitoring fees to ETOH and linking custody determinations to the payment of those fees amounted to unconstitutional judicial bias and conflicts of interest. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Levenson was former Judge Bonin's law partner for over a decade before he was first elected judge, and that Levenson and Helmke donated a total of $8,650 to former Judge Bonin's three judicial election campaigns and made one loan of $1,000 to his 2016 campaign for OPCDC. The Plaintiffs contend that former Judge Bonin's failure to disclose these relationships amounts to, at minimum, the appearance of judicial bias and conflicts of interest in violation of their due process rights. Further, because ETOH imposed and collected fees from them without disclosing these relationships and because former Judge Bonin conditioned the Plaintiffs' custody determinations on their ability to pay ETOH, the Plaintiffs argue that ETOH should be ordered to return any fees collected from the class members and to cancel any outstanding fees. The Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit on May 14, 2020, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against ETOH. ETOH moved to dismiss the complaint, but the Court denied the motion, finding ETOH to be a state actor in these circumstances. ETOH now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that it violated their constitutional rights. Discussion The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a due process violation because the relationship between it and former Judge Bonin, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, does not rise to the level of unconstitutional potential for bias. The Defendant further contends that the circumstances do not comport with situations where the Supreme Court has found due process violations. The Plaintiffs contend they have stated a claim under the Fifth Circuit's recent decisions in Cain v. White, 937 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2019), and Caliste v. Cantrell, 937 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2019), because their allegations establish that "Judge Bonin's and ETOH's relationships (as well as their behavior) demonstrated an incentive, temptation, risk, or appearance of prioritizing ETOH's collection of fees over the state's burden of demonstrating the need for deprivations of liberty in every case." The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not stated an "institutional incentives" claim under Caliste and Cain because they do not challenge the system as a whole, but only focus on the relationship between former Judge Bonin and ETOH. Judge Barbier agrees with the Defendant. He finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations depend on the specific relationship between former Judge Bonin and ETOH and therefore fail to state an institutional incentives claim. To find that the Plaintiffs have stated an institutional incentives claim would require the Court to hold that OPCDC's use of private companies for ankle-monitoring services who could donate to the judges' reelection campaigns violates due process because the judges would face a possible temptation to order more defendants to ankle monitoring with hopes of garnering more campaign contribution. The Plaintiffs do not argue as much, and the Judge does not so hold. The Plaintiffs do not argue that their allegations state an individual bias claim. But even if they had, Judge Barbier finds that their complaint is deficient. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Supreme Court identified four factors that suggested "a serious risk of actual bias" based on campaign contributions to a judge: (1) "the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign"; (2) "the total amount spent in the election"; (3) "the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election"; and (4) the temporal relationship between the support, the judge's election, and the pendency of litigation before the judge that involves the contributor. Judge Barbier holds that the Plaintiffs offer no allegations related to the first three factors. And while some allegations exist for the fourth factor -- ETOH's principals donated $3,550 and loaned $1,000 for former Judge Bonin's first and only campaign for an OPCDC judgeship in 2016, and the Plaintiffs were ordered onto ankle monitoring by former Judge Bonin in 2017, with him ordering Plaintiff Meade to specifically use ETOH -- considering the totality of the circumstances and the lack of allegations as to the first three factors, Judge Barbier Court holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable due process claim. Judge Barbier notes that not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal," and Plaintiffs have not shown that "this is an exceptional case." Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Barbier granted ETOH's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/rdckxeck from Leagle.com. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Mader Appeals Ruling in FCRA Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael Mader filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL MADER, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 3787 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Mader brings the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that, by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of his credit report, the Defendant negligently and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York's credit reporting law. As reported in the Class Action Report on October 28, 2020, Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to both the Plaintiff's Federal Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and New York's credit reporting law claims. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an indicative ruling granting relief from the Court's prior summary judgment ruling. On September 3, 2021, Judge Schofield denied the Plaintiff's request. Mr. Mader now seeks a review of the Court's Order September 3, 2021 Order. The appellate case is captioned as Mader v. Experian Information Solutions, Case No. 21-2171, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 8, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Mader, and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Defendant-Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is represented by: Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-8321 E-mail: ktobitsch@jonesday.com GC SERVICES: Didonato Loses Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS DIDONATO v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02154-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "Citizens of the various states who filed for bankruptcy in any of [the] district courts of the United States and were issued Discharge Orders since April 20, 2005 (the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act), who: (a) [o]btained Consumer Education Loans that were discharged in bankruptcy by virtue of any of the [following] three characteristics: (1) were made to students attending non-Title IV schools; (2) were made in excess of the "cost of attendance"; (3) were made to ineligible students under the Higher Education Act; (b) have nonetheless been subjected to Defendants' attempts to induce payment on discharged debts." Excluded from the proposed class are any debtors who have validly reaffirmed their debts or whose debts were expressly held to be non-dischargeable, and any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest or that had a controlling interest in any of Defendants, Defendants' legal representatives, assignees, and successors, the attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed class and any member of the attorneys' immediate families. The Court said, "Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is denied because common issues do not predominate over individual questions surrounding the dischargeability of each potential class member's student loans. Class certification is denied for the additional reason that the proposed class is a fail-safe class." Mr. DiDonato brings this putative class action alleging that Defendants GC Services and Financial Asset collected on private student loans discharged in bankruptcy proceedings and, in doing so, misrepresented the character and legal status of those loans in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. Plaintiff moves for class certification on his FDCPA claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(3). GC Services is a privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America. Financial Asset provides management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLE824 at no extra charge.[CC] GERBER PRODUCTS: McCoy Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michelle McCoy, Kermit McCoy, each individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company, Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV30309 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California LA Co. to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07568-MWF-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington, Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D Boxer, Esq. Matthew John Matern, Esq. Mikael Hans Stahle, Esq. Scott Ashford Brooks, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 Email: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine S. Simonsen, Esq. Bryan A Merryman, Esq. WHITE AND CASE LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Phone: (213) 620-7700 Fax: (213) 452-2329 Email: catherine.simonsen@whitecase.com bmerryman@whitecase.com GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giumarra Vineyards Corporation. The case is styled as Raul Morales Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-102139 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 10, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Giumarra Vineyards Corporation -- http://www.giumarravineyards.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated grower, packer and shipper of premium California Table Grapes, headquartered in Edison, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT KUHNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOSSAMER BIO, INC., SHEILA GUJRATHI, M.D., BRYAN GIRAUDO, FAHEEM HASNAIN, JOSHUA H. BILENKER, M.D., KRISTINA BUROW, RUSSELL COX, THOMAS DANIEL, M.D., RENEE GALA, OTELLO STAMPACCHIA, Ph.D., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, SVB LEERINK LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., and EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this action as a class action, appointing Scott Kuhne as the Class Representative, and appointing B&L to serve as Class Counsel, for a class consisting of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Gossamer pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement." Excluded from the Class are defendants and their families, the officers, directors and affiliates and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Gossamer Bio operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on discovering, acquiring, and developing therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and oncology. A copy of the Plainitff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i9DJyS at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 phone E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com jeff@blockleviton.com - and - Whitney E. Street, Esq. 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 968-1852 E-mail: whitney@blockleviton.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delcham Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD DELCHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01505-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Sept. 14, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Delcham was employed by the Defendant as auto claim adjuster. Government Employees Insurance Company provides insurance products. The Company offers automobile, motorcycle, renter, homeowner, life, mobile home, flood, condo, umbrella, and boat insurances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com -and- Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.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 -and- Paige T. Bennett, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC 6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Facsimile: (713) 917-0026 E-mail: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com HONEST COMPANY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Sept. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-7405) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HNST) common stock 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"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from September 15, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Honest 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/the-honest-company-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 or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. 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 fell $3.98 per share, or 28%, to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice 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. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] ICONIX BRAND: Hayes Loses Bid to Reconsider Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. e 1:15-cv-04860-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order: 1. denying Hayes's motion for reconsideration; and 2. directing the Clerk of Court terminate the motion On January 23, 2020 -- after holding a settlement fairness hearing that same day -- his Court entered a final judgment approving a settlement in this action. After the entry of the Final Judgment, James J. Hayes appealed to the Second Circuit. On August 13, 2020, the Second Circuit issued an granting Appellees' motion for summary affirmance of the final judgment approving the parties' settlement. On November 17, 2020, Hayes filed the instant motion for reconsideration. On November 25, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund and City of Atlanta Police Officers' Pension Fund filed an opposition. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kBFma2 at no extra charge.[CC] JEFF HOBBY: Court Reopens Sauls Class Suit for Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY SAULS, et al., v. JEFF HOBBY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00081-LAG (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leslie A. Gardner entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to reopen case for settlement approval and joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement and conditional class certification. -- The Parties shall provide notice to the Class within two weeks of this Order; -- Each potential Class Member must submit a Response Form or Opt-Out Form to Plaintiffs' attorneys within 100 days of this Order; and -- The Court shall hold a Final Fairness Hearing at the C.B. King United States Courthouse, 201 West Broad Avenue, Albany, Georgia 31701 on Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action based on alleged audio and visual interception of confidential communications that occurred in the Worth County Jail interview room. After the case was filed, the Parties mediated the case twice and reached an agreement with regard to the relief that the putative class would receive. After the Parties advised the Court that they had agreed to settle the case, the Court administratively closed the case on July 7, 2021 and ordered the Parties to either dismiss or move to reopen the case within thirty days. On August 6, 2021, the Parties filed the instant Motions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kFyfxb at no extra charge.[CC] JUMEI INT'L: Haideri Securities Fraud Suit Tossed W/ Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EMAL HAIDERI, Plaintiff v. JUMEI INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02751-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Jumei's: (1) motion to dismiss Altimeo's First Amended Class Action Complaint; and (2) motion to dismiss the new, discrete claims and allegations in Altimeo's Second Amended Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend. Background The case is securities-fraud class action brought by Lead Plaintiff Altimeo Asset Management against Jumei, members of Jumei's Board of Directors, and Jumei's CEO for violating Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from a buyout of Jumei's former shareholders by the Company's CEO, Leo Ou Chen, during which the Defendants allegedly made false and misleading "statements that Chen's Buyout offer was fair to, and in the best interests of, Jumei's minority shareholders." Specifically, Altimeo asserts that the Defendants' statements regarding the fairness of the transaction "were based on two key false and misleading assumptions," which "led to the Defendants grossly undervaluing the Company when they recommended that shareholders should accept Chen's tender offer and that the Company should agree to the Buyout." The gravamen of the complaints is that the Recommendation Statement "misstates and omits certain pieces of critical information" such that the Statement is "materially false, misleading, and incomplete." "Specifically, the Recommendation Statement falsely represented, and omitted material information necessary to make not misleading, the data and inputs underlying Houlihan Lokey's financial valuation related to (i) Jumei's financial projections for Jiedian" and "(ii) the value of Jumei's businesses and assets other than Jiedian," i.e., the e-commerce business and Shuabao. The complaints emphasize that, in "evaluating Jumei's value, Houlihan relied entirely upon the assumptions provided by Jumei's management," and "relied upon and assumed, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all data, material, and other information." The complaints also stress that the Special Committee failed "to conduct a market check to assess potential alternative offers for the Company from third parties—a standard step in the buyout process. Plaintiff Haideri filed a class action complaint against the Defendants on April 21, 2020. After multiple rounds of briefing on the issue, the Court appointed Altimeo the Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel in September 2020. In October 2020, Altimeo filed its Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims against the Defendants under Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Jumei moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety on Dec. 3, 2020. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in February 2021. In March 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in which Jumei consented to Altimeo's request to file a Second Amended Complaint adding "certain discrete allegations and claims regarding the availability of certain shareholder rights under Cayman Islands law." Because the proposed Second Amended Complaint would not change the allegations and claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, but merely add additional discrete claims and allegations, the parties agreed that the briefing on the Defendants' initial motion to dismiss would "apply to the allegations and claims in the Second Amended Complaint that remain unchanged from the Amended Complaint." Jumei was also permitted to "file an additional motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, directed only to the new, discrete allegations and claims that were raised for the first time in the Second Amended Complaint." Id. The Court granted the parties' stipulation. Altimeo filed its Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 8, 2021. The new complaint continued to assert claims under Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act but alleged new facts and an alternative theory of liability under each provision. Jumei filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 31, 2021, and briefing on the motion was completed in mid-May 2021. Both motions were heard on July 29, 2021. Discussion As indicated, Altimeo alleges that the Defendants effectively "made two categories of statements that were false and misleading" in the Recommendation Statement and other merger-related documents (including Mr. Chen's formal tender offer and SEC transaction statements). First, Altimeo takes issue with Jumei's fairness opinion in and of itself, which concluded that Mr. Chen's offer was "fair to, and in the best interests of," Jumei's minority shareholders. Second, and more to the point, Altimeo objects to the "inputs for the fairness analysis," i.e., the "assumptions that Jumei's management provided that formed the basis for" the fairness opinion. These include Jumei's low-growth projections for Jiedian from 2020 through 2024, which were in turn founded on the representation that, at the time of the buyout, Jumei was unable to secure adequate financing for Jiedian. The "inputs" also relate to Jumei's ostensible plans to wind down its e-commerce and Shuabao businesses in 2021 and 2022. Altimeo alleges, in contrast, (1) that Jumei's stated inability to obtain financing for Jiedian was "patently false" given "the abundant financing that was available to Jiedian's main competitors" at the time of Mr. Chen's tender offer as well as "Jiedian's role as the industry leader" and (2) that "Jumei's management was not actually planning to wind its non-Jiedian businesses down." "All of these facts show," Altimeo concludes, "that the assumptions that Jumei's management provided to Houlihan as a basis for its fairness assessment at the center of the Buyout were false." Jumei challenges the sufficiency of these allegations and moves to dismiss on the grounds that Altimeo's complaints fail to plead (1) a false or misleading statement, (2) scienter under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 or negligence under Section 14(e), (3) reliance, or (4) loss causation. A. Request for Judicial Notice As a threshold matter, the Court must rule on Jumei's Request for Incorporation by Reference and Judicial Notice, which it filed along with its first motion to dismiss. Jumei argues that 10 exhibits are incorporated by reference into Altimeo's Amended Class Action Complaint, and that the Court may (in the alternative) take judicial notice of three of these ten exhibits, along with an eleventh exhibit. Altimeo opposes the request, at least in part, on the grounds that "Jumei improperly raises disputed facts and asks the Court to draw inferences in Jumei's favor," which the Court may not do at the pleadings stage. Jumei argues that Exhibits 1 to 2 and 4 to 11 are incorporated by reference into Altimeo's Amended Class Action Complaint because they "are referenced or relied upon" in multiple paragraphs. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 are SEC filings; Exhibit 5 is Houlihan's financial analysis (or "fairness" opinion), which was attached to the Special Committee's Recommendation Statement; Exhibit 6 is the Recommendation Statement itself; Exhibit 7 is Chen's Tender Offer, also filed with the SEC; and Exhibits 8-11 are English translations of Chinese-language news articles. As Jumei's request points out, Exhibits 2, 5, 6, and 7 are mentioned upwards of 10 times in the complaint, and in most instances more than 20. These documents are therefore referenced "extensively enough to warrant incorporation on that ground alone" and the Court may assume the truth of their contents for purposes of Jumei's motion to dismiss. Judge Chen finds that Exhibits 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are incorporated by reference into the Amended Class Action Complaint. The Judge also takes judicial notice of Jumei's historical stock prices as reflected in Exhibit 3, although not for establishing any fact which is subject to any reasonably disputed inferences. B. False or Misleading Statements In arguing that Altimeo has failed to plead a false or misleading statement, Jumei contends, inter alia, that the complaints do not adequately allege objective falsity because they do not "identify specific contemporaneous statements or conditions showing that, at the time the fairness opinion was issued: (i) Jumei was not planning to wind down its e-commerce and video-sharing app business; or (ii) Jumei was able to raise sufficient capital to finance Jiedian's growth." With respect to Jumei's e-commerce and Shuabao businesses, Judge Chen is highly doubtful that Altimeo has pled objective falsity. He says, Altimeo has likely failed to plead the objective falsity of any statements concerning the winding down of Jumei's e-commerce and Shuabao businesses. Among other things, the complaints allege that one of the key assumptions underlying Houlihan's financial analysis was that Jumei "expected to wind down" these businesses "by 2021 and 2022," respectively, and that this assumption was untrue. But, as Jumei points out, this expectation has yet to be proven false since neither of those deadlines has passed. Altimeo points to the allegations of two "former employees that worked at Jumei while the Buyout was pending," who state that they never "heard of any plans for these businesses to wind down" while they worked for Jumei. But, as Jumei argues, the complaints likely fail to meet "the Ninth Circuit standard for confidential witness allegations." Judge Chen finds that the complaints provide only general job descriptions for CW2 and CW3, who are described as a "senior data operations employee" and a "product manager in Jumei's e-commerce business," respectively. Further, Altimeo fails to allege facts showing why these mid-level employees would have any knowledge about senior management's plans for the Company" around the time of the Buyout. As a result, Altimeo has likely failed to plead the objective falsity of any statements concerning the winding down of Jumei's e-commerce and Shuabao businesses. Jumei's statements regarding its inability to raise sufficient capital to support Jiedian at the time of Mr. Chen's tender offer present a closer question. The key facts that Altimeo alleges in support of its theory of falsity include (1) "the availability of financing to Jiedian's competitors immediately before and after the Buyout," (2) "the fast-growing nature of the shared power bank market" of which "Jiedian was the recognized leader," and (3) the significant amount of cash that Jumei and Jiedian had on hand at the time of the Buyout. Judge Chen finds Altimeo's third main argument on this issue -- that Jumei and Jiedian had substantial amounts of cash on hand at the time of Chen's tender offer -- unpersuasive. He finds that the amount of cash that Jumei and/or Jiedian might have had on hand at the time of the Buyout is not particularly probative of the falsity of the Jumei's statements about Jiedian's access to financing. For the reasons he stated, however, Judge Chen need not rule on whether Altimeo has adequately pled objective falsity with respect to Jumei's statements about Jiedian's financing. C. Section 10(b) Scienter Jumei argues that Altimeo's complaints fail to adequately allege that the company acted with scienter because Altimeo "does not allege any facts showing what any Defendant believed about the fairness of the tender offer," much less "particularized" ones. In doing so, Jumei observes that Altimeo must "plead the scienter of the Individual Defendants who were acting on Jumei's behalf" in order to impute scienter to the company. More specifically, Jumei points out that "the vast majority of the Plaintiff's scienter allegations concern Chen, with only a few allegations concerning Special Committee members Shao or Zhao, and zero allegations about" Jumei's other directors, Defendants Ren and Su. Judge Chen holds that when he "compares the malicious and innocent inferences cognizable from the complaint," as he must, "the most plausible inference from the facts alleged" is that Messrs. Shao and Zhao concluded, on the basis of Houlihan's financial analysis and in good faith, that the buyout was fair to, and in the best interests of, Jumei's shareholders. Altimeo therefore fails to plead that Messrs. Shao and Zhao acted with scienter. And as the complaints lack any concrete allegations whatsoever against Defendants Ren and Su, Altimeo has likewise not pled a cognizable Section 10(b) claim against them either. As for Mr. Chen, Judge Chen holds that Altimeo has failed to adequately plead that Jumei acted with scienter when it opined that Mr. Chen's tender offer was financially fair to Jumei's minority shareholders. As a result, Judge Chen grants Jumei's motion to dismiss Altimeo's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a). D. Section 14(e) Negligence Altimeo argues that "Defendants acted negligently by failing to 'exercise reasonable prudence' in investigating the truth about Jiedian's availability of financing and its growth prospects," as well as failing "to investigate whether Jumei's management actually planned to wind down its e-commerce and Shubao businesses." Altimeo suggests that all Defendants were negligent insofar as they each "`participated in the preparation and/or review' of the materially false and misleading Buyout materials," and that negligence can be ascribed to Mr. Chen in particular because "he was the individual with the most access and control possible" concerning the buyout materials. Judge Chen considers the negligence question to be a close one and declines to definitively rule on it in the case. He notes, however, that Jumei raises two potentially persuasive arguments against a finding of negligence. First, Jumei contends that Altimeo's current complaints lack "specific facts regarding how each Defendant was negligent in carrying out his or her duties." Instead, Altimeo alleges only that "Defendants" as a group "negligently made the false and misleading statements, and omitted material information from the Recommendation Statement." Insofar as the PSLRA's heightened requirements for pleading state of mind apply to Section 14(e) claims, Judge Chen finds that Altimeo's failure to identify the specific ways in which each Defendant was negligent likely dooms these claims with respect to, for example, Messrs. Shao and Zhao. Second, Jumei emphasizes the "thorough and robust" nature of the Special Committee's review process and observes that Altimeo fails to cite any authority for the principle "that a board acts negligently if it does not conduct a market check," which is a frequent refrain of the complaints. Judge Chen holds that to the extent that Altimeo fails to identify any deficiencies with the review process that Jumei enacted in evaluating Mr. Chen's tender offer, it is difficult to see how Jumei could plausibly have failed to "exercise reasonable prudence" or satisfy the relevant standard of care. While he need not rule, therefore, on the sufficiency of Altimeo's negligence allegations at the present time, Judge Chen notes the pleading difficulties that Altimeo will need to overcome if it chooses to amend its complaint. E. Loss Causation Lastly, Jumei argues that Altimeo's claims under both Sections 10(b) and 14(e) must be dismissed because the complaints fail to plead loss causation, i.e., a "causal connection between the deceptive acts that form the basis for the claim of securities fraud and the injury suffered." Jumei contends that Altimeo has not suffered any actual loss because it received a roughly 15% premium on the price of Jumei stock immediately before Chen's tender offer was extended. Jumei argues that this theory of loss causation is overly "speculative" as a matter of law and cannot survive a motion to dismiss. Among other things, Judge Chen finds that Altimeo's claims based on the Jumei's statements concerning appraisal rights under Cayman law fail on the ground of loss causation, as these claims are considerably more attenuated than those in the FAC. Given the Ninth Circuit's decisive rejected of the far more straightforward loss causation theory in In In re Ocera Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 806 Fed. Appx. 603, 604-05 (9th Cir. 2020), the highly contingent series of events that Altimeo posits cannot suffice to plead loss causation. Judge Chen, therefore, grants Jumei's motion to dismiss Altimeo's claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) on the ground that Altimeo's complaints fail to plead loss causation. As Altimeo's Section 10(b) and 14(e) claims must be dismissed, the Judge likewise dismisses Altimeo's derivative Section 20(a) claim, as well. Conclusion Judge Chen concludes that Altimeo has failed to plead loss causation. As loss causation is an element of Altimeo's Section 10(b) and Section 14(e) claims alike, Jumei's motions may be granted in their entirety on this ground alone. The Juduge also finds that Altimeo has failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference that Jumei acted with scienter for purposes of Section 10(b). Given his conclusions with respect to these issues, Judge Chen need not rule on whether Altimeo has adequately pled, inter alia, a false or misleading statement or negligence under Section 14(e). For the reasons given, Judge Chen grants Jumei's motions to dismiss Altimeo's Amended Class Action Complaint, and Altimeo's Second Amended Class Action Complaint. As the Judge cannot conclude that amendment would be futile at this stage, Altimeo is given leave to amend. Altimeo has 30 days from the date of the Order to file an amended complaint. The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 58 and 72. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/snh9ud76 from Leagle.com. JUUL LABS: Faces Winfield School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------- WINFIELD CITY SCHOOLS, MARION COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07383-WHO (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Winfield City Schools is a school district with its offices located at P.O. Box 70, Winfield, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Limestone School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------- LIMESTONE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, LIMESTONE COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07355 (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Limestone County School District is a school district with its offices located at 300 South Jefferson Street, Athens, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Marion County Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, MARION COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07357 (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, alleges the suit. Marion County Board of Education, Marion County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 188 Winchester Dr., Hamilton, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Winston School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------ Winston County Schools, State of Alabama, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07380 (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Winston County Schools is a school district with its offices located at 25101 Highway 195, Double Springs, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com KERRY INC: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fernandez BIPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAXIMO FERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. KERRY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1067 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint. Five persons, who used to work for Kerry, in Illinois filed this suit as a class action in state court. They seek damages under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA or the Act), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25. The Act requires private entities to obtain consent before collecting or using biometric information, including fingerprints. In 2011, Kerry began requiring workers to use fingerprints to clock in and out. The Plaintiffs say that Kerry did not obtain their consent before doing so. Kerry removed the suit to federal court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453, asserting that the class' total damages could exceed $5 million and that the statutory requirement of some diverse citizenship is satisfied. The Plaintiffs do not deny these jurisdictional allegations. Kerry asked the district court to dismiss the suit as preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185 (LMRA), because resolution depends on interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements between Kerry and the union that represented the Plaintiffs while they worked there. Federal law prevents states from interfering in relations between unions and private employers. The Seventh Circuit held in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898, 903-05 (7th Cir. 2019), that provisions in the Railway Labor Act parallel to Section 301 prohibit workers from bypassing their unions and engaging in direct bargaining with their employers about how to clock in and out. It doubted that Illinois has preempted to give unionized workers a privilege to bargain directly with employers -- after all, the Act permits an employee's "legally authorized representative" to consent to the collection and use of biometric information. If an employer asserts that a union has consented, then any dispute about the accuracy of that contention is one about the meaning of a collective-bar-gaining agreement and must be resolved between the union and the employer. That means an adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act; under the LMRA it usually means arbitration. In Miller the employers plausibly contended that the unions had consented. The Seventh Circuit held that this is enough to prevent suits by individual workers. Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC, 980 F.3d 1146, 1156 (7th Cir. 2020), suggested that the same result would obtain in litigation under the LMRA but refrained from a formal decision on the issue. In the Seventh Circuit's suit, the district court deemed Miller controlling when the collective-bargaining agreement is governed by the LMRA. As a result, it dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs insist that the Railway Labor Act is "more preemptive" than the LMRA, but the Supreme Court has equated the two. They also contend that, although the means of clocking in and out may be mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, they are only permissive subjects under the Labor Management Relations Act. The Seventh Circuit need not decide whether that is so. The Seventh Circuit holds that it is enough to recognize that, whether a topic of bargaining be mandatory (in the sense that the employer must bargain about it on the union's demand) or permissive, the union is the workers' agent. If labor and management want to bargain collectively about particular working conditions, they are free to do so. Workers cannot insist that management bypass the union and deal with them directly about these subjects. After all, the statute says that a certified union is each worker's exclusive representative on collective issues. In the case, as in Miller, the employer invokes a management-rights clause. The Seventh Circuit remarked in Miller: "Whether the unions did consent to the collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant authority through a management-rights clause, is a question for decision under the agreement. Similarly, the retention and destruction schedules for biometric data, and whether employers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and identification systems, are topics for bargaining between unions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms of federal law and authorize direct negotiation or litigation between workers and management." "It is not possible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an employer acquires and uses fingerprint information for its whole workforce without asking whether the union has consented on the employees' collective behalf." The Seventh Circuit held in Miller that it was for an adjustment board -- as in the case it is for an arbitrator -- to decide whether the employer properly obtained the union's consent. Anticipating that it would find Miller controlling, the Plaintiffs ask the Seventh Circuit to send this dispute to arbitration. Apart from the fact that the Plaintiffs did not make such a request in the district court, there is the fact that collective-bargaining agreements usually leave grievances to be worked out between the union and management. The counsel said at argument that the collective-bargaining agreements in question do not permit workers to demand arbitration if the union is content to forego that procedure, and they added that the union -- Local 781 of the Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Airline, Automotive Parts, Service, Tire and Rental, Chemical and Petroleum, Ice, Paper, and Related Clerical and Production Employees Union -- has not requested arbitration. The Seventh Circuit holds that it is not authorized to usurp the union's authority to decide whether a grievance with management needs an arbitrator's resolution (or, indeed, whether there is any grievance to resolve). And the Plaintiffs have not contended that Local 781's choices violate its duty of fair representation, nor have they joined it as a defendant. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/at6vrce8 from Leagle.com. KEVIN DAVIS: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed Pending Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND and JUAN FRANCISCO NIEVES, as trustee of the Gonzalez Coronado Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEVIN DAVIS and AMIR ROSENTHAL, Case No. 1:16-cv-03591-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order granting request that all deadlines are stayed pending effectuation of the settlement. The motion for class certification currently pending at Dkt. No. 202 and the motion to exclude an expert opinion at Dkt. No. 217 are deemed withdrawn but may be refiled in the event that the proposed settlement is not effectuated. No later than October 1, 2021, the parties are directed to submit a joint letter with the date by which they expect to submit their preliminary approval materials for consideration by the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions currently pending at Dkt. Nos. 202 and 217. The Clerk of Court is also directed to note the stay on the docket. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m7TXd0 at no extra charge.[CC] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Savage Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ DARROLL SAVAGE, 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. 2:21-cv-00519 (E.D. Va., September 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (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 the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of the alleged health risks associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the Plaintiff's CPAP devices are now worthless. The Plaintiff will be forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a replacement is available, says the suit. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph L. Messa, Jr. MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-3500 Facsimile: (215) 568-3501 E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Summer Files Suit in S.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al. The case is styled as Robert M. Summer, 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. 1:21-cv-00410 (S.D. Ala., Sept. 22, 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: Jubal L. Hamil, Esq. DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC P.O. Box 1031 Mobile, AL 36633 Phone: (251) 432-6020 Fax: (251) 471-4497 Email: jhamil@dshfirm.com LASER CARE: Cabral Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johanna Cabral, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Laser Care Specialists, Lasker Skin Care Center Medical Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV336S0 (Cal. Super., September 13, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest for Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, reimbursement of business-related expenses, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders including wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for anticipatory breach of contract. Cabral worked as a medical assistant in Defendants' dermatology practice. Cabral claims to be denied proper overtime wages for off-the-clock work, and interrupted meal periods for work. Defendants allegedly failed to provide paid time off and vacation time owed and failed to reimburse costs incurred for driving personal vehicles, purchasing/laundering uniforms, and purchase and maintenance of cellular phones. Defendants allegedly did not provide wage statements for hours worked by employees. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com diego@tomorrowlaw.com sara@tomorrowlaw.com LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: 5th Cir. Affirms Callinan Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL E. CALLINAN; JORGE RIVERA, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS, INCORPORATED; LONNEL COATS; JEFFREY L. WADE; PABLO LAPUERTA, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-20487 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Lexicon's motion to dismiss. Investors in Lexicon brought the class-action suit alleging securities fraud against the company and certain of its current and former executives. Lexicon is a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company that develops new drugs to treat serious diseases. The case involves one of its drugs that ultimately failed to obtain regulatory approval by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Sotagliflozin is an oral therapy intended for use in conjunction with insulin therapy to improve blood sugar control in adults with diabetes. Like many drugs, sotagliflozin bestows benefits encumbered by risks, and its regulatory approval depended, in part, on whether the former outweighed the latter. On the benefit side of the scale, the drug improves control of blood sugar by functioning as an inhibitor, preventing proteins in the body from absorbing glucose. On the risk side of the scale, it is associated with increased incidences of one of the most well known and serious health risks for people who have diabetes: diabetic ketoacidosis ("DKA"). If left untreated, DKA is a life-threatening condition that results when the body produces excess acids in the bloodstream. When sotagliflozin successfully completed all three phases of clinical trials, the FDA convened a public advisory committee meeting. The committee put to a vote the question of whether "the available data suggest that the benefits outweigh the risks and support the approval of sotagliflozin." That question produced a deadlocked vote by the committee, an impasse driven largely by concerns about the risk of DKA. Later, the FDA determined not to approve sotagliflozin. After both the committee vote and the FDA rejection, Lexicon's stock price declined precipitously. The Appellants claim that Lexicon made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about sotagliflozin, violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. As relevant in the case, they advanced three theories in the district court. First, they alleged that Lexicon had minimized the risk of DKA posed by sotagliflozin. Second, they alleged that the FDA had warned Lexicon about its use of a particular endpoint in its Phase 3 trials and that Lexicon had failed to disclose that warning to investors. Third, they alleged that Lexicon failed to disclose that it had not prepared a meaningful DKA risk management program for sotagliflozin. In a careful and thorough opinion spanning 114 pages, the district court granted Lexicon's motion to dismiss and rejected each of Appellants' theories of liability. First, it concluded that Appellants had not alleged any actionable misrepresentations or omissions. Second, it found that, even assuming Appellants' allegations were actionable, the facts alleged do not support a strong inference that the misrepresentations were made with scienter. Finally, the district court determined that the Appellants failed to plead loss causation. The district court also disallowed Appellants' request to amend their complaint. It resolved that any additional attempt to amend would be futile given that they had already filed an amended complaint, argued strenuously that it stated claims, and failed either to submit a proposed second amended complaint or to describe any additional facts that could be alleged in it. The appeal followed. Attentive to the arguments advanced on appeal, the Fifth Circuit has reviewed the district court's extensive opinion de novo. For the reasons stated more fully by the district court, the Fifth Circuit agrees that the Appellants failed to state a claim with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss under the stringent pleading requirements imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. Moreover, the district court considered the relevant factors in determining not to grant leave to amend, and the Fifth Circuit cannot say that it abused its discretion in doing so. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxuvd6c9 from Leagle.com. LOANDEPOT INC: Doban Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------ Adam Doban, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Loandepot, Inc., Anthony Hsieh, Patrick Flanagan, Nicole Carrillo, Andrew C. Dodson, John C. Dorman, Brian P. Golson and Dawn Lepore, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01513, (C.D. Cal., September 14, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LoanDepot is an independent retail mortgage lender that provides residential loans, refinance loans, and personal loan products nationwide. On February 16, 2021, LoanDepot announced the pricing of its initial public offering of 3,850,000 Class A shares at a price of $14 per share. In its IPO, LoanDepot sold 3,850,000 shares of its Class A common stock to the public at a price of $14.00 per share for total proceeds of approximately $54 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. Doban alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO omitted to disclose that the company's refinance originations had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity and increased competition and that the company's gain-on-sale margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO. By August 17, 2021, LoanDepot's stock fell to $8.07 per share, a more than 42% decline from the IPO price, having plummeted in response to information reflecting the materialization of significant risks misrepresented and omitted from the Registration Statement as alleged herein. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com LONE STAR PJS: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Livingston Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kenny Livingston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lone Star PJS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02191, (N.D. Tex., September 14, 2021) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee as a result of failing to pay proper overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act within the applicable statutory limitations period. Lone Star PJS owns and operates Papa John's franchises throughout Texas. Livingston worked for Lone Star as an as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from approximately May of 2013 until March of 2021. Lone Star PJS paid Livingston a rate at or close to minimum wage per hour for work performed while in the store but paid less than minimum wage per hour for all hours worked outside of the restaurant making deliveries because of the "tip credit." He claims to be paid a flat rate per delivery at $1.50 per delivery. But Livingston claims to incur and/or pay job-related expenses, including but not limited to automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and parts, insurance, financing, cell phone costs and other equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job duties. But given these expenses, he claims that his net pay falls below the mandated minimum wage rate. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LONGEVERON INC: Malespin Hits Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------- Jerald Vargas Malespin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Longeveron Inc., Geoff Green, James Clavijo, Joshua M. Hare, Donald M. Soffer, Neil E. Hare and Rock Soffer, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-23303 (S.D. Fla., September 13, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws. Longeveron is a clinical stage biotechnology company that engages in developing cellular therapies for aging-related and life-threatening conditions. Its lead investigational product is Lomecel-B, a cell-based therapy product that is derived from culture-expanded medicinal signaling cells that are sourced from the bone marrow of young healthy adult donors. Longeveron is conducting, among other trials, a Phase 2b trial of its Lomecel-B product for aging frailty. On February 12, 2021, Longeveron's Class A common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol "LGVN," issuing 2.66 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at the Offering price of $10.00 per share, for approximate proceeds of $24.7 million to the Company after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses. The complaint alleges that Longeveron failed to disclose that Lomecel-B was not as effective in treating aging frailty and its clinical and commercial prospects with respect to aging frailty were overstated. On this news, Longeveron's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or 27.91%, to close at $3.90 per share on August 13, 2021, representing a total decline of 61% from the Offering price. Malespin acquired Longeveron common stock at artificially inflated prices and lost when its share price went down. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 903-3170 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jagoldstein@millershah.com MATTERPORT INC: March 2022 Deadline for Class Cert Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STEMMELIN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation; RJ PITTMAN; DAVE GAUSEBECK; MATT BELL; CARLOS KOKRON; PETER HEBERT; JASON KRIKORIAN; and MIKE GUSTAFSON, Case No. 3:20-cv-04168-WHA (N.F. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order which provides that the existing deadlines in case management order No. 2 be extended as follows: Event or deadline CMO No. 2 Proposed New Date -- Plaintiff's deadline to Oct. 7, 2021 March 7, 2022 file his Motion for Class Certification. -- Each party shall serve a Jan. 28, 2022 June 28, 2022 list of issues on which it will offer any expert testimony in its case-in -chief (including from non-retained experts) at least 28 calendar days before the due date for opening reports -- Non-expert discovery Feb. 25, 2022 July 25, 2022 cut-off date On February 4, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, Restitution and Injunctive/Declaratory Relief. On March 18, 2021, Defendants answered the Complaint. Matterport is a developer of a 3D media platform used to establish 3D and virtual reality models. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i6uRK8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 "C" Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com ikhoury@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. www.attorneyzim.com 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael K. Johnson, Esq. Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MIKEY AUTO: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Marvens Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Marvens, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Mikey Auto Inc., King of Jamaica Auto Inc., Josep Israelashvili, Saman Arasheben (a/k/a “Sammy” Arasheben), and Merham Arasheben (a/k/a "Mikey" Arasheben), Case No. 1:21-cv-05261 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2021) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime 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. Plaintiff Marvens was employed as a salesperson, office worker, and general worker at Defendants' automobile dealership, known as "Mike's Auto/King of Jamaica" in Hollis, New York from October 2016 through and including January 2020. Mikey Auto Inc. is a car dealer based in Hollis, New York.