/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211015.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 201 Headlines ADIDAS AMERICA: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Remanded to California State Court AFFINITY WHOLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kovach Suit Claims AGRANA FRUIT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Entered AMERICAHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls AMPLIFY ENERGY: Quality Sea Food Sues Over Oil Spill ANADARKO E & P: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of UP Strip Landowners ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina, et al., Seek to Certify Class ARGENT TRUST: Robertson Sues to Remedy ERISA Violations ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Francavillas Seek to Certify Class Action AXEL PROTECTION: Jalil Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages BETH BERRY: ACCI Seeks Extension to File Petition for Review BETTER MORTGAGE: Seeks Denial of Dominguez Class Status Bid BLOOM ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hunt Securities Class Suit BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Suit Gets Conditional Certification CARMAX AUTO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California CASH ADVANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit CHULA VISTA INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Sartin Suit COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Class Certification Reply Due Oct. 25 CONTAINER STORE: Cervantes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Pit Row Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Affirmed COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Underway COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Related Class Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora and Umadat Class Suits Underway CREDIT BUREAU: Myers Seeks to Certify Class Action CREE INC: Wedra Seeks Certification of Class Action D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Benson Sues Over Misleading Statement DELAVAL INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses DIRECT OFFICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Souza Suit Says DONNA KARAN: Dahlin Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Coordinated Discovery Order in Barret DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Seeks to Certify Two Classes EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Sues Over False Representation ENERGAGE LLC: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Cordes Suit FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to May 6, 2022 FIRST WATCH: Love Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Minimum Wages FPI MANAGMENT: Morris Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Seeks Certification of Class Action GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Reloj Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages GROCERY OUTLET: Chavis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Kuchar Wins Class Certification Bid HEALTHY PAWS: Modification of Scheduling Order in Benanav Sought HUGO BOSS: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices IRVING K MOTOR: Class Cert. Response & Brief Filing Due Oct. 18 JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Court Enters Initial Case Management Order KEEFE GROUP: Raney Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois KROEGER CO: Castle Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin LABORATORY CORPORATION: Poole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LACY KATZEN: Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York LENDGINGCLUB CORPORATION: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Loper Suit Partly OK'd LOUISIANA: Seeks to Stay Tellis Case Pending Petition in 5th Cir. MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Chavira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes MAVERICK FIELD: Misclassifies Manual Workers, McCaig Claims METORPOLITAN LIFE: Stewart Files Suit in S.D. New York MEWBOURNE OIL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15, 2022 MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Baten Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class MIELE INC: Alcazar Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1 MRS BPO: Rosenberg Seeks to Certify Class of New York Residents NATIONAL CONSUMER: Time Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Mohammadb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NEW DAY HOME: Faces McKinsey Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages OAKLAND, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gaffett Class Suit PATRICK MEYERS: Collins Files Suit in D. Colorado PHIL LIGHTFOOT: Gomillion Files Suit in M.D. Alabama PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Seeks Decertification of Green Class Suit PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Amendment of Scheduling Order in Kohl Sought PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Bid for Class Certification Due October 29 PROBUILD COMPANY: Settlement in Sengvong Suit Wins Final Nod PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class PVH CORP: Fallenstein Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to Certify Classes SAN GABRIEL: Misclassifies Recovery Care Technicians, Forbes Says SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Device Unsafe, Blank Says STERIGENICS US: Court Junks Vallejo's First Amended Complaint TULSA INSPECTION: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mitchell Suit Claims UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Patel Suit VCG ENERGY: McCaig Seeks Foremen's Unpaid Overtime Wages WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Edgar Suit WORKDAY INC: Juster Sues Over Unauthorized Backgrounds Checks Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Alleges MRM Improperly Disposed Asbestos ********* ADIDAS AMERICA: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices --------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., an Oregon corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01686-L-LL (S.D. Cal., Sep. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on Adidas branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, Adidas America engages in a practice of false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. Adidas America is the American branch subsidiary of Adidas AG, a multinational apparel company founded and headquartered in Herzogenaurach, Germany, that designs and manufactures Adidas branded shoes, clothing, sporting goods, apparel and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Remanded to California State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIAN HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVISORS MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01048-TWR-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order: 1. granting plaintiff's motion to remand; 2. remanding action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; and 3. denying as moot defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. In his Complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant, his former employer, systematically violated California's Labor Laws and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. He brings this action on behalf of "all California citizens currently or formerly employed by Defendants as nonexempt employees in the State of California at any time between November 3, 2016 and the date of class." The Plaintiff brings seven causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide 11 periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized 12 statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and (7) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL). On June 2, 2021, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court, alleging diversity subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YHdLMB at no extra charge.[CC] AFFINITY WHOLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kovach Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTINE M. KOVACH, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFINITY WHOLE HEALTH LLC, JERRY SLOAN, and BRIAN ZEID, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01817-JG (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a medical receptionist from January 1, 2020 until February 3, 2021. The Plaintiff claims that although she routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all of the overtime she worked in excess of 40. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay her for all the work she performed during her final pay period, the Plaintiff added. Affinity Whole Health LLC provides goods and services for inter alia Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and Anti-Aging Therapy, and Injectable Vitamins and Supplements. The Individual Defendants are co-owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Green, Esq. James A. Marx, Esq. SHAPERO & GREEN, LLC Signature Square II, Suite 220 25101 Chagrin Boulevard Beachwood, OH 44122 Tel: (216) 831-5100 E-mail: bgreen@shaperolaw.com jmarx@shaperolaw.com AGRANA FRUIT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AGRANA FRUIT US, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01919 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 11, 2021), is brought challenging policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, within the last three years, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to don sanitary clothing and other protective equipment while at the Defendant's facility, but prior to clocking in at the start of their shift. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid for this time. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, as full-time employees, regularly worked 40 or more hours in a workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this Action, including donning and doffing time and associated travel. As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the last three years in its food manufacturing facility in Botkins, Ohio. The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-230-2955 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magisrtate Judge Taryn A. Merkl entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery as follows: -- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and January 19, 2022 class certification motion due by -- Deposition of Plaintiffs' class February 28, 2022 certification experts to be completed by -- Defendants' expert disclosures and March 14, 2022 opposition to class certification due by -- Deposition of Defendants' class April 4, 2022 certification experts completed by -- Plaintiff's class certification April 8, 2022 reply and expert rebuttal disclosures due by -- All discovery shall be completed by May 4, 2022 -- The deadline to initiate any April 15, 2022 dispositive motion practice in accordance with the Individual Rules of Judge Nicolas G. Garaufis is -- The parties' joint pretrial order June 8, 2022 is due by The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Allstate Insurance offers auto, home life insurances policies.