[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 MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL: Nyamoti Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mount Sinai Hospital. The case is styled as Enock Nyamoti, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Mount Sinai Hospital, Case No. 1:21-cv-07926-UA (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Mount Sinai Hospital -- https://www.mountsinai.org/ -- founded in 1852, is one of the oldest and largest teaching hospitals in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Thompson Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Elsa Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-07600-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021), is brought concerning Municipal's unlawful business practice of imposing multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees ("NSF Fee") and/or overdraft fees on an item. The complaint alleges that through the imposition of Overdraft and NSF Fees, Municipal makes millions of dollars annually. Municipal's NSF Fees fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the young, many of whom regularly live paycheck to paycheck and therefore carry low bank account balances. The Contract permits Municipal to charge a $32 NSF Fee when a member's account contains insufficient funds to pay "an ACH debit request or bill payment you authorize or check (share draft) you draw" and Municipal rejects the charge. Municipal unlawfully assesses multiple NSF or overdraft fees on a single Automated Clearing House (ACH) transaction or check transaction even though the member-only authorized or "drew" a single ACH or check. Municipal's Contract indicates that only a single NSF Fee or a single overdraft fee will be charged per "item" that the account holder authorizes or draws. An electronic item reprocessed after an initial return for insufficient funds without the accountholder’s knowledge or re-authorization cannot and does not fairly become a new, unique "item" for fee assessment purposes. It is a breach of Municipal's Contract and of reasonable consumers' expectations for Municipal to charge more than one $32 fee on an item. Municipal also breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it charges multiple fees on an item. Specifically, Municipal abuses its contractual discretion by (a) reprocessing transactions when it knows that a customer's account lacks sufficient funds, and (b) charging additional fees upon reprocessing. The Plaintiff and other Municipal customers have been injured by Municipal's improper fee maximization practice. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class of individuals bring a claim for Municipal's breach of contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Lehigh Acres, Florida and has maintained a checking account at Municipal. Municipal Credit Union is a credit union with nearly $4.2 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (212) 584-0755 Email: jbilsborrow@seegerweiss.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN &MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 4204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Ste. 200 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Denial of Arbitration in Sitzer Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Joshua Sitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Scott Burnett; Rhonda Burnett; Ryan Hendrickson, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. National Association of Realtors, Defendant, HomeServices of America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Realogy Holdings Corp.; RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Defendants, BHH Affiliates, LLC; HSF Affiliates, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc.; RE/MAX LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-1779 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the district court's order denying HomeServices' motion to compel arbitration. Background Scott and Rhonda Burnett signed a listing agreement with Reece & Nichols Realtors, Inc. to sell their home. The agreement contained a provision requiring "any controversy or claim between the parties to this Contract, its interpretation, enforcement or breach, to be settled by binding arbitration." Along with other homeowners, the Burnetts brought a putative class-action lawsuit against various real-estate entities, including HomeServices, a parent company of Reece & Nichols. The complaint alleged that HomeServices and the other named defendants had engaged in anticompetitive practices. Over the next year, HomeServices fully participated in the case. Along with the other defendants, it joined motions to dismiss and to transfer the case to another judicial district. It also negotiated a proposed scheduling order, answered the complaint, and replied to written discovery. Only then, 305 days after the Burnetts filed the lawsuit, did it finally seek to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, mainly because HomeServices was not itself a party to the Burnetts' listing agreement. In a footnote, the court also questioned whether HomeServices had waived its right to arbitrate by "litigating the case for almost one year." HomeServices appeals the denial of its motion, and the Burnetts defend the ruling on both grounds. Analysis Despite actively litigating the case in federal court for nearly a year, HomeServices claims that the dispute really belongs in arbitration. The question is whether the company waived its right to arbitrate. The Eighth Circuit concludes that it did, and that, under its precedent, it is a question for them, not the arbitrator, to answer. The Eighth Circuit holds that HomeServices cannot compel the Burnetts to arbitrate a case that it has already litigated for nearly a year in federal court. The company failed to "do all it could reasonably have been expected to do to make the earliest feasible determination of whether to proceed judicially or by arbitration." Having followed this course, HomeServices must now live with the consequences. Disposition Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tk9zv6a2 from Leagle.com. NEW ORIENTAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2021, that final settlement approval hearing in Amy Chan v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-9279-KSH-CLW, is set for October 19, 2021. The company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey: Amy Chan v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-9279-KSH-CLW (filed on December 15, 2016). On March 30, 2017, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs of this action. On May 30, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The pending action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) between September 28, 2016 and December 1, 2016. The first amended complaint alleges that our company's public filings contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws. On July 31, 2017, our company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On July 3, 2019, the court granted our company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint advancing similar allegations against defendants as the first amended complaint. On September 3, 2019, our company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which motion is currently pending before the court. On May 5, 2020, the court administratively terminated the case upon the parties' notification of their intention to settle the matter, if possible. On June 3, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. On June 4, 2021, the court granted the order for preliminary approval. A settlement hearing is scheduled on October 19, 2021 to consider final approval of the settlement. As the case remains ongoing, we express no opinion as to the likelihood that final approval for the class action settlement will be forthcoming, or of any other outcome, favorable or unfavorable, or any estimate of the amount or range of any potential loss. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. provides private educational services under the New Oriental brand in the People's Republic of China. It operates through Language Training and Test Preparation Courses, and Others segments. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. NEW YORK CITY, NY: Sued for Unlawful Vaccine Mandate ---------------------------------------------------- Rachel Maniscalco, individually, and for all others similarly situated v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE), MEISHA PORTER, SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BILL de BLASIO, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, and DAVE A. CHOKSHI, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-05055-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for risking the Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Class, New York City Public School Teachers, might lose their livelihoods, their health insurance, and their ability to pursue their profession under a New York City Executive Order announced on August 23, 2021. The August 23 Order requires the Plaintiff and the Class to submit proof of at least one dose of vaccination for the Covid-19 virus by September 27, 2021. Unlike the vaccine mandate for federal workers announced on September 9, 2021, the August 23 Order includes no provision for DOE workers to opt-out of the mandate through testing. All can agree that safety in New York City's public schools, where almost a million students are educated, and many tens of thousands of teachers and employees work, is essential. Neither Plaintiff nor members of the Class oppose any legitimate steps to make their own workplace, and the place where they educate their students, a safer place to work and in which to learn. But pursuant to the August 23 Order, any teachers who do not comply stand to lose their health benefits, their jobs, or their seniority (which consequence or consequences of the August 23 Order that Defendants shall impose on the Plaintiff and the Class shifts from day to day). Such an ongoing, draconian punishment shocks the conscience, violates constitutional rights, and not only should not be permitted, but must be restrained immediately to prevent irreparable harm. Alarmingly, the August 23 Order violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides no State can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." If the Defendants enforce the August 23 Order, the Plaintiff and members of the putative Class may lose their income, their seniority, and/or their health benefits. Termination of teachers at the beginning of the school year, with mere weeks of warning, will result in Plaintiff and Class members' being irreparably harmed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a public-school teacher in Staten Island, New York. DOE is a corporate body, created by Article 52 of the New York State Education Law, that manages and controls the educational affairs of New York City public schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Fonte, Esq. Louis M. Gelormino, Esq. F&G LEGAL GROUP 2550 Victory Blvd. Staten Island, NY 10314 Phone: (917) 968-1619 Email: mfontelaw@yahoo.com louiegels@hotmail.com NEWREZ LLC: Court Enters Class Certification Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIMA RADWAN, et al., v. NEWREZ LLC, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00269-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be completed by September 29, 2022. Discovery motions must be filed and heard prior to this date. 2. The parties shall have until November 28, 2022 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings. 3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, January 30, 2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is required. 4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 08:30 AM. 5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private Mediation. The parties shall have until October 13, 2022 to conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of their settlement efforts and status. 6. The Plaintiff shall have until May 2, 2022 to file and have heard any class certification motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m0wlqm at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN OF STOCKTON: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan of Stockton, LLC. The case is styled as Juanita Allen, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Nissan of Stockton, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0008956 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 22, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Nissan of Stockton -- https://www.nissanofstockton.com/ -- is a local Nissan Dealer in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. C204 San Diego, CA 92110-2933 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Fax: (858) 404-9203 Email: shani@zakaylaw.com OAK AND EMBER: Faces Kriberney Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KRIBERNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OAK AND EMBER, LLC, ASIA FOUNTAINS, LLC, BUTCHER BLOCK GRILL BOCA, LLC, CARMELA'S BOCA, LLC, ZSW MOZART CAFE, LLC, ROADHOUSE BOCA, LLC, FGM, LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-81779 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and other tipped employees, enforcing illegal kickbacks related to the uniform policy, and engaging in the retention of tips. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in October 2020 and is still employed as of the date of this filing as restaurant server and/or bartender. The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com OCWEN LOAN: Parties Seeks to Hold Class Cert Ruling in Franklin --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order holding abeyance the ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification until October 6, 2021 to allow them an opportunity to review and consider the mediator's proposal. A copy of the Plainitff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kI2eoc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Karen Evans, Esq. Brian V. Otero, Esq. Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq. Ryan A. Becker, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 50 Cailfornia Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 975-3743 Facsimile: (415) 307-5748 E-mail: KEvans@HuntonAK.com botero@HuntonAK.com sblacklocks@HuntonAK.com rbecker@HuntonAK.com OILEX INC: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT, Edwards Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OILEX, INC. d/b/a/ GREASE MONKEY; and WAYNE GLASSER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02470-DDD-KMT (D. Colo., Sept. 13, 2021) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Edwards was employed by the Defendants as technician. OILEX, INC. acquires, develops and produces oil and gas properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Lewis, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: plewis@ll.law mkuhn@ll.law aswan@ll.law OMNI RECYCLING: Manzanarez Sues Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE M. MANZANAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OMNI RECYCLING OF BABYLON, INC. and ANTHONY CORE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05164 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations by failing to pay overtime premium pay and straight wages and failing to issue hiring notices to Plaintiff and all other union members. The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer by Omni from January 1, 2018, to August 2, 20219 and from September 24, 2019, until January 28, 2020. Omni Recycling of Babylon, Inc. is a waste management services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 E. Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com PAXTON MEDIA: Bowen Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paxton Media Group, LLC. The case is styled as William Bowen, Amy Brasher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paxton Media Group, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00143-TBR (W.D. Ky., Sept. 22, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Paxton Media Group of Paducah, Kentucky -- https://www.paducahsun.com/site/about.html -- is a privately held media company with holdings that include newspapers and a TV station, WPSD-TV in Paducah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany L. Brown, Esq. David J. George, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONAL PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302 Lake Worth, FL 33463 Phone: (917) 983-9321 Fax: (888) 421-4173 - and - Jeffery A. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW OFFICE 509 Main Street Murray, KY 42071 Phone: (270) 753-0053 Fax: (270) 753-0055 Email: jeff@jeffrobertslaw.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONAL PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton on Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (917) 983-9321 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHEERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com PIVOTAL INVESTMENT: Laidlaw Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- CODY LAIDLAW, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN J. LEDECKY, KEVIN GRIFFIN, JAMES H.R. BRADY, SARAH SCLARSIC, EFRAT EPSTEIN, KATRINA ADAMS, THOMAS J. HYNES III, DIMITRI N. KAZARINOFF, and PIVOTAL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0808 (Del. Ch. Ct., September 20, 2021) is a verified class action complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims stemming from the Company's merger with XL Hybrids, Inc. This lawsuit is filed against the Company's board of directors and/or Company officers and against Pivotal Investment Holdings II LLC, in its capacity as the Company's controlling stockholder, for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Defendants Thomas J. Hynes III and Dimitri N. Kazarinoff. Pivotal Investment Corporation II, now renamed XL Fleet Corp., is a Delaware corporation formed as SPAC by Jonathan Ledecky. Pivotal completed its initial public offering of units on July 16, 2019, raising $230 million from public investors. Mr. Laidlaw has consistently held, and has been the beneficial owner of, Pivotal stock at all relevant times, including prior to the December 7, 2020, record date for the merger and through the present date. The lawsuit seeks to affirm that the boards and controlling stockholders of special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) incorporated in Delaware owe the same fiduciary duties to their stockholders as do the boards and controlling stockholders of any Delaware corporation, and thus bring reasonable limits to the money-grabbing SPAC bonanza that has been burgeoning in recent years at the expense of the investing public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Michael Bell, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison St., 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com mbell@gelaw.com POP WARNER: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Order in Archie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KIMBERLY ARCHIE, as survivors of decedent Paul Bright Jr.; JO CORNELL, an individual, and as survivor of decedent Tyler Cornell, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. POP WARNER LITTLE SCHOLARS, INC., a nonprofit corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55081 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the complaint is amended, nunc pro tunc, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment order. Appellants Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell filed suit under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) against Pop Warner. The operative complaint asserted various state law claims based on allegations that Pop Warner failed to provide for the safety and health of its child participants. The Appellants alleged that playing Pop Warner football caused their sons' brain damage known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy ("CTE"), that CTE caused their sons to engage in suicidal or reckless behavior, and that such behavior ultimately led to their sons' untimely deaths. The district court granted summary judgment to Pop Warner because the Appellants' causation experts rendered unreliable and thus inadmissible opinions. As an alternative basis supporting its summary judgment order, the district court found that even assuming Appellants' experts rendered admissible opinions, Appellants produced insufficient evidence to create a triable issue as to causation under California law. The Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment order. Pop Warner also raises the issue that the complaint fails to allege minimal diversity under the CAFA, but the parties agree that this jurisdictional defect can be corrected under 28 U.S.C. Section 1653. To establish jurisdiction under the CAFA, the Appellants needed to allege in their complaint that one of them was a citizen of a state different from any defendant. The Ninth Circuit holds that the complaint failed to do so. But "defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." Because the record supports that the Appellants were California citizens when they filed the complaint and the parties agree on that fact, the Ninth Circuit exercise its authority under Section 1653 and orders the complaint amended, nunc pro tunc, to reflect that Appellants are citizens of California. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must be relevant and reliable. Only the reliability prong is at issue. The reliability threshold requires that the expert's testimony have 'a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.' The court must determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. Exclusion is permissible when "there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered." The Appellants introduced declarations and reports from two causation experts to establish that Pop Warner football was a substantial factor in causing the young men's deaths. Both experts concluded that playing Pop Warner football could have caused CTE and that CTE is linked to suicidal and reckless behaviors, and based on those underlying conclusions, the experts ultimately concluded that Pop Warner was therefore a substantial causal factor in the deaths. Both opinions, however, contained no explanation supporting the logical leap from the underlying conclusions to the ultimate conclusion, the Ninth Circuit finds. Put differently, it says, neither expert explained why Pop Warner was a substantial cause rather than simply a possible cause. Given this logical gap, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the expert opinions were unreliable and thus inadmissible. Because none of Appellants' claims on appeal can survive without expert testimony establishing causation, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Pop Warner. The Ninth Circuit also agrees with the district court's alternative holding that, even assuming Appellants' causation experts rendered admissible opinions, the Appellants' evidence failed to raise a triable issue as to causation under California law. The Appellants had to proffer an expert opinion "that contained a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts had convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it was more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the Plaintiff's injury." The Ninth Circuit holds that the Appellants failed to do so, as their experts' opinions showed only that Pop Warner football could have caused the deaths and contained no explanation why Pop Warner football likely caused the deaths. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit ordered the complaint is amended, nunc pro tunc; and affirmed the district court's summary judgment order. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/fwecr5d9 from Leagle.com. PORTLAND GENERAL: March 11, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IN RE PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 3:20-cv-1583-SI CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PGE COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2020 AND AUGUST 24, 2020, INCLUSIVE: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, a hearing will be held on March 11, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, to determine: (1) whether a proposed Settlement of In Re Portland General Electric Company Securities Litigation Case No. 3:20-cv-1583-SI (D.Or) (the "Action") including the sum of Six Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($6,750,000.00) 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 July 11, 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, 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 Plaintiffs' 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 March 11, 2022. If you purchased or otherwise acquired PGE common stock during the Class Period (February 13, 2020 to August 24, 2020), 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.portlandgeneralelectricsettlement.com or by writing to Portland General Electric Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 4636 Portland, OR 97208-4636. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim form by mail (postmarked no later than December 21, 2021), or online at www.portlandgeneralelectricsettlement.com (submitted no later than December 21, 2021), 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 February 11, 2022, 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 February 11, 2022, 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 Court and mailed or delivered to the following address, or electronically filed with the Court via their CM/ECF system, such that they are received no later than February 11, 2022, 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: Portland General Electric Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 4636 Portland, OR 97208-4636 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 URL: http://gelaw.com Contact Information: Daniel L. Berger 485 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 Email: dberger@gelaw.com [GN] SASOL LIMITED: Appeal on Denial of Bid for Reconsideration Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sasol Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's appeal on the denial of the motion for reconsideration, is pending. On 5 February 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed on behalf of US American depositary Receipts (US ADR) owner Chad Lindsey Moshell and other US ADR holders who purchased Sasol securities from 10 March 2015 to 13 January 2020. It was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against Sasol Limited and five of its current and former executive directors. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and claims, among other things that (i) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple issues with, the LCCP, including as to the true cost of the project, (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical behaviour with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively impact the company's financial results and (v) as a result, certain of the company's public statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. On 4 May 2020, Mr. David Cohen was appointed as lead plaintiff and filed an amended complaint on 4 June 2020. Sasol and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss on 2 July 2020. On 24 August 2020, Sasol's motion to dismiss was granted in part (relating to the effectiveness of Sasol's controls over financial reporting) and denied in part (relating to alleged misrepresentations as to the cost and schedule of the Lake Charles Chemicals Project (LCCP)) and Fleetwood Grobler was dismissed from the case. On 30 October 2020, Sasol filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the court related to the remaining elements of the case. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on 19 January 2021, and Sasol filed a reply on 1 February 2021. On 7 July 2021, the court denied Sasol's Motion for Reconsideration. Sasol has appealed that decision but failing a successful appeal discovery proceedings will commence. The lead plaintiff has not specified the quantum of any alleged damages. Any impact of the class action complaint cannot be reasonably estimated at this point in time, but it cannot be excluded that it may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows and financial condition. Sasol said, "There can be no assurance as to the outcome of any litigation, arbitration or other legal proceeding or investigation, and the adverse determination of material litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, operational results, cash flows and financial condition." Sasol Limited is an integrated energy and chemicals company. The Company mines coal in South Africa and produce natural gas and condensate in Mozambique, oil in Gabon and shale gas in Canada. The company is based in Sandton, South Africa. SHORE SYSTEMS: Farez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Farez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shore Systems Inc. and Christopher Guido, Defendant, Case 21-cv-05114 (E.D. N.Y., September 14, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide commercial computer repair and surveillance installation services where Farez was employed as a field technician from March 2019 until March 16, 2020. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime and was denied wage statements, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel. (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com mfarnworth@romerolawny.com SONG OF THE SON: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JULIO REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONG OF THE SON, INC. d/b/a THE MEAT BROS KOREAN BBQ, JEONG YOOK CORP. d/b/a JEONG YOOK KOREAN BBQ, and JAE YONG SON, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-17109 (D.N.J., Sep. 17, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Song of the Son, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that owns, operates, and does business as "The Meat Bros Korean BBQ" in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Mr. Reyes was employed by the Defendants as a meat cutter and preparer at the restaurants from approximately November 2015 until on or about November 3, 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com SOUTH STATE BANK: Faces Suit Over Improper Bank Transaction Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA MCKENNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH STATE BANK, N.A., formally known as CENTERSTATE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-017263 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Sept. 13, 2021) is an action alleging of the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable assessment of Foreign Transaction Fees ("FT Fees"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's practice breached the express terms of the contracts, the "Account Documents" because at no time did the Defendant inform consumers that they were susceptible to incurring FT Fees on any transaction made under any circumstance. The Defendant promised to only charge those fees it set forth in its Fee Schedule. The Defendant's failure to disclose the existence of FT Fees constitutes an express breach of contract, says the suit. SOUTH STATE BANK, N.A.provides a full range of commercial banking services for retail and institutional customers. The Bank offers consumer loans, commercial loans, mortgage loans, deposit products, internet banking, and treasury services. [BN] STATE FARM: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Moffit Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Marsha Moffit; Dennis Bradford; Emily Butler; Martin Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1044 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting State Farm's motion to dismiss. During the time that Vehicle Owners Marsha Moffit, Dennis Bradford, Emily Butler, and Martin Davis were insured by State Farm, State Farm used a computer-generated vehicle valuation report to determine cash settlement amounts for the Vehicle Owners' automobiles' total losses. The Vehicle Owners filed suit in Arkansas state court on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. They alleged that State Farm had violated Arkansas Insurance Rule 43, which governs loss settlements, and had thereby committed fraud in the inducement, had breached their contracts, had acted in bad faith, and had engaged in an unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code Section 4-88-107(a)(10). After removing the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act, State Farm moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It argued that the Arkansas law, pursuant to which Rule 43 was promulgated does not provide a private right of action for a violation of its provisions. The district court agreed and dismissed the claims, determining that because existing precedent makes clear that Rule 43 duties run to Arkansas, not to the insured, there can be no private right of action for violations of the Rule. After reviewing de novo, citing Dalton v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 695 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review), and without in any manner expressing any disagreement with the district court's analysis and conclusion, the Eighth Circuit rests its affirmance on different grounds. The Eighth Circuit explains that as promulgated by the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner, Section 10 of Rule 43 states that "when the insurance policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first party automobile total losses on the basis of actual cash value or replacement with another of like kind and quality," the insurer must follow one of three settlement methods. The first method entails the providing of a replacement automobile. The second method entails the paying of a cash settlement for the automobile's actual cost, as determined by either the "cost of a comparable automobile in the local market area" or the cost as calculated by quotations from two or more local dealers. The final method is as follows: When a first party automobile total loss is settled on a basis which deviates from the [first two] methods, the deviation must be supported by documentation giving particulars of the automobile's condition. Any deductions from such cost, including deduction for salvage, must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount and will be appropriate in amount. The basis for such settlement will be fully explained to the first party claimant. In the case, State Farm paid cash for the Vehicle Owners' total losses on the basis of computer-generated valuation reports, and so it argues that the claims were properly settled pursuant to Section 10(a)(3) of Rule 43. The Vehicle Owners argue that State Farm was required to justify why it did not use the cash settlement method prescribed by Section 10(a)(2) of Rule 43. Section 10(a)(3) does not require insurers to justify their deviation from the methods prescribed in Section 10(a)(2), however. Rather, the Rule requires only that insurers thoroughly document any value deductions when they deviate from Sections 10(a)(1) and (2). The Eighth Circuit holds that State Farm's valuation reports, which are attached to the Vehicle Owners' complaint, clearly set forth the itemized deductions and additions in compliance with Section 10(a)(3). The reports likewise fully explained the basis for the final settlement amounts. State Farm's settlement practice thus complied with Section 10(a)(3) of Rule 43. The Vehicle Owners' claims rely in their entirety on allegations that State Farm failed to comply with Rule 43's settlement procedures. Because the Eighth Circuit concludes that these allegations demonstrate no such error, the Vehicle Owners have failed to state any claim. The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2c5w5f4t from Leagle.com. STEMCYTE INC: Faces Steinberg Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREG STEINBERG, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. STEMCYTE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00040073-CU-OECTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., September 20, 2021) alleges that Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were denied the benefits and protections of the Labor Code due to Defendants' institutionalized pay practices and standard as to all of Defendants' California-based employees. The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees compliant expense reimbursement payments, failed to provide all wages earned and unpaid at termination, and failed to provide non-discretionary bonus compensation. The Plaintiff commenced working for the Defendant in March 2008. StemCyte Inc. operates as an umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation and therapeutic products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Jason A. Baluarte, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com jason@sullivanlawgroupapc.com STRATA EQUITY: South Carolina Court Tosses Zito Suit W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Sarah Zito; Alvaro Sarmiento, Jr.; Mark Shinn; and Daniel Bermudez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Strata Equity Group, Inc. n/k/a Strata Equity Global, Inc.; Strata Audubon, LLC; Strata Veridian, LLC; Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC; Wendi Dami-Vazquez; Jacinta Williams; and Conservice, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3808-BHH (D.S.C.), Judge Bruce H. Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, grants the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss and dismisses the case without prejudice based on the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Background The Plaintiffs filed the proposed class action in the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants Strata Equity Group, Inc., now known as Strata Equity Global, Inc. ("Strata Equity"); Strata Audubon, LLC; Strata Veridian, LLC (collectively referred to as "Strata Defendants"); Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC; Wendi Dami-Vazquez; Jacinta Williams; and Conservice, LLC. In their proposed class action complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants provide water and sewer services to their tenants, including the Plaintiffs, through a patently unfair and illegal allocation formula, and that Defendants are liable because they act as a regulated public utility but charge rates not approved by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. The Plaintiffs' complaint includes claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; (3) violation of S.C. Code Ann. Section 58-5-370; (4) negligence; (5) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit; (6) violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act ("SCUTPA"); (7) declaratory judgment; and (8) injunctive relief. According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, Strata Audubon owns and leases the Audubon Park Apartments in Berkeley County, South Carolina—a property consisting of 13 apartment buildings and more than 250 apartments -- and Plaintiffs Zito and Sarmiento lease or leased an Audubon apartment. Similarly, Strata Veridian owns and leases the "Grove Apartments" in Spartanburg County, South Carolina -- a property consisting of 13 buildings and more than 175 apartments -- and Plaintiffs Shinn and Bermudez lease or leased a Veridian apartment. The Plaintiffs assert that Strata Equity owns, controls, and directs Strata Audubon and Strata Veridian, and that Pinnacle manages the Audubon and Veridian apartments for the Strata Defendants. They further assert that Conservice, through a contract with the Strata Defendants, calculates and bills tenants at the Audubon and Veridian apartments for water and sewer services. The lease entered into between Strata Audubon and Zito and Sarmiento includes a "Utility and Services Addendum," which provides that water and sewer utilities would be billed according to an allocation formula rate based on the number of persons residing in the apartment. Similarly, the leases entered into between Strata Veridian and Plaintiffs Shinn and Bermudez include a "Utility and Services Addendum," which provides that water and sewer utilities would be billed according to an allocation formula rate based on a combination of the square footage of the apartment unit and the number of persons residing in the apartment unit. The Plaintiffs state that they "brought the action asserting the Defendants are liable because they act as a regulated utility but charge rates and fees not approved by the Public Service Commission, breached their duties to them and the tenants by charging an inaccurate and unfair rate, engaged in an unfair practice by charging an inaccurate and unfair rate, and were unjustly enriched by tenants' payment of the rates and fees." Defendant Pinnacle removed the case to the Court on Oct. 29, 2020, and on Nov. 30, 2020, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The same day, Defendant Pinnacle also filed a separate motion to dismiss raising additional grounds for dismissal. The Plaintiffs filed responses in opposition to the Defendants' motions, and the Defendants filed replies. A Analysis In their joint motion to dismiss, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' complaint "attempts to end-run the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, which regulates water and sewer utilities in South Carolina." According to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' complaint is procedurally improper because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their exclusive administrative remedies before the Commission. Additionally, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' complaint is substantively improper because the Commission previously rejected the argument that apartment complexes function as public utilities. In response to the Defendants' joint motion, the Plaintiffs admit that "the Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction, subject to judicial review, to determine the reasonable rates and standards of regulated utilities in South Carolina." However, the Plaintiffs assert that the Commission does not have "the exclusive jurisdiction to interpret South Carolina law on when an entity is a regulated activity." According to them, therefore, the Court can interpret the language of South Carolina's utility law without the Commission first hearing the issue, although the Plaintiffs also assert that the Commission has already determined that entities engaged in the allocation formula method of providing services to tenants -- such as the Defendants -- qualify as public utilities under S.C. Code Section 58-5-10(4). Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that even if the Commission needs to first hear any issues involved in the case, the Court should stay the case rather than dismiss it. With respect to the Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the Plaintiffs contend that there are no available administrative remedies and that, regardless, any administrative remedies are not exclusive. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that even if Defendants are correct that they are not public utilities under South Carolina's utility law, dismissal of the complaint is not warranted because the complaint includes claims that do not depend on whether Defendants are public utilities. After review, Judge Hendricks is not convinced by any of the Plaintiffs' arguments. As an initial matter, the Judge notes that the Plaintiffs' final argument (that the complaint includes claims that do not depend on whether the Defendants are public utilities) is contrary to their own assertion that "the main thrust of the Plaintiffs' claims is that by providing water and sewerage to tenants, charging for that water and sewerage using an allocation formula method, and then adding fees to the charge, the Defendants became a regulated public utility who must receive a certificate from the Commission and have the water and sewerage rates and any fees approved by the Commission." Stated differently, it is clear to Judge Hendricks that the basis of all of the Plaintiffs' claims, at least as they are currently pleaded, is the assertion that the Defendants charged unauthorized and unreasonable rates as public utilities, in violation of South Carolina's utility law. Specifically: (1) the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants breached the leases by charging unlawful water and sewer costs under South Carolina's utility law; (2) the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act by charging water and sewer costs and fees in violation of South Carolina's utility law; (3)the Plaintiffs specifically seek a penalty for unlawful water and sewer rates under South Carolina's utility law, namely, S.C. Code Section 58-5-37; (4) the Plaintiffs claim Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to provide water and sewer only at rates approved by the Commission, as required by South Carolina's utility law; (5) the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by charging them water and sewer rates that were not approved by the Commission, in violation of South Carolina's utility law; (6) the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants violated SCUTPA by charging water and sewer rates in violation of South Carolina's utility law, which the Plaintiffs allege is an unfair trade practice; (7) the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants charged them water and sewer rates in violation of South Carolina's utility law and that the Defendants were required to submit such rates to the Commission before charging the Plaintiffs; and (8) the Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief related to the Defendants' alleged violation of South Carolina's utility law. Thus, Judge Hendricks finds that all of the Plaintiffs' claims depend on whether the Defendants are public utilities under South Carolina's utility law, and it appears that the Plaintiffs are merely attempting to disguise their claims for violation of South Carolina's utility law as ordinary tort claims and claims under other South Carolina statutes. However, the Judge agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs may not do so, because South Carolina's utility law provides exclusive administrative remedies to the Plaintiffs and does not provide for a private right of action. Moreover, Judge Hendricks holds that contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertion that any administrative remedies would not be exclusive, there is nothing in the plain language of the statute or the legislative history to indicate that the General Assembly also intended to create a private right of action. Importantly, he says, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of South Carolina's utility law; rather, they assert that the Defendants' actions violate South Carolina's utility law, and the Judge finds that the wrongs that Plaintiffs allege are precisely the types of claims that the available administrative remedies were designed to address. Although the Plaintiffs may be dissatisfied with the available administrative remedies, Judge Hendricks finds that their dissatisfaction does not excuse them from first exhausting the remedies. Thus, the Judge agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs' complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Judge Hendricks grants the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss and dismisses the case without prejudice based on the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dyxkwndd from Leagle.com. T-MOBILE USA: Faces Glinoga Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK GLINOGA; JAMES SMITH; JENNIFER STEPHENS; CHARLES POPP; RUDOLPH WINN; STEPHANIE MILLER; KARLA WILLIAMS, and CHRIS JARVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01245 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant relating to its failure to protect the confidential information of millions of current, former, and prospective T-Mobile customers. According to the complaint, on August 17, 2021, the Defendant confirmed that its systems were subject to a cyberattack that compromised data of millions of their current, former, and prospective customers (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant confirmed that the data accessed included customers' first and last names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and driver's license/ID information (the "Private Information"). The Plaintiffs and class members have suffered irreparable harm and are now subject to an increased risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive Private Information stolen here and the fact that the compromised Private Information is already being sold on the dark web. This risk constitutes a concrete injury suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class, as they no longer have control over their Private Information, which is now in the hands of third-party cybercriminals, the suit alleges. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com -and- Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO: Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON CORDOVA-GONZALEZ, et. al. on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO, INC., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01617-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case to proceed as a "collective action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) defining the collective as: "All hourly workers employed on a scaffold, lath and/or plaster crew by T.W. Lath-N-Stucco, Inc. at any time between June 14, 2018 and the present"; 2. approving the Notice and Consent to Join form; 3. approving distribution of condensed text message notice stating: TW Lath-N-Stucco, Inc. Minimum Wage & Overtime Lawsuit: TW records show that you provided services to TW and may be eligible to join this lawsuit. Click below for more information" and containing links to electronic versions of the approved Notice and Consent to Join Form; and authorizing the collection of electronic signatures; 4. directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent to Join form to all potential collective action members via first-class U.S. Mail, text message and email within 30 days after the Court's Order; 5. directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous places in their place of business for a period of 60 days; 6. directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, with two consecutive pay checks issued to all putative collective action members currently employed by Defendants; 7. directing the Defendants to produce the names, postal and email addresses, and telephone numbers of all potential class members within 14 days of the Court's order so that Plaintiff may disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; 8. directing the putative class members shall have 60 days from the date Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which to opt-in to the action; and 9. equitably tolling the statute of limitations applicable to each opt-in Plaintiff's FLSA claims, as of the September 17, 2021 filing of this motion. This action arises from the Defendants' employment of the named Plaintiffs and others to perform manual labor in their Colorado Springs-based stucco business. The Plaintiffs are low-wage, immigrant workers who allege that Defendants failed to pay them and other members of alleged classes minimum and overtime wages required by state and federal law. The Pertinent to this motion, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et. seq. for several reasons: (1) Defendants failed to pay for compensable waiting time, preparatory time and travel time before Plaintiffs arrived at the remote worksite where they would perform stucco work on a given day; and (2) Defendants required Plaintiffs and others to purchase tools, which Defendant required to perform work for T.W. Lath-N-Stucco, out-of-pocket at the workers' expense. T.W. Lath-N-Stucco, Inc. was founded in 1987. The company's line of business includes providing concrete works, including portland cement and asphalt. A copy of the Plainitff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CJpPuW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 1490 Lafayette St. No. 304 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303)-305-8230 E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com TEMPORARY HOUSING: Yutze Sues Over Residence Specialists' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tonna Yutze, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Temporary Housing, Inc. d/b/a CRS Temporary Housing, Christopher Hunter and Jane Doe Hunter, a married couple, and Tim McMullan and Jane Doe McMullan, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01606-MTL (D. Ariz., Sept. 17, 2021) is a class action seeking equitable relief, overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendants who worked as a residence specialist from approximately September 2019 through approximately February 2020. Temporary Housing, Inc., d/b/a CRS Temporary Housing, is a third-party temporary housing company headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, that facilitates the location and acquisition of temporary housing for insured individuals impacted by disasters that make their home uninhabitable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com TIAA BANK: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in DeSimone Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DeSimone, et al., Plaintiffs v. TIAA Bank, FSB, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-6492 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted: (i) the Defendant's motion to dismiss certain claims as time-barred; (ii) the Defendant's motion to compel certain claims to arbitration; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective. Background The Plaintiffs, who are former and current mortgage loan officers, bring claims against the Defendant bank for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and various state laws. Named Plaintiffs Nicholas DeSimone, Patrick Gardner, Mohammad Hussain, Paul Malstrom, Stephen Gallagher, Craig Paladeau, and Cory Benner bring claims against Defendant TIAA Bank, FSB on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. The Plaintiffs were employed as Retail Loan Officers in various states and performed the functions of originating and producing residential mortgage loans from Defendant TIAA Bank. They allege that the Defendant misclassified them as "outside sales" employees who were exempt from overtime pay and failed to pay them for overtime hours worked. Before the action was filed, a related case Lesser v. TIAA Bank, FSB, 1:19-cv-01707-AJN (S.D.N.Y.) was filed in the Court on Feb. 22, 2019. The complaint in that case contained nearly identical allegations under the FLSA and the laws of New York and New Jersey to the complaint that would later be filed in the instant case. On Oct. 20, 2020, the Court approved a settlement in Lesser and dismissed the case with prejudice. Prior to that settlement approval, on Aug. 14, 2020, named Plaintiffs DeSimone, Gardner, Hussain, and Malstrom filed the complaint in the matter against the Defendant alleging wage and overtime claims under the FLSA and the laws of New Jersey (DeSimone), New York (Hussain), California (Gardner), and Maryland (Malstrom). After the Defendant filed an initial motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in the case, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 29, 2020, which is now the operative complaint. The Amended Complaint added named Plaintiffs Gallagher, Paladeau, and Benner. In addition to FLSA claims, the added named plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of Pennsylvania (Gallagher), Washington (Paladeau), and Oregon (Benner). The Defendant then filed a partial motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, in which it argues that certain state law claims of certain plaintiffs are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. It also filed a motion to compel arbitration with respect to certain claims. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. These motions are fully briefed. Discussion I. Motion to Dismiss The Defendants move to dismiss claims on the grounds that they are untimely. First, the Defendant argues that the statute of limitations period for the New Jersey and Oregon claims is two years instead of six. Additionally, it argues that, other than for the Plaintiffs' New York and New Jersey claims, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint improperly asserts that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs state law claims were tolled by the filing of Lesser. Judge Nathan concludes that the statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs' New Jersey and Oregon claims is two years, and that the statute of limitations for their state law claims other than New York and New Jersey were not tolled until the date they asserted those claims in the case. Further, the Plaintiffs' speculative equitable tolling argument is insufficient to preclude dismissal of their claims that are clearly time-barred from the face of the complaint. Therefore, Judge Nathan holds that Plaintiff DeSimone's claims for unpaid wages prior to Feb. 22, 2017, i.e., two years preceding the filing of the Lesser lawsuit, are dismissed as time barred. Plaintiff Gardner's claims for unpaid wages prior to Aug. 14, 2016, i.e., four years preceding the date of the filing of his claims in the instant case, are dismissed as time barred. Plaintiff Malstrom's claims for unpaid wages prior to Aug. 14, 2017, i.e., three years preceding the date of the filing of his claims in the case, are dismissed as time barred. Plaintiff Gallagher and Paladeau's claims for unpaid wages prior to Oct. 20, 2017, i.e., three years preceding the date of the filing of their claims in the case, are dismissed as time barred. And finally, Plaintiff Benner's claims for unpaid wages prior to Oct. 20, 2018, i.e., two years prior to the filing of his claims in the case, are dismissed as time barred. II. Motion to Compel Arbitration The Defendant moves to compel arbitration of the claims of named Plaintiffs Gardner, Hussein, and Benner, as well as any putative class or opt-in plaintiffs, that pre-date Dec. 1, 2016. According to the Defendant, these Plaintiffs were subject to valid and enforceable arbitration agreements up until that date. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration by pursuing litigation in the Court and that the motion to compel should be denied on the merits. Judge Nathan holds that the Defendant has not waived its right to compel arbitration and that the Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate their claims. She says, the Defendants have demonstrated that an agreement was formed and the Plaintiffs have failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on that issue. Moreover, the fact that the agreement contains provisions requiring arbitration in Florida and referencing the AAA Commercial Rules does not render the agreement unconscionable or prevent the Plaintiffs from vindicating their FLSA claims. III. Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective The Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for current and former Retail Loan Officers, Branch Sales Managers, and Retail Sales Managers. Judge Nathan holds that conditional certification is appropriate for the Plaintiffs who worked as RLOs. The Judge will not include Branch Sales Manager or Retail Sales Manager in the conditional collective. Moreover, she says, the Plaintiffs are not permitted to send the proposed notice to individuals whose claims would be time-barred but for equitable tolling. Conclusion For the reasons she discussed in her Opinion, Judge Nathan granted the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss certain claims as time-barred and its motion to compel arbitration. The Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective. The Opinion resolves Dkt. Nos. 39, 59, 70, 83, 94 and 111. The Judge ruled on the Defendant's "Motion to Cease and Desist" with an oral ruling at the conference on Dec. 9, 2020, and Dkt. No. 48 is therefore resolved. The parties are to confer on a proposed notice and within two weeks of the Opinion and they will jointly submit the proposal to the Court for approval. At the same time, the parties will provide the Court with an update on the status of discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tdddmd7u from Leagle.com. TIMOTHY WARD: Middleton Files Suit in M.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy Ward. The case is styled as JOHNELL MIDDLETON, JACORI HODGES, COREY HOLBROOKS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY WARD, Georgia Department of Corrections; AHMED HOLT, Assistant Commissioner at the Georgia Department of Corrections; ROBERT TOOLE, Field Operations Director, Georgia Department of Corrections; STAN SHEPARD, Southeast Regional Director, Georgia Department of Corrections; JACK SAULS, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services Division, Georgia Department of Corrections; IOANNIS IOANNOU, Statewide Mental Health Director, Georgia Department of Corrections; WARDEN TREVONZA BOBBITT, Georgia State Prison; DEPUTY WARDEN CHARLES SPINN, Security, Georgia State Prison; DEPUTY WARDEN JOSH WICKER, Security, Georgia State Prison; DEIDRA EDWARDS, Deputy Warden of Care and Treatment, Georgia State Prison; VIKKI IRWIN, Deputy Warden of Administration, Georgia State Prison; JUANITA SHARPE, Tier II Program Unit Manager, Georgia State Prison; Case No. 5:21-cv-00334-MTT (M.D. Ga., Sept. 21, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner: Prison Condition for Prisoner: Prison Condition Prisoner Civil Rights. Timothy C. Ward was appointed by Governor Brian P. Kemp as the Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Corrections on February 18, 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ALISON GANEM RYAN PRIMERANO 60 WALTON ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 688-1202 Email: aganem@schr.org rprimerano@schr.org UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Sues for Discrimination, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SAMBRANO, DAVID CASTILLO, KIMBERLY HAMILTON, DEBRA JENNEFER THAL JONAS, GENISE KINCANNON, and SETH TURNBOUGH, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex., Sept. 21, 2021) is a class action brought to remedy United's pattern of discrimination against employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from United's mandate that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the complaint, rather than complying with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, United responded by informing the requesting employees that they would be effectively terminated. The Defendant's alleged actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing their livelihoods. In doing so, United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity, says the suit. Plaintiff Sambrano and Castillo are employed by the Defendant as a captain and as an aircraft technician, respectively. United Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Sullivan, Esq. S L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com - and - Robert C. Wiegand, Esq. Melissa J. Swindle, Esq. STEWART WIEGAND & OWENS PC 325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 3750 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 899-9800 Facsimile: (469) 899-9810 E-mail: bob.wiegand@swolegal.com Melissa.swindle@swolegal.com - and - Mark R. Paoletta, Esq. Gene C. Schaerr, Esq. Brian J. Field, Esq. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Esq. Annika M. Boone, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE LLP 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 787-1060 Facsimile: (202) 776-0136 E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Ruling in Huisha-huisha Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alejandro N. Mayorkas, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al. v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs are six families that fled their countries to seek asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection in the United States. All face summary expulsion pursuant to unlawful Title 42 Process, without any hearing or access to the protections to which they should be entitled under immigration laws. The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 16, 2021, granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Huisha-huisha, et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 21-5200, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on Sept. 17, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; William A. Ferrara, Executive Assistant Commissioner, CBP Office of Field Operations, in his official capacity; Raul L. Ortiz, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, in his official capacity; Troy Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in his official capacity; Tae Johnson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; and Rochelle P. Walensky, Dr., Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in her official capacity, are represented by: Sharon Swingle, Esq. Joshua Paul Waldman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 Plaintiffs-Appellees Nancy Gimena Huisha-huisha and her minor child L.M.C.H.; Valeria Macancela Bermejo and her minor daughter B.A.M.M.; Josaine Pereira-De Souza and her minor children H.N.D.S., E.R.P.D.S., M.E.S.D.S. and H.T.D.S.D.S., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Martha Liliana Taday-Acosta and her minor children, D.J.Z., J.A.Z.; Julien Thomas and Fidette Boute, and their minor children, D.J.T.-B., T.J.T.-B.; Romilus Valcourt and Bedapheca Alcante, and their minor child, B.V.-A., are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2400 Telephone: (212) 549-2607 UNITED STATES: Deadlines for Summary Judgment, Class Cert Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASA MOSSMAN, et al., v. UNITED STATES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, et al., Case No. 21-CV-28-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order granting defendants' motion to stay in its entirety that is, both the deadlines for summary judgment and class certification, pending disposition of the pending motion to dismiss. All other deadlines will remain in place for the present time. Thus, by way of clarification the Court grants defendants' motion to stay in its entirety, says Judge Williams. 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 Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EOvCRL at no extra charge.[CC] VACATION EXPERTS: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vacation Experts International, LLC. The case is styled as Leonel Costa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Vacation Experts International, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01265-AVC (D. Conn., Sept. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vacation Experts International, LLC -- http://www.vacationvision.com/-- is located in Sevierville, Tennessee and is part of the Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYNISHA JACKSON, DAVID CREVELING, MARY HANS, and GREG AIKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-02524-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA): The FDCPA Class consists of: "All persons who: i) were issued a loan in Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without the prior written approval of the Department; and iii) were sued by Velocity on the loan on or after May 4, 2019, paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly, on the loan on or after May 4, 2019, or were otherwise contacted by Velocity on the loan on or after May 4, 2019;" 2. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue claims under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA): The FCEUA Class consists of: "All persons who: i) were issued a loan in Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without the prior written approval of the Department; and iii) paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly, on or after May 4, 2018, or paid or incurred attorneys' fees or expenses on or after May 4, 2018, to defend against any attempt by Velocity to collect the loan;" 3. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL): The UTPCPL Class consists of: "All persons who: i) were issued a loan in Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without the prior written approval of the Department; and iii) paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly, on or after May 4, 2014, or paid or incurred attorneys' fees or expenses on or after May 4, 2014, to defend against any attempt by Velocity to collect the loan;" 4. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue restitution for Unjust Enrichment and violations of the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA): The Restitution Class consists of: "All persons who: i) were issued a loan in Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without the prior written approval of the Department; and iii) paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly, on or after May 4, 2016;" 5. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief: The Collection Class consists of: "All persons who: i) were issued a loan in Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without the prior written approval of the Department; and iii) did not pay the loan in full, or did not discharge the loan by way of settlement, judgment, bankruptcy, or otherwise;" 6. appointing them as class representatives for the classes; and 7. appointing Kevin Abramowicz and Kevin Tucker of East End Trial Group LLC, Brian Flick and Marc Dann of DannLaw, and Joseph Adams of the Law Offices of Joseph M. Adams as Class Counsel for the classes. Velocity Investments is a comprehensive accounts receivables management (ARM) company. A copy of the Plainitffs' motion to certify classes dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZBq3Gj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com - and - Marc Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Joseph M. Adams, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. ADAMS 200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211A Chalfont, PA 18914 Telephone: (215) 996-9977 Facsimile: (215) 996-9111 E-mail: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net VI-JON LLC: Court Enters Case Management Order in Macormic Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC HOWARD, CONNOR HENRICHS, and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered a case management order that: 1. The case has been assigned to Track 3 (Complex). 2. All motions for joinder of additional parties or amendment of pleadings were made by January 21, 2022. 3. Disclosure shall proceed in the following manner: (a) The parties are to make all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. by December 31, 2021. (b) Plaintiff shall disclose all class certification expert witnesses and shall provide the reports required no later than February 18, 2022. (c) Defendant shall disclose all class certification expert witnesses and shall provide the reports required no later than April 18, 2022. (d) Plaintiff shall disclose all class certification rebuttal experts and shall provide the reports no later than May 18, 2022. (e) The presumptive limits of ten (10) depositions per side as set forth in Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., and twenty-five (25) interrogatories per party as set forth in Rule 33(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall apply. A limitation of fifty (50) requests for production per side shall apply. (f) The parties shall complete all class discovery in this case no later than June 27, 2022. (g) Motions to compel shall be pursued in a diligent and timely manner, but in no event filed more than eleven (11) days following the discovery deadline set out above. 4. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than February 18, 2022. Opposition briefs shall be filed no later than April 18, 2022, and any reply brief may be filed no later than May 18, 2022. In the event a class certification motion is filed prior to the above specified date, the opposing party shall file a response 21 days after the filing of the class certification motion. A reply may be filed within seven days of the filing of the response. 5. An updated Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan is to be submitted by the parties within 10 days of the Court's certification ruling. Failure to comply with any part of this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EY3ueW at no extra charge.[CC] VOLTAGE PICTURES: Federal Ct. of Appeals Reopened Infringement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- bereskinparr.com reports that Naomi Zener, Tamara Celine Winegust and Mitchel Fleming at bereskinparr.com reports that the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has re-opened the door for copyright owners to seek remedies against a class of defendants for their direct infringing behaviour based on the identification of IP addresses from which the infringing activity occurred. In Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2021 FCA 176 ("Voltage"), Justice Rennie, on behalf of the Court, set aside a 2019 decision of the Federal Court (FC) in Voltage Pictures, LLC v Salna 2019 FC 1412, which declined to certify a proposed "reverse class-action" for copyright infringement over a BitTorrent network. Of particular note, the FCA decision permits the rights holders to advance the novel claim that users of BitTorrent sites have "authorized infringement" through the use of that technology. Moreover, it leaves open the possibility of rights holders using the "notice-and-notice" regime to have ISPs send litigation updates to customers identified as defendants in the proceeding (the regime provides Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with a defence to copyright infringement claims alleged to have occurred on their services where the ISP has been notified of the infringement and passed that notice to the alleged infringer). While the Federal Court rejected the plan as overburdening ISPs and appropriating Parliament's intentions with the regime, the FCA found such conclusions "premature and speculative"1 as it required an exercise in statutory interpretation that the Lower Court did not conduct. From a copyright perspective, the Appeal decision confirms that "reverse class actions" remain a viable enforcement tool for copyright owners to address infringement by thousands of individual acts made by thousands of individual actors, but where the relief available against a single infringement/infringer may not justify investing the resources necessary for litigation. Interestingly, the Court's comments suggest reverse class-actions may also be beneficial for defendants who, if able to distribute fees related to mounting a defence among the class members, may be more inclined to obtain a decision on the merits. In this way, the decision appears to recognize concerns raised by policymakers, rights holders, and users since the inception of the public internet in the late 1990s -- how to best and most fairly permit copyright owners to seek compensation when their rights are violated while acknowledging that the proliferation of internet-connected digital devices can facilitate unchecked reproduction of copyright works by any user. Background The Plaintiffs (Voltage Pictures and other production companies) sought certification of a class of defendants whom, they alleged, violated the Plaintiffs' copyright in certain motion pictures that were being uploaded to and downloaded from the internet by thousands of users of BitTorrent websites. The Plaintiffs advanced claims for both direct infringement and secondary infringement, as well as that the defendant's actions "authorized infringement". The Plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the defendant class with Mr. Salna as the representative defendant. The Federal Court denied certification. In the decision, discussed here, the Lower Court found the Plaintiffs failed to show any of the five criteria for certifying a class proceeding under Rule 334.16(1)2 of the Federal Courts Rules were met. Of particular focus for the Court were gaps in the evidence left by the Plaintiffs' forensics analysis (i.e., how they identified the defendants through IP addresses), and whether the Plaintiffs plead any proper causes of action for direct or secondary infringement. The Plaintiffs appealed, and the FCA overturned. Federal Court of Appeal Decision The Appeals Court found reversible errors in the Lower Court's rejection of each of the five certification criteria. The Appeals Court substituted its own conclusions on three of the criteria -- sufficiency of the pleadings; identifiable class; whether there are "common questions of law or fact" as between the class members -- and returned the matter to the trial division for reconsideration on the two remaining criteria -- i.e., if a class proceeding is the preferable procedures; and the existence of an appropriate lead defendant. On the first criterion -- whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action -- the FCA noted the correct approach to this criterion is to consider whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, assuming that the facts as plead are true. The Federal Court committed an error by delving into the merits of the Plaintiffs' arguments rather than simply reading the pleadings. The Plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support the claim for direct infringement, and that the proposed class members had sufficient control over their internet account and associated devices to have authorized the alleged primary infringements. Of note, with respect to the "authorizing infringement" claim, the FCA noted the Supreme Court's comments in Society of Composers, Authors & Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, that suggested an internet intermediary may attract liability for authorizing infringement in some circumstances, meant this theory of infringement could be pursued as a cause of action and considered by a judge at trial. It was "a novel but arguable claim"3. On the second criterion -- whether there is an identifiable class of two or more persons -- the FCA noted the standard applied to this criterion is low, there need only be "some basis in fact", and found the Lower Court improperly applied a higher "balance of probabilities" standard. The Appellate Court applied the correct standard and found the Plaintiffs' evidence showed the proceeding would not "collapse for want of a 'class of two or more persons"4 thus, the criterion was met. On the third criterion -- whether there are common questions of fact and law -- the FCA found the Lower Court incorrectly focused on whether the answers to the "questions in common" advanced by the Plaintiffs would be the same, rather than whether the questions themselves existed at all. The Appellate Court noted that the possibility of the misidentification of a defendant did not bar the finding of a "common question", nor did the multitude of individual factual assessments necessary when dealing with a class proceeding -- misidentification would properly be dealt with as a defence at trial, while the impact of individual fact assessments could be managed by the flexibility inherent to the Federal Court Rules, such as the creation of subclasses, and court-supervised individual assessments. For the last two criteria -- whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the just and efficient resolution of the common questions of law or fact and whether there is a suitable representative respondent -- the Appellate Court found insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether class proceedings were the preferable procedure and if Mr. Salna was a suitable representative defendant. It thus sent these questions back to the Federal Court for redetermination. Of note, the Appellate Judges highlighted that it was wrong to presume (as the Federal Court did) that the proposed representative defendant had no incentive to defend the litigation because their "worst day in court" would be capped at $5000: "[Such] logic butts against the raison d'etre of class proceedings, where it is "precisely when individual damage awards may be low that a class action becomes the preferable, and sometimes the only mechanism that truly ensures access to justice.". Stay tuned for further developments in this case as it returns to the Federal Court. 1Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC 2021 FCA 176 at 131 2(a) the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action; (b) there is an identifiable class of two or more persons; (c) the claims of the class members raise common questions of law or fact, whether or not those common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members; (d) a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the just and efficient resolution of the common questions of law or fact; and (e) there is a representative plaintiff or applicant who (i) would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, (ii) has prepared a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members as to how the proceeding is progressing, (iii) does not have, on the common questions of law or fact, an interest that is in conflict with the interests of other class members, and (iv) provides a summary of any agreements respecting fees and disbursements between the representative plaintiff or applicant and the solicitor of record. 3Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2021 FCA 176 at 83. 4Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2021 FCA 176 at 98. Content shared on Bereskin & Parr's website is for information purposes only. It should not be taken as legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please contact a Bereskin & Parr LLP professional. We will be pleased to help you.[GN] WAWA INC: Settles Class Action Over 2019 Data Security Incident --------------------------------------------------------------- Wawa and a group of consumers announced a settlement of litigation stemming from the data security incident Wawa previously announced in December of 2019. The agreement announced on Sept. 15, which is subject to Court approval, resolves all customer claims related to that data security incident, which resulted from malware being discovered on Wawa payment processing servers. The malware affected customer payment card information used at most Wawa locations beginning at different points in time after March 4, 2019 and until it was contained on December 12, 2019. Customers who used a credit or debit card at Wawa stores or fuel pumps can participate in the settlement and obtain Wawa gift cards capped at $8 million in aggregate, and cash reimbursements of out-of-pocket costs capped at $1 million in aggregate. Settlement claims can be submitted by visiting www.WawaConsumerDataSettlement.com run by KCC LLC. The settlement also requires Wawa to implement and continue to maintain significant enhancements to its data security measures. Counsel for the consumer class stated: "We feel this settlement is an excellent result for the class, providing a range of benefits to consumers. The settlement compensates three types of customers via different monetary awards - those who used their cards at Wawa and did not experience fraudulent charges on their cards and who spent time monitoring their payment card or other accounts, those who did experience fraudulent charges on their cards, and those who incurred out-of-pocket costs as a result of the data breach. The settlement also provides valuable remedial relief aimed at preventing similar breaches in the future." In response to the announced agreement, Wawa stated: "We are focused on a timely resolution for Wawa customers who may have been affected by this incident, and this settlement allows us to just do that. At Wawa, the people who come through our doors every day are not just customers, you are our friends and neighbors, and nothing is more important than honoring and protecting your trust. We can assure you that we have continued to and will work diligently to protect your information and enhance our cybersecurity resiliency." For more information, to submit a claim, or for contact information for Class Counsel, please visit www.WawaConsumerDataSettlement.com. Contact: Public.Relations@Wawa.com URL: http://www.WawaConsumerDataSettlement.com[GN] WB MAINTENANCE: Faces Fajardo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Byron Geovanny Arevalo Fajardo, Carlos Martell, Jose Gutierrez, Juan Pereyra, Iñigo Mendoza Ramirez (a/k/a Eduardo Mendoza Ramirez), Miguel Garrido, Reymundo Chavez Hernandez (a/k/a Ramon Chavez Hernandez), Richard Xavier Hernandez, and Sebastian Alfredo Espinosa Vargas (a/k/a Sebby Espinosa Vargas), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in this proposed FLSA Collective Action, v. WB Maintenance & Design Group Inc., W.B. & Son Construction Corp., Wladimir Briceno, Betty Briceno, Jeissy Briceno, and Jeimy Briceno, Case No. 1:21-cv-05236 (E.D.N.Y., September 20, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and seek 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. The Plaintiffs were employed as non-managerial employees at Defendants' maintenance and construction company in New York. WB Maintenance & Design Group Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 WELLS FARGO: Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in Bruno FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Wells Fargo Bank NA filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA BRUNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. Defendant, Case No. 2-19-cv-00587, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 21-2734, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Sept. 17, 2021. Plaintiff Sandra Bruno and Opt-In Plaintiffs (Joao Jacinto, Timothy Hollingsworth, Sharon Austin, Stanley Sobieski, William Hutchinson, and Alan DiGiovanni) (collectively, "Plaintiffs") sought collective certification of Home Mortgage Consultants who work or have worked as HMCs for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. nationwide since May 17, 2016, based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. The Defendant previously sought a review of the Court's Memorandum Order dated April 20, 2021, wherein its expedited motion to stay the deadline for production of contact information for Home Mortgage Consultants, or, alternatively, arbitration HMCs 133, was granted in part and denied in part.[BN] Defendant-Appellant WELLS FARGO BANK NA is represented by: Robert J. Carty, Jr., Esq. John P. Phillips, Esq. Timothy M. Watson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 700 Milam Street, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-0059 E-mail: twatson@seyfarth.com - and - Shelly R. Pagac, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 263-4343 E-mail: SRP@Pietragallo.com Plaintiff-Appellee SANDRA BRUNO, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, is represented by: Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq. Theodore Rostow, Esq. CHIVERS LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (718) 210-9826 - and - Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq. 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 WILMINGTON TRUST: Loses Bid to Toss Henry Suit to Arbitrate Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., BRIAN C. SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV, Defendants, C.A. No. 19-1925 (MN) (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause. Background On Oct. 10, 2019, Plaintiff Marlow Henry filed the action under Sections 404, 406, 409, 410, and 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104, 1106, 1109, 1110, and 1132(a), for purported losses suffered by the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants caused by Wilmington Trust when it caused the Plan to buy shares of BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. for more than fair market value in 2016 and other relief. The Plaintiff was an employee of BSC from January 2012 through January 2019. In 2015, BSC adopted the Plan. Since that time, the Plaintiff has been a participant in the Plan. On Jan. 14, 2016, the Plan purchased BSC common stock from Defendants Sass and Cross and others ("ESOP3 Transaction"). Wilmington Trust served as Trustee to the Plan in connection with the ESOP Transaction. It is the ESOP Transaction that is the basis for the litigation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Plan overpaid for the stock and that the ESOP Transaction was prohibited by ERISA Sections 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(a)(1)(D). The Plan is administered pursuant to a document called the "Amendment and Restatement of the BSC Acquisition Sub, LLC Profit Sharing Plan to Become A Part of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan" ("Plan Document"). Since the ESOP Transaction, BSC has amended the Plan twice. On April 21, 2017, BSC adopted Amendment Number One to the Plan Document, which added Section 14 titled "ERISA Arbitration and Class Action Waiver" ("the 2017 Arbitration Provision"). On Jan. 1, 2019, the Plan adopted "Amendment Number Two to the Plan Document" ("the 2019 Arbitration Provision). The 2019 Arbitration Provision is substantially similar to the 2017 Arbitration Provision and modified the "Covered Claims" language of the 2017 Arbitration Provision. The 2017 and the 2019 Arbitration Provisions also contain a waiver of the Plan participants' right to bring a representative action. The Class Action Waiver in both Arbitration Provisions also states: "Any dispute or issue as to the applicability or validity of this section (the 'Class Action Waiver') will be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." On Dec. 20, 2019, Defendants Wilmington Trust, N.A, Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause. The motion has been fully briefed. On Oct. 23, 2020, the Court heard argument. Discussion A. Plaintiff's Constitutional Standing To have standing, the Plaintiff "must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest" that he "has the right he claims (in the case, the right to jurisdiction), rather than facts that are merely consistent with such a right." That is, the Plaintiff must identify a concrete and particularized injury with adequate specificity. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff lacks standing because he does not allege sufficient facts to support a plausible inference of harm. They assert that the Plaintiff alleges that the ESOP "paid too much," but offers no facts to support that conclusion. Judge Noreika disagrees. Broadly read, the Judge opines that the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges sufficient facts. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he held BSC stock in his individual account in the Plan, has a vested interest in that stock, and the value of the stock in his account was diminished due to Defendants' ERISA violations in the stock purchase transaction that caused the Plan to pay too much for the stock and caused fewer shares to be allocated to the Plaintiff. These allegations, taken together and accepted as true, are sufficient to establish the Plaintiff's standing. B. The Plan's Arbitration Provisions The Plan does not speak to whether a court or arbitrator should decide the scope of the Arbitration Provisions. Absent a clear delegation clause reserving scope determinations to the arbitrator, the Court must decide whether the claims in the Complaint are covered by an agreement to arbitrate. In doing so, the Court must consider two questions: "(1) 'whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all' (i.e., its enforceability), and (2) 'whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy' (i.e., its scope)." The Plaintiff does not dispute the second prong -- that his claims are within the scope of the Arbitration Provisions. That leaves the first prong -- whether the Arbitration Provisions are valid. As to that issue, there are two disputes (1) whether the Arbitration Provisions are invalid because the Plaintiff did not agree to them and (2) whether the Class Action Waiver is invalid because it disallows plan-wide relief for claims under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. Section1132(a)(2)) and thus is "contrary congressional command." 1. Consent to the Arbitration Provisions Henry argues that the arbitration provision is not valid because he never gave voluntary and knowing consent. Under the FAA, "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." The Defendants assert that Henry consented to the arbitration provision by continuing to remain employed at the Company after the provision was adopted. Judge Noreika finds that enry started employment at BSC in January 2012, before BSC adopted the ERISA plan in January 2015. It is unclear whether notice was provided to any of the Plan participants when the Plan later adopted the arbitration provision in 2017. Henry, however, asserts that the first time he learned of the arbitration clause was "after he filed the lawsuit." He asserts that he was never asked to sign an agreement with BSC or anyone else regarding the arbitration clause. He contends he also never received any notice about the arbitration clause around the time it was adopted (or ever). The facts at this stage of proceedings, Judge Noreika holds, plausibly support Henry's assertion that he did not have notice and therefore did not have the necessary intent to manifest assent. 2. Class Action Waiver Having found that the Court cannot dismiss in favor of arbitration pending determination as to whether the Plaintiff provided the requisite consent, the Class Action Waiver (which is part of the Arbitration Provision) also cannot be enforced at this time. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Noreika denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause. An appropriate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/unj3dhwk from Leagle.com. David A. Felice -- dfelice@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Ryan T. Jenny -- rjenny@baileyglasser.com -- Patrick O. Muench, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Washington, DC; Daniel Feinberg -- dan@feinbergjackson.com -- Todd Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP, in Berkeley, California -- Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Albert H. Manwaring -- amanwaring@morrisjames.com -- Kristen A. Zeberkiewicz -- kzeberkiewicz@morrisjames.com -- MORRIS JAMES LLP; Michael J. Prame, Sarah M. Adams, Elizabeth L. Woods, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, in Washington, D.C. -- Attorneys for Defendant Wilmington Trust, N.A. Art C. Arnailla -- acaranilla@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware; Mark A. Nebrig, Kristen J. Kenley, MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC, in Charlotte, North Carolina -- Attorneys for Defendants Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV. ********* 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 ***