[CC] AMERICAHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISABELLA BRISTOW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS, Defendant, Case No. 210901884 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., September 24, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of CHC Service Coordinator. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated CHC Service Coordinators regularly work over 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff estimates that she currently works 50-60 hours during a typical week, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, pre-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Amerihealth Caritas provides health care solutions for people who are at a low income level and/or are chronically ill. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quackenbush, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05599-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Mary Quackenbush, Anne Pellettieri, and Marissa Feeney ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following classes: -- California New Purchaser Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an authorized Honda dealer in California;" -- California Used Purchaser Class: "All persons who purchased a used Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from a Honda dealer in California, and who paid to have their VTC Actuator replaced by an authorized Honda dealer in California;" -- Illinois New Purchaser Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois;" and -- Illinois Used Purchaser Class: "All persons who purchased a used Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from a Honda dealer in Illinois, and who paid to have their VTC Actuator replaced by an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois;" 2. appointing them as lass representatives; 3. appointing Greenstone Law APC and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. American Honda is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iPF12d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com dmanning@glancylaw.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Lara Diez, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. AMERICAN LANDMARK, LLC, Case No. 135525810 (Fla. 11th Judicial, Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Sept. 29, 2021), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act with regards to the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls. The complaint alleges that to promote its rental properties, the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. The Plaintiff never provided the Defendant with express written consent authorizing the Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 333180 Phone: 305-610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com AMPLIFY ENERGY: Quality Sea Food Sues Over Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------- QUALITY SEA FOOD, INC., a California Corporation; JACK BUTTLER, an individual; LBC SEAFOOD, INC., a California Corporation; STEVE LEGERE, an individual; individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORPORATION; BETA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a BETA OFFSHORE; SAN PEDRO BAY PIPELINE COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 8:21-cv-01680 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2021), arises from a catastrophic oil spill occurring off the coast of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California on or around October 1, 2021 caused by the Defendants' oil rig/platform, known as "Elly," and/or a rupture of its San Pedro Bay Pipeline connected pipelines. As a result of this breach, as much as 144,000 gallons– over 3,000 42 gallon barrels of crude oil – discharged into the navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, quickly spreading and washing ashore onto and into wetlands, estuaries, the Santa Ana River, bays and beaches in heavily populated communities along the coastline from Long Beach to Dana Point, and points south of Newport Beach. As of the filing, an oil slick spanning approximately 8,320 acres was created by this spill. South Orange County and San Diego County communities are anticipated to be impacted by the oil spill. The oil spill has already been called a "potential ecological disaster" and an "environmental catastrophe" by officials, severely damaging, if not destroying, wildlife and marine ecosystems in the immediate area and beyond, negatively impacting human health and safety, and significantly interfering with business and economic activities in and around the affected area. The Plaintiffs seek an order against Defendants awarding, among other things, damages, injunctive relief, and restitution to Plaintiffs and Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Quality Sea Food, a historic seafood market operating since 1953, is engaged in the sale and distribution of commercial retail seafood. Defendant Amplify Energy is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of procuring, transporting, and supplying oil and natural gas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew C. Maclear, Esq. Jason R. Flanders, Esq. Erica A. Maharg, Esq. J. Thomas Brett, Esq. AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP 4030 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: 415.568.5200 Email: mcm@atalawgroup.com - and - Paul A. Matiasic, Esq. THE MATIASIC FIRM, P.C. 355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.699.2083 Email: matiasic@mjlawoffice.com ANADARKO E & P: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of UP Strip Landowners ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; C C OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F. GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND CORPORATION; and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No. 1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) Class: "All owners of the surface of the land within the UP Strip (Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah) subject to a Surface Owner Agreement covering mineral interests once owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company to which Defendants Anadarko Land Corporation, Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, or Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP have succeeded and on which one or more wellheads are located that produce oil and gas from the subsurface beyond the boundaries of the lands (a/k/a premises) covered by the Surface Owner Agreement;" Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Mineral Management Service (Indian tribes and the United States); (2) Defendant, its affiliates, officers and directors; (3) Any NYSE or NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries) primarily engaged in oil and gas exploration, gathering, processing, or marketing; (4) any and all SOA holders that have no wellheads on their land, or who have only wellheads on their land that produce only from their land and not from beyond the boundaries of their land; and (5) any and all SOA holders whose payments are properly subject to both proportionate reduction and the deduction of all post-production costs; 2. appointing them as the Class Representatives; 3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel; and 4. awarding all other relief to which they and the Class Members are justly entitled. The Plaintiffs are pursuing a breach-of-contract claim for a putative class of landowners in Colorado and Wyoming, each of whom (1) is subject to an unexpired Surface Owner Agreement ("SOA") with Defendants, and (2) has one or more wellheads on the surface of their land that produces gas, oil, and other valuable minerals from outside the land subject to their SOA. Class-wide, Defendants have underpaid all SOA Class Members by (a) reducing the stated SOA payment; (b) deducting numerous unauthorized post-production costs from the value of the oil and gas; or (c) both. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are landowners of surface acreage lying along the "UP Strip," which runs through Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. 3 The UP Strip describes the millions of acres of checkerboard land that the United States government granted to Union Pacific during the mid-1800s to aid in the construction of a transcontinental railway. Over the years, Union Pacific sold the surface of some lands within the UP Strip, but reserved to itself the mineral rights below the surface of the land. Typically, Union Pacific leased the minerals to third-party operators for oil and gas development and required that a standard form Surface Owner Agreement (SOA) with the surface land owner be executed before commencement of oil and gas exploration or development, primarily to confirm the surface uses expressly stated in the SOA. The SOAs evolved from a standard form, whose language has undergone modifications over the years. Whether entered by Union Pacific or Champlin Petroleum Company or one of their successors, the payment provision of each SOA provides for payment (usually 2.5%) to the landowner for as long as Union Pacific or its successor-in-interest receives oil and gas production or royalties upon oil and gas production from the lands subject to the SOA, in exchange for surface use and release of any claim to the minerals thereunder. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FEScwK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larkin E. Walsh, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Gregory M. Bentz, Esq. Charles T. Schimmel, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com lwalsh@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com gbentz@midwest-law.com cschimmel@midwest-law.com - and - Lance Astrella, Esq. ASTRELLA LAW, P.C. 1801 Broadway, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 292-9021 Facsimile: (303) 296-6347 E-mail: lance@astrellalaw.com ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina, et al., Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, JUSTIN HORTON, MADELAINE THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, and THE HON. JEREMIAH HUMES, in their official capacities, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a a class of defined as: "All people who are or will be detained in the Iron, Carbon, and Beaver County jails because they are unable to pay a secured financial condition of release;" and 2. appointing their counsel to represent the certified class under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs, pretrial detainees in the Iron, Carbon, and Beaver County jails, have filed this proposed class action challenging Defendants' unconstitutional pretrial detention system, which jails poor individuals without affording due process or providing counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment. The Defendants' post-arrest policies and practices violate Plaintiffs' rights to pretrial liberty and against wealth-based detention. The Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' policy and practice of imposing and enforcing secured financial conditions of release without affording constitutionally required inquires. The amount of money a person must pay to secure release is determined without any inquiry into, or finding concerning, ability to pay, any consideration of alternative conditions of release, or any findings concerning the necessity of pretrial detention. The Defendants' pretrial detention scheme ensures that persons who have been arrested but are presumptively innocent and are eligible for release, must remain in jail cells for days, weeks, or even months solely because they cannot make cash payments. Those who cannot access enough money to pay the amounts required to secure their release must remain in jail up to a week before their first court appearances. During that period, they have no opportunity to challenge their detention and are not provided counsel. Defendants do not hear arguments concerning conditions of release at Initial Appearance, or in any context other than in response to bail reduction motions filed by later appointed counsel. These policies and practices cause people to languish in jail cells every night simply because they cannot afford to pay for their release. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FE4mWD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karra J. Porter, Esq. Anna P. Christiansen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C. 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047 Telephone: (801) 323-5000 Facsimile: (801) 355-3472 E-mail: Karra.Porter@chrisjen.com Anna.Christiansen@chrisjen.com ARGENT TRUST: Robertson Sues to Remedy ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Shana Robertson, on behalf of the Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Argent Trust Company, Jim Coover, Kathy Coover, Jim Pierce, and Tammy Pierce, Case No. 2:21-cv-01711-MTM (D. Ariz., Oct. 7, 2021), is brought against Argent Trust Company, the trustee for the Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("the ESOP" or "the Plan"), Jim and Kathy Coover, and Jim and Tammy Pierce pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan to restore losses to the Plan, obtain other equitable and remedial relief on behalf of the Plan, and to remedy violations of ERISA arising out of a June 14, 2018 transaction whereby the Plan acquired shares of Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. According to the complaint, Argent represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee in the June 14, 2018 ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf. Isagenix was a privately held company and a party in interest to the Plan. Isagenix adopted the Plan effective January 1, 2018. On June 14, 2018, Argent, in its capacity as Trustee of the Plan, purchased 30,000 shares of Isagenix's preferred stock for $382,500,000 (the "ESOP Transaction"), representing a 30% ownership interest in Isagenix, from Defendants Jim Coover, Kathy Coover, Jim Pierce and Tammy Pierce (the "Selling Shareholder Defendants"). The ESOP Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholder Defendants to cash out a portion of their Isagenix stock at a high price at a time when Isagenix's business was deteriorating, and it placed excessive debt on the Company. Argent failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including th Plaintiff. The Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA. The Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under ERISA and the Plan, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and/or the improper profits realized by the Defendants resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions, and equitable relief, including rescission of the ESOP Transaction and removal of fiduciaries who have failed to protect the Plan. Plaintiff requests that these prohibited transactions be declared void, Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan arising from its ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to disgorge any profits and any monies recovered for the Plan be allocated to the accounts of the Class members. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Isagenix and participant in the ESOP. Argent operates as an investment management firm and offers financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services to families and organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 248-0088 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Francavillas Seek to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE J. FRANCAVILLA and DENNIS FRANCAVILLA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01665-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case to proceed as a class action; 2. granting final approval of class action settlement pursuant to the Parties' class settlement agreement, and approval of the payment of an incentive award and further relief to Plaintiffs as Class Representative, and for award of attorney's fees and costs. Asset Acceptance is a debt buyer. Its primary business is the purchasing of defaulted debts from lenders and subsequent collection of those debts through normal debt collection activities. The corporation is headquartered in Warren, Michigan. Forster & Garbus is a New York debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iUgo4m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com The Attorneys for the Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, are: Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2780 E-mail: Lbartel@grsm.com The Attorneys for the Defendant Forster, Garbus & Garbus, are: Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371 Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (732) 328-9480 E-mail: mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com AXEL PROTECTION: Jalil Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ABDUL JALIL, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AXEL PROTECTION SYSYTEMS INC. AND GEORGE LARSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-05388 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law due to various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, adequate minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each work week; failed to provide spread-of-hours pay; failed to maintain adequate and accurate written payroll records; and failed to provide wage notice and wage statements. Plaintiff Mohammed Abdul Jalil was employed by the Defendants to work as a security guard from 2016 until March 2020. Axel Protection System Inc. offers private security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naresh M. Gehi, Esq. GEHI & ASSOCIATES 173-29 Jamaica Ave. Jamaica, NY 11432 Telephone: (718) 764-6911 E-mail: court@gehilaw.com BETH BERRY: ACCI Seeks Extension to File Petition for Review ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BETH BERRY, et al. The case is styled as American Campus Communities, Inc.; American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P.; ACC (Outpost San Antonio), L.P.; ACC OP (West Campus), LLC; ACC OP (Uta Blvd.), LLC, ACC OP (Vistas San Marcos), LLC; ACC (Outpost San Marcos), L.P.; Campus Investors Hrse-SC, LLC; ACC OP (Callaway Villas), L.P.; ACC (Aggie Station), L.P.; ACC OP (Marion Pugh), LLC; ACC OP (South College Avenue), LLC; Campus Investors Baylor, LLC; & ACC OP (Speight Avenue), LLC; ACC (Raiders Pass), L.P.; Lubbock Two Associates, LLC; Lubbock Main Street Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Overton Park), LLC; ACC OP (Tract 6), LLC; ACC OP (West Abram), LLC; ACC OP (The Block), LLC; 22 1/2 Street Partners, L.P., Campus Investors Austin, LLC; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP (Pearl Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm Land), LLC; Sycamore Avenue Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Tracts 32 and 33), LLC, ACC OP (Denton-Fry), LLC; SHP-The Callaway House, L.P.; ACC OP (Sanctuary Lofts), LLC; ACC OP (Vistas San Marcos), LLC; ACC (Outpost San Marcos), L.P.; Campus Investors Hrse-SC, LLC; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP (Pearl Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm Land), LLC; ACC OP (Sanctuary Lofts), LLC; American Campus (PVAMU) Ltd.; American Campus (PVAMU IV) Ltd.; ACC OP (PVAMU VI), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VII), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VIII), LLC,; American Campus (Laredo), Ltd.; American Campus (U of H), Ltd.; ACC OP (West Abra); ACC OP (26 West), LLC; GMH/GF Denton Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Cityparc), L.P.; Apkshv Lubbock, L.P.; Petitioners v. Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and Hailey Hoppenstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-0874 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Oct. 8, 2021). The case type is stated as "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f)."[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Spencer D. Hamilton, Esq. Leanna M. Anderson, Esq. The Respondents are represented by: Michael J. Hindman, Esq. Ted B. Lyon Jr., Esq. Rebecca E. Bell, Esq. N. Scott Carpenter, Esq. BETTER MORTGAGE: Seeks Denial of Dominguez Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO DOMINGUEZ, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-01784-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: denying class certification on the ground that the vast majority of individuals covered by Plaintiff's definition of the putative class have entered into binding, individual arbitration agreements that include class and collective action waivers, and/or have entered into binding release agreements that release their state law claims in this action. The Plaintiff cannot satisfy the typicality, adequacy, commonality, predominance or superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiff Dominguez asserts that Defendant Better Mortgage Corporation (misclassified their mortgage underwriters under 4 both Federal and California law and, on the basis of his California state law claims, seeks to represent a class of underwriters employed by Defendants in California from September 17, 2016 to the present. Better is a home mortgage originator that is licensed to provide home loans to Americans in 46 states and the District of Columbia. At least 481 current and former Batter underwriters have signed valid, binding, mutual arbitration agreements, all of which contain a class and collective action 22 and require these individuals to arbitrate any employment-related claims they may have against Better on an individual basis. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FBlgoS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Adak J. Karr, Esq. Allan W. Gustin, Esq. Susannah K. Howard, Esq. Racquel B. Martin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: akarr@omm.com e-agustin@omm.com showard@omm.com rmartin@omm.com BLOOM ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hunt Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gillia, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order: a. granting in part and denying in part the Section 11 Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' claims based on accounting errors, fuel cell life, emissions, and internal controls; and denying otherwise the motion; b. granting Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP ("PwC")'s motion to dismiss with leave to amend; and c. granting the Section 10(b) Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Background In his second amended complaint, Lead Plaintiff James Everett Hunt and additional plaintiffs assert violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Defendants Bloom and certain of its top officials. Plaintiff Elissa M. Roberts initially filed the securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom common stock during Bloom's July 25, 2018 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The original complaint asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On Sept. 3, 2019, the Court appointed James Everett Hunt as the lead plaintiff in the action. As part of the motion granting the appointment, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff Hunt leave to file an amended complaint. On April 21, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff Hunt filed a second amended complaint. As relevant to the pending motions, the SAC alleges that Bloom manufactures and leases solid-oxide fuel cells, called "Energy Servers," which convert natural gas or biogas into electricity. These Energy Servers provide customers with an alternative to drawing energy from the electrical grid. After many years as a private company, Bloom held its IPO on July 25, 2018. The Registration Statement included Bloom's disclosures regarding the nature of its business, risk factors, executive compensation, and numerous other matters. It also included Bloom's financial statements for the years 2016 and 2017, and for the first three months of 2018. The Registration Statement also included PwC's audit report on Bloom's 2016 and 2017 annual financial statements. The Registration Statement registered over 20 million Bloom shares of common stock for sale, and the stock sold in the IPO at $15 per share. Bloom received net proceeds of $284.3 million from the IPO. The Plaintiffs allege that on Sept. 17, 2019, a third-party market analyst, Hindenburg Research, issued a critique of Bloom's business. The Hindenburg authors projected that Bloom's business would be massively unprofitable in the future. They calculated that Bloom had "an estimated net $2.2 billion in undisclosed servicing liabilities" to repair and replace the Energy Servers that Bloom had omitted from the Registration Statement at the time of the IPO. In reaching this conclusion, the authors reasoned that the lifespan of Bloom's fuel cells was materially shorter, their efficiency was lower than represented, and they therefore needed to be replaced years earlier than represented by Bloom in the Registration Statement. The Plaintiffs further allege that in February 2020, Bloom restated the financial statements that it gave to investors in the IPO. In doing so, Bloom disclosed that (1) its net loss attributable to common stockholders for 2017 was in fact $276.362 million, or 5.2% worse than the loss of $262.599 million reported in its Registration Statement; and (2) the net loss attributable to common stockholders for the first three months in 2018 ending March 31, 2018 was $21.591 million, or 21.9% worse than the loss of $17.716 million that Bloom initially reported. The Plaintiffs also allege that Bloom had considerable "construction delays," which impeded Bloom's ability to install the Energy Servers. The Plaintiffs allege that since the IPO, Bloom's stock price has declined from $15 per share of common stock, to a 52-week low of $2.44 per share of common stock. They bring their Securities Act and Exchange Act claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom common stock in Bloom's IPO and/or on the public market between July 25, 2018 and Feb. 12, 2020. Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss the SAC. First, the Section 11 Defendants bring a motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims, as well as the Section 15 "controlling persons" claims. Second, PwC, Bloom's independent auditor, brings its own motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims. Third, the Section 10(b) Defendants bring a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims. Discussion A. Section 11 Motion Under Section 11 of the Securities Act, the Plaintiffs contend that Bloom's Registration Statement contained several untrue statements and omissions of material facts. According to them, the challenged statements involved (1) the existence and scale of construction delays; (2) improper accounting under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") for loss contingencies and revenue relating to the Energy Servers; (3) the life cycle of the fuel cells in the Energy Servers; (4) weaknesses in Bloom's internal controls; and (4) the efficiency and emissions of the Energy Servers. The Section 11 Defendants contend that even under the more lenient Rule 8(a) standard, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that these statements were materially false or misleading. They ask the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. i. Accounting Errors The Plaintiffs assert that the Section 11 Defendants failed to follow the relevant GAAP provisions for Bloom's liabilities and revenue in its financial statements. First, Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead that any of the opinion statements about Bloom's contingent liabilities were false or misleading under Omnicare. Hence, he grants the motion to dismiss on this basis. Next, Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts calling into question the Defendants' basis for concluding that the MSAs could be treated as sales rather than capital leases. They do not sufficiently explain how the MSAs meet any of the four criteria in ASC 840-10-25-1. And the Plaintiffs do not allege that the MSAs meet any of the other three criteria. The Judge therefore grants the motion to dismiss regarding the treatment of Bloom's MSAs. ii. Fuel Cell Life The Plaintiffs next challenge Bloom's representations about the Energy Servers' fuel cell life. They assert that the statements were materially false and misleading because in reality, "Bloom Energy routinely replaced its fuel cells after just three years." The Defendants again argue that the Plaintiffs are challenging statements of opinion. Judge Gilliam finds that none of the experts claim to have any experience with or knowledge of Bloom's Energy Servers or their fuel cells. To the extent the Plaintiffs rely on these other anonymous experts, he does not find this probative of falsity. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged falsity as to Bloom's average fuel cell life and grants the motion on this basis. iii. Efficiency and Emissions The Plaintiffs also challenge statements that Bloom made about the efficiency and emissions of its latest Energy Server technology. Judge Gilliam grants the motion as it relates to statements about Bloom's emissions, but otherwise denies the motion as to claims based on Bloom's statements about the Energy Servers' efficiency. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs need only plead enough facts to make it plausible that Bloom's statement about the Energy Servers was false, and they have done so; and (ii) the complaint does not explain how the "power grid in key states" compares to "U.S. combustion power generation." iv. Construction Delays The Plaintiffs challenge statements in the Registration Statement about "risks" of delay related to Bloom's construction schedule. The Defendants first argue that "the Registration Statement plainly did tell investors that installation delays and the difficulty in predicting the timing of acceptances were ongoing features of its business." They next argue that the Plaintiffs' only evidence of preexisting construction delays is statements from CW1, and that this is insufficient because CW1 is unreliable. Based on the allegations and language of the Registration Statement, Judge Gilliam finds that a factfinder could conclude that the Defendants failed to disclose preexisting construction delays. He further finds that the timing of CW1's departure from Bloom does not undermine the basis for his knowledge for purposes of the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims in the case. The Plaintiffs have therefore established how CW1 had information about construction delays relevant to the IPO. The Judge therefore denies the motion on this basis. v. Internal Control Weaknesses Lastly, the Plaintiffs claim that Bloom misrepresented in the Registration Statement "that there were no 'material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting at Dec. 31, 2017.'" The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs misstate Bloom's representation about internal controls, and that in a risk disclosure the company stated that it had not "discover[ed] any material weaknesses" as of Dec. 31, 2017. The Plaintiffs appear to concede that the Defendants are correct as to the actual statement Bloom made about internal controls. They argue, however, that they still represented to investors that they had adequately reviewed internal controls. But the Plaintiffs do not plead any facts to support the contention that Bloom did not engage in the appropriate level of review. They have also failed to plead any facts to explain why possible financial reporting controls in 2019 or 2020 would implicate representations about financial controls in 2017. Judge Gilliam therefore grants the motion on this basis. B. PwC Motion PwC filed its own motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim that the Plaintiffs assert against it. It argues that its audit report and the statements contained within it are opinions subject to the Omnicare framework. They contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that the audit report was objectively and subjectively false, and the Section 11 claim against them should thus be dismissed. In response, the Plaintiffs clarify that it contends PwC is liable under Section 11 both for misstatements in the audit report and for the GAAP errors in the 2017 financial statements related to the treatment of the MSAs. They argue that PwC does not dispute that it (1) certified the financial statements; or that (2) the 2017 financial statements were false. The Plaintiffs urge that PwC therefore concedes liability for them. Judge Gilliam is not persuaded. PwC contends that "PwC's opinion was that there were no material errors in the 2016 and 2017 financial statements," and that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that the 2016 and 2017 financial statements were materially misstated. The Judge therefore considers PwC's motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the alleged misstatements in the audit report and the financial statements. i. Omnicare As a threshold issue, the parties disagree on whether the audit report and the financial statements are opinions subject to Omnicare. Neither party cites to any Ninth Circuit authority resolving this issue. Instead, the parties note that there is a split in authority regarding whether such material should be considered opinion. Judge Gilliam rejects the Plaintiffs' attempt to cast any alleged errors in the financial statements as embedded statements of fact. The court in Johnson v. CBD Energy Ltd. addressed this precise argument and found it premised on a misinterpretation of Omnicare. He finds the reasoning in Johnson persuasive and adopts it in the case. ii. Subjective Falsity To plead falsity for opinion statements under a material misstatement theory of liability, the Plaintiffs must allege "both objective and subjective falsity." The Plaintiffs appear to concede that they have not alleged subjective falsity as required under Omnicare. And Judge Gilliam finds that they have failed to plead any facts suggesting that PwC did not sincerely believe that the "financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of Dec. 31, 201." The complaint hardly mentions PwC or its audit report at all, stating simply that PwC "purportedly conducted an adequate and reasonable investigation into the business, operations, financial statements, and accounting of Bloom Energy." Judge Gilliam therefore grants PwC's motion to dismiss. C. Section 10(b) Motion Under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants Bloom, Sridhar, and Furr liable for issuing false and misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness to induce investors to purchase Bloom's common stock. They acknowledge that their Section 10(b) claims are subject to a heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims are based on largely overlapping statements involving (1) Bloom's financial statements, including improper accounting as to the maintenance service agreements and MSAs; (2) the life cycle of the fuel cells in the Energy Servers; (3) the efficiency and emissions of the Energy Servers; (4) construction delays; and (5) weaknesses in Bloom's internal controls. The Section 10(b) Defendants move to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead falsity, scienter, and economic loss. They also explicitly incorporate by reference the arguments in their motion. Judge Gilliam agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead falsity as to the statements regarding accounting errors, fuel cell life, emissions, and internal controls. He therefore grants in part the Section 10(b) Defendants' motion on that basis. Accordingly, he only addresses the Section 10(b) Defendants' separate arguments that the Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter and loss causation. i. Scienter Judge Gilliam first turns to the specific alleged misstatements and the Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter as they relate to these statements. He then makes a holistic assessment of the factual allegations. In sum, Judge Gilliam concludes that even when the Plaintiffs' allegations are considered in their entirety, he finds that the inference of scienter is weak, and certainly not as strong as the inference that Defendants had a non-fraudulent intent. He therefore grants the motion to dismiss on this basis. ii. Loss Causation Lastly, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege loss causation regarding fuel cell life. "To satisfy the loss causation requirement, the plaintiff must show that the revelation of that misrepresentation or omission was a substantial factor in causing a decline in the security's price, thus creating an actual economic loss for the plaintiff." Because he has found that the Plaintiffs have not alleged scienter, Judge Gilliam need not reach this issue. Nevertheless, to streamline the amendment process and any subsequent motion to dismiss, he addresses the parties' arguments. The Defendants contend that the Hindenburg report did not constitute a corrective disclosure because it is based on publicly available information. The Plaintiffs allege that the falsity of Bloom's statements about fuel cell life was revealed to investors on Sept. 17, 2019, when the Hindenburg authors issued their report concluding that Bloom's fuel cell life was less than three years. The Defendants point out, however, that the Hindenburg report explicitly states that "all information in the report has been obtained from public sources." The Court has previously explained that "the mere repackaging of already-public information by an analyst or short-seller is simply insufficient to constitute a corrective disclosure.'" "If every analyst or short-seller's opinion based on already-public information could form the basis for a corrective disclosure, then every investor who suffers a loss in the financial markets could sue under Section 10(b) using an analyst's negative analysis of public filings as a corrective disclosure. That cannot be -- nor is it -- the law.'" Judge Gilliam therefore grants the motion on this basis. Nevertheless, he notes that that the Ninth Circuit has at least considered the possibility that some materials may still constitute corrective disclosures if they "provide additional or more authoritative information that deflated the stock price." Still, at least as currently alleged, he finds, the Plaintiffs do not explain why the Hindenburg authors had the necessary background or expertise to interpret or aggregate the public utility data in a manner that added something to the factual record such that their report could still be considered a corrective disclosure under Apollo. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants in part and denies in part the motions to dismiss. He grants in part the Section 11 Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' claims based on accounting errors, fuel cell life, emissions, and internal controls. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion. He grants PwC's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. He grants the Section 10(b) Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of the date of the Order. When preparing an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs are further ordered to prepare a statement-by-statement chart of the information required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(1) and (2) that specifically identifies: (A) each statement or action alleged to have been false or misleading, (B) the reasons the statement or action was false, misleading, or deceptive when made, and (C) if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, all facts on which the belief is formed. The chart should clearly identify which statements or omissions are attributable to which defendants, and include a detailed statement of the facts giving rise to a strong inference that each defendant acted with the required state of mind. Plaintiffs should also summarize their allegations regarding what each defendant knew with regard to the statement or omission, and when they knew it. Such a chart should be included within any amended complaint or attached to any amended complaint. For guidance on the format for such a chart, Judge Giliam directs the Plaintiffs to review In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig., 18-cv-07669-HSG, Dkt. No. 149-2. Judge Gilliam further sets a telephonic case management conference on Oct. 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to discuss how to move this case forward efficiently. All counsel will use the following dial-in information to access the call: Dial-In: 888-808-6929; Passcode: 6064255 For call clarity, parties will not use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where at all possible, parties will use landlines. The joint case management statement is due Oct. 19, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sfr3rdvb from Leagle.com. BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Suit Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Binder, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Brentlinger Enterprises d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group, Case No. 2:21-cv-00136-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order grantng Plaintiffs amended motion to conditionally certify case as a collective action on behalf of: "All of Defendant's current and former hourly non-exempt porters and technicians who worked at the Dublin, Ohio location and whose payroll records reflect that they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the instant Motion and continuing to the present, and who were subject to either of the following policies: (1) who were clocked out for any breaks consisting of 19 minutes or less in duration; and/or (2) who were clocked out for meal periods of 20 to 30 minutes in duration, but the employee did not take or which were interrupted by work duties ("216(b) Class" or "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")." The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his modest burden with regard to the dealerships at tssue. The Court grants Plaintiffs Motion for conditional certification. If, after discovery is completed, the fully developed record does not support the treatment of this action as a collective action, the Defendant may seek to decertify the collective. Austin Binder sues Brentlinger Enterprises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court denied Plaintiffs first motion to conditionally certify this case as a collective action. The Plaintiff moves again, pursuant to section 16(b) of the FLSA, to conditionally certify a collective action. The Defendant opposes the Motion. The Defendant is a general partnership formed under Ohio law that provides retail sales of automobiles and other services including repair, maintenance, and automobile accessories. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a porter from approximately November 2015 through March 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other hourly, non-exempt employees were not paid correctly for all their hours worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has a "company-wide policy of not compensating its employees for 'rest' periods and/or 'meal' periods" that were interrupted by required work duties. Brentlinger manufactures automobile. The Company operates in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxFUDY at no extra charge.[CC] CARMAX AUTO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Jordan Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 27, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01632-JAK-SHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. CarMax -- https://www.carmax.com/stores/ca -- offers low, no-haggle prices and a great selection of vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. Enzo Dalgat Nabiev, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St Ste 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Fax: (213) 232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Lindsay Katz, Esq. Gina M. Tetorakis, Esq. Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: jennifer.katz@ogletree.com gina.tetorakis@ogletree.com jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com CASH ADVANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMISHA STANTON v. CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC, , Case No. 21-CV-00285-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motion to amend pleadings: Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before November 12, 2021. 2. Motion to join additional parties: Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or before November 12, 2021. 3. Discovery: a. Discovery deadline All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before April 1, 2022. (Closure Date). b. Discovery motions The Court will not entertain any discovery motion absent full compliance with Local Rule 37.1. c. Expert designation deadlines Each plaintiff shall designate any expert witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before February 11, 2022. Each defendant shall designate any expert witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before March 11, 2022. 4. Dispositive motion deadline: All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before May 2, 2022. All dispositive motions shall have a separate section wherein each statement of fact is individually numbered so that any party opposing such motion may refer specifically to a genuine issue of material fact. 5. Daubert motion deadline: All motions to strike expert designations or preclude expert testimony premised on Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), shall be filed on or before May 2, 2022. 6. Motions for class certification: All motions for class certification under Rule 23 and/or conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. section 201, et. seq. shall be filed on or before June 1, 2022. If the Court grants a motion for class certification under Rule 23 and/or conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. section 201, et. seq., any remaining deadlines under this Scheduling and Trial Order shall be vacated, and, within 15 days of any such order, Counsel are directed to meet and confer and submit a revised, proposed Scheduling and Trial Order for a Jury Trial. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxAWaa at no extra charge.[CC] CHULA VISTA INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Sartin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sartin, et al., v. Chula Vista Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01890 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines: -- All discovery to be completed by October 29, 2021; -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, dispositive motions, and any motions under Daubert or otherwise challenging an expert due by November 12, 2021; -- Responses to motion for class certification, sispositive motions, and any motions under Daubert or otherwise challenging an expert Due December 20, 2021; and -- Replies in support of motion for class certification, dispositive motions, and any motions under Daubert or otherwise challenging an expert Due January 14, 2022. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- diversity-fraud. Chula Vista provides hospitality services. The company offers facilities for stay, restaurants, and bars, as well as hosts venue for events and meetings.[CC] COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Underwood, Louis Oberlander, and Zeneyda Patin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08353 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2021), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, sold, or otherwise transacted in securities on the online trading platform owned and operated by Defendant Coinbase Global, Inc. during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coinbase operates two digital asset trading platforms: Coinbase and Coinbase Pro (the "Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms") that each and together meet the definition of an "exchange" under federal securities laws. The Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms, at the agreement of its users (1) bring together the orders for digital assets that are investment contracts, and therefore securities ("Digital Asset Securities"), of multiple buyers and sellers; and (2) use established, non-discretionary methods under which Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms users' orders interact with each other. Despite the fact that the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms, as operated by Defendant Coinbase, meet the definition of an "exchange" under federal securities laws, Coinbase has not registered the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms as national securities exchanges, nor does Coinbase operate the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms pursuant to an exemption from registration. Coinbase's failure to so register is therefore a violation of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated now seek, pursuant the Exchange Act, to recover the consideration paid for Digital Asset Securities and the transaction fees paid to Defendant Coinbase in connection with their purchases of the Digital Asset Securities, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs engaged in Digital Asset Securities transactions on the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms. Coinbase operates an internet-based trading platform service that facilitates buying and selling certain digital assets in the secondary markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Steven L. Bloch, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Class Certification Reply Due Oct. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carnley, et al., v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01075 (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order granting motion to extend scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file October 25, 2021 their reply for class certification -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file October 25, 2021 their opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment -- The deadline for Defendants to file November 11, 2021 their reply in further support of summary judgment -- The page limitation applicable to Plaintiffs' opposition to summary judgment is 35 pages The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Banks and Banking -- Electronic Fund Transfers. Conduent provides business process services.[CC] CONTAINER STORE: Cervantes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01791-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2021), is brought to secure redress against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because Defendant's website, https://www.containerstore.com/welcome.htm, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant's website provides consumers with access to a collection of home goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@whilshirelawfirm.com jamine@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Pit Row Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pit Row Inc. et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00738 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order: 1. granting unopposed motion for leave to file the third amended complaint; and 2. granting the motion to modify the scheduling order as follows: -- the Defendant's answer is Due October 19, 2021; -- Plaintiff's expert rebuttal reports remain due October 12, 2021; -- The motion for class certification is due November 18, 2021; -- Any response is due January 25, 2022; -- Any reply is due February 15, 2022; -- Discovery shall close on April 1, 2022; and -- Dispositive motion deadline shall be 90 days after the Court's decision on class certification. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other personal property damage. Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the "Johnson-Chen Consolidated suit. The Company and its CEO and CFO were defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020. On July 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Underway --------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). In May 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss later that month. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to amend. In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and filed a separate representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint denying the material allegations. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company is facing a class action suit entitled, Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class action against the Company and a staffing company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and final wages, and for unfair business practices. Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San Joaquin Superior Court). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that preliminary approval hearing of the settlement in Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), is scheduled for October 2021. In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand was appealed; the appeal is in abeyance due to a pending settlement for an immaterial amount that was agreed upon in February 2021. The preliminary approval hearing of the settlement is scheduled for October 2021. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora and Umadat Class Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6, 2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company continues to defend collective and class claims suits entitled, Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.) and Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.), respectively. In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay for all hours worked on a weekly basis and failure to provide proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserts individual retaliation claims. Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.). An amended complaint was filed, and the Company has denied the material allegations of the amended complaint. In August 2021, a former employee filed a similar suit, asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the FLSA and New York law. Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. CREDIT BUREAU: Myers Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MYERS, bankruptcy trust for DONNA J. LUNSFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC. and C.J. TIGHE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying case as a class action defined as: -- Class One "(i) all Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter, (ii) which was not returned as undelivered, (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by Defendants or the creditors' records, (iv) allegedly due for a medical obligation;" and -- Class Two "(i) all Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter, (ii) which was not returned as undelivered, (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by Defendants or the creditors' records, (iv) allegedly due for a medical obligation, (v) who had not been first sent a letter by CBS on the same account;" The time period for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) is one year prior to the filing of this litigation, i.e. -- April 13, 2019, through the date of class certification. The time period for violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1601 et seq. is four years prior to the filing of this litigation, i.e. -- April 13, 2016, through the date of certification; 2. appointing him class representative; and 3. appointing O. Randolph Bragg, Pamela A. Car, and William L. Reinbrecht as class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iP4Cbw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. Pamela A. Car, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 2120 S. 72 nd Street, Suite 1125 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391-8484 E-mail: billr205@gmail.com - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC. 25 East Washington St., Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 Facsimile: (312) 372-1673 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com CREE INC: Wedra Seeks Certification of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE WEDRA, individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREE, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting her motion for class certification; 2. certifying the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b) (3); 3. appointing her as representative for the members of the Class; and 4. appointing The Sultzer Law Group P.C., Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Audet & Partners LLP, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP and Levin, Sedrin & Berman LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Cree Inc. develops and produces semiconductors made from silicon carbide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YGYpHN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Mindy Dolgoff, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com dolgoffm@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Michael A. McShane, Esq. S. Clinton Woods, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com cwoods@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com awarren@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Benson Sues Over Misleading Statement ---------------------------------------------------------- James Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI, HANZADE VASFIYE DOGAN BOYNER, MEHMET MURAT EMIRDAG, HALIL KORHAN OZ, ERMAN KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL ÇAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALIARE, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, TURKCOMMERCE B.V., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC. and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 655701/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 28, 2021), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of D-Market ADRs pursuant or traceable to D-Market's July 1, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 with regards to materially false and misleading registration statement. According to the complaint, on July 1, 2021, following the conclusion of D-Market's second quarter 2021 ("2Q21"), Defendants conducted the IPO, selling 62.251 million D Market ADRs at $12 per ADR and reaping more than $783 million in gross offering proceeds. This included $283 million in proceeds received by the Selling Stockholder Defendant. The registration statement and prospectus for the IPO were materially false and misleading and failed to comply with SEC rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that D-Market had suffered deeply disappointing financial results in 2Q21 – before the IPO – and instead represented that the Company was experiencing tremendous revenue and sales growth at the time of the offering. In fact, the growth trends highlighted in the Registration Statement had dramatically decelerated in the lead up to the IPO as Turkey reopened following previously imposed COVID-19 related shutdowns. For example, the Registration Statement stated that D Market's "business ha[d] experienced a long history of strong growth as a result of [its] commitment to meticulous execution" and highlighted D-Market's "66%" revenue increase "to TRY 1.4 billion in the three months ended March 31, 2021" and "145%" revenue increase "to TRY 6.4 billion in 2020." Similarly, the Registration Statement stated that D-Market had achieved gross merchandise volume ("GMV") growth of 95% and 111% in 1Q21 and fiscal 2020, respectively. The Registration Statement further stated that these impressive results were being "fueled by increasing purchase frequency, greater customer loyalty and an expanding pool of Active Customers of 9 million in 2020, up from 6.5 million in 2019 and 4.8 million in 2018, with a compound annual growth rate ("CAGR") of 38% from 2018 to 2020." In truth and in fact, however, during D-Market's already completed 2Q21, the Company generated revenue of just 1.75 billion TRY, a mere increase of just 5% year-over-year. Likewise, D-Market's 2Q21 GMV was only 5.9 billion TRY, a paltry increase of just 38% year over year – less than half the 95% GMV growth reported in the 1Q21. In a highly unusual move so close to an initial public offering, D-Market also announced that day a sizable executive leadership shakeup. Effective September 1, 2021, Murat Buyumez, D-Market's Chief Strategy ("CSO") and Chief Business Officer ("CBO"), would assume the role of Chief Commercial Officer ("CCO") in charge of category management and commercial operations, and Mutlu Erturan, D-Market's then-current CCO, would become the Company's CBO, heading up new ventures, growth initiatives, and strategic opportunities. The role of CSO would remain vacant indefinitely. Subsequent to the IPO, the price of D-Market ADRs have traded as low as $6.35 each, a nearly 50% decline from the price at which D-Market ADRs were sold to investors in the IPO less than three months previously, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased D-Market ADRs pursuant to the IPO. D-Market is an online e-commerce company in Turkey where it is colloquially known as the "Amazon of Turkey."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212/292-5690 Fax: 212/292-5680 Email: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com DELAVAL INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY BISHOP, DVM; RODNEY, JANEEN, CHAD, and AARON NAEDLER, and NAEDLER FARMS II; DANIEL and ERIN RICHARDS; BERNARD and DENISE ROBILLARD, and ROBILLARD FLATS FARM, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELAVAL INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-06129-SRB (W.D. MO.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a. certifying the Rule 23 class and subclasses defined as; -- Class "All persons who purchased, financed, leased, or rented ("purchased") a classic voluntary milking system ("VMS") (1) directly from a DeLaval-owned dealer or (2) from another entity in one of the following 10 states: Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut, and Tennessee;" -- Direct Purchaser subclass "All persons who purchased a VMS in the state of Missouri or directly from a DeLaval-owned dealer;" -- Multi-state subclass "All persons who purchased a VMS from a non-DeLaval- owned dealership in one of the following eight states: Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut, and Tennessee;" and -- Wisconsin subclass "All persons who purchased a VMS from a non-DeLaval owned dealership in the state of Wisconsin;" b. appointing Plaintiffs Terry Bishop, DVM; Rodney, Janeen, Chad, and Aaron Naedler, and Naedler Farms II; Daniel and Erin Richards; Bernard and Denise Robillard and Robillard Flats Farms, Inc., as representatives of Rule 23 Class; 1. Appointing Richards as the representative of the Direct Purchaser subclass; 2. Appointing Bishop and Robillards as representatives of the Multi-state subclass; and 3. Appointing Naedlers as the representative of the Wisconsin subclass; c. Appointing Patrick J. Stueve, Bradley T. Wilders, Jillian R. Dent, K. Ross Merrill, Tanner J. Edwards and Brandi Spates of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Arend Tensen of Cullenberg & Tensen, PLLC; and, Daniel C. Perrone of Perrone Law PLLC as class counsel for the class; and d. Granting such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. DeLaval is a producer of dairy and farming machinery, with a head office in Tumba, Sweden, and is part of the Tetra Laval group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWfZCh at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Counsel, are: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Jillian R. Dent, Esq. K. Ross Merrill, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. Brandi Spates, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: 816-714-7100 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com dent@stuevesiegel.com - and - Arend R. Tensen, Esq. CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC 199 Heater Road, Suite 2 Lebanon, NH 03766 Telephone: (603) 448-7100 E-mail: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com - and - Daniel Charles Perrone, Esq. PERRONE LAW PLLC 2136 Victory Blvd. Staten Island, NY 10314 Telephone: (646) 470-9244 E-mail: dcb@theperronefirm.com DIRECT OFFICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Souza Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Flavia Z. Souza, and all others similarly situated, and MONSTER CONSULTING GROUP LLC v. DIRECT OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., and RONALD R. BOEHM, Case No. 0:21-cv-62116-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages. Specifically, the Defendants recruit and retain professionals to sell the company's inventory, as well as the products of other manufacturers, to customers. The Defendants classified the sales professionals as independent contractors. However, Souza contends the Defendants misclassified her and other professionals as independent contractors when, in fact, they were employees of DOS. As a result, Souza claims that, as employees, she and other professionals were underpaid when the Defendants did not provide Souza and others overtime wages as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Souza was a DOS employee. DOS is a business office furniture store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Buckner, Esq. 5224 NW 96th Drive Coral Springs, FL 33076-2487 Office: +1-954-347-0112 Facsimile: +1-954-513-4796 Email: michaelbucknerlaw@gmail.com DONNA KARAN: Dahlin Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices ------------------------------------------------------- MATILDA DAHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY STORE LLC, a New York limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07711 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on DKNY branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, DKNY engages in a practice of false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. Donna Karan Company Store LLC operates DKNY outlet stores in California and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells clothing, apparel, cosmetics and lifestyle products in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Coordinated Discovery Order in Barret --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY BARRET, ET AL., v. DRESSER, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes entered a coordinated discovery order as follows: 1. Filing of Order This Coordinated Discovery Order shall be filed in all Related Cases, and in any Related Case subsequently filed in, removed to, or transferred to this Court. 2. Pre-Certification Order Some provisions of the Pre-Certification Order are restated or otherwise adopted herein. Any remaining and unexpired provisions of the Pre-Certification Order are superseded by this Coordinated Discovery Order. 3. Coordinated Discovery a. Scope Discovery regarding the issue of liability is prohibited at this point, pending further orders from the Court. b. Form The parties may employ any discovery device allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or required by this Coordinated Discovery Order. c. Duration Discovery under this Coordinated Discovery Order will be completed within 180 days of the entry of this Order. d. Coordination Counsel in all Related Cases will coordinate and consolidate their discovery requests. e. Stipulations The parties may -- and are strongly encouraged to -- voluntarily disclose information and to stipulate regarding any factual, procedural, or legal issues if the stipulation is not inconsistent with the Court’s orders. The parties will not use "boilerplate" or artful language in the discovery process. f. Conferral The parties will confer regularly, and verbally, regarding any coordinated discovery issues. g. Settlement Once Coordinated Discovery is complete, the Court will consider procedures to facilitate settlement efforts in Related Cases. 4. Plaintiff Information Sheet Each Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order to complete and serve upon Defendants a verified "Plaintiff Information Sheet" using the form provided by the Court for this purpose. 5. Discovery Requests and Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), discovery requests and responses will not be filed with the Court except when specifically ordered by the Court or to the extent offered in connection with a motion. 6. Expedited Discovery On expedited motion and for good cause shown, expedited discovery of plaintiffs, and/or health care providers, will be allowed when: (1) the plaintiff or a plaintiff’s immediate family member is terminally ill; (2) there is an urgent need to record and preserve testimony, and; (3) that plaintiff has completed the Plaintiff Information Sheet and any required authorizations. 7. Motions The parties may file any motion related to discovery allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Other Discovery Until further order by the Court, no other discovery shall be conducted in the Related Cases, except on motion and for good cause shown. 9. Status Conferences The Court will host status conferences at regular intervals. The parties may raise discovery disputes, and must be prepared to provide case updates, during these status conferences. A Status Conference is set for Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned via video conference. Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FE2ZHh at no extra charge.[CC] DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD J. MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION d/b/a DUNHAM'S SPORTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00514-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeking certification of the classes defined below as follows: -- Nationwide Class "All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by Defendant within the United States and have, or will have, experienced access barriers in interior paths of travel;" and -- Pennsylvania Sub-class "All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by Defendant within Pennsylvania and have, or will have, experienced access barrier in interior paths of travel;" 2. appointing Ronald J. Migyanko as class representative; and 3. appointing Carlson Lynch, LLP as Class Counsel. Dunham's Athleisure corporation operates a sporting good chain. The Company offers sporting goods, atheltic equipment, active sports gear, and leisure apparel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dtclns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Robin A. Bolea, Esq. 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com eavery@carlsonlynch.com ncolella@carlsonlynch.com rbolea@carlsonlynch.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Sues Over False Representation ------------------------------------------------------------ Sherise Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-08275 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Hawaiian Tropic Reef Friendly Sunscreen (the "Sunscreen Products") which contained deceptive and false representations as a result of the Defendant marketing and selling the Sunscreen Products as "Reef Friendly." Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems in the world. In fact, thousands of species of corals have been discovered; some live in warm, shallow, tropical seas and others in the cold, dark depths of the ocean. However, coral reef ecosystems are threatened by pollution. Relevant to this matter, certain chemicals found in sunscreen lead to the "bleaching" of coral reefs, resulting in death and damage. In response to reef damage and death, consumers have turned to sunscreen products that are labeled and marketed as "Reef Friendly," which purportedly will not cause damage to coral reef ecosystems. However, contrary to the Defendant's representation that its products are "Reef Friendly," the Sunscreen Products at issue are not actually "Reef Friendly." In fact, the Sunscreen Products contain harmful chemicals known to harm and/or kill coral reefs, such as avobenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene. As such, the Defendant has engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling its Sunscreen Products as "Reef Friendly" (the "Reef Friendly Claims"). Every package of the Sunscreen Products falsely and misleadingly represents that the products are "Reef Friendly." The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the Sunscreen Products, which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff and Class Members relied to their detriment on the Defendant's representation that the Sunscreen Products were purportedly "Reef Friendly," when they are not. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have paid to purchase the Defendant's Sunscreen Products--or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them--had they known that they were not in fact "Reef Friendly." The Plaintiff and Class Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of the Defendant's deceptive and false representations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Hawaiian Tropic Reef Friendly Sunscreen from the Defendant. Edgewell manufactures, sells, and/or distributes Hawaiian Tropic-brand products, and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress, and packaging of the Sunscreen Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com ENERGAGE LLC: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Cordes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CORDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENERGAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02641-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an initial scheduling order as follows: 1. A joint motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) Class shall be submitted on or before October 22, 2021. 2. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before June 20, 2022. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for FLSA class certification and Defendant's motion to decertify FLSA class shall be filed on or before July 20, 2022. 4. The Defendant's opposition to class certification and Plaintiff's opposition to class decertification shall be filed on or before August 19, 2022. 5. Replies to motions for class certification and class decertification shall be filed on or before September 9, 2022. 6. Judge Rufe's policies and procedures for summary judgment will not apply in this case and the parties should instead follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Energage provides human resource technology platform. The Company serves customers in the State of Pennsylvania. dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BAMRE3 at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to May 6, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CUELLAR, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees, v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an active Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:20-cv-01075-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order to continue class certification briefing and hearing dates as follows: 1. Plaintiff's class certification motion filing deadline, currently set for October 8, 2021, is continued to May 6, 2022; 2. The Defendant's opposition filing deadline, currently set for November 24, 2021, is continued to June 24, 2022; 3. Plaintiff's reply filing deadline, currently set for December 23, 2021, is continued to July 22, 2022; and 4. Hearing on the class certification motion, currently set for January 21, 2022, is continued to August 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. First Transit is an American transportation company. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBdYPq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff Frank Cuellar, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees, are: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Haik Hacopian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com haik@mooradianlaw.com The Attorneys for the Defendant First Transit, Inc. David J. Fow, Esq. Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: ddow@littler.com blmcarthy@littler.com jhannah@littler.com FIRST WATCH: Love Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmine Love, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. First Watch Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00413-RCC (D. Ariz., Oct. 11, 2021), is brought implicating the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act's tip credit and subsequent underpayment of its employees at the federally and state mandated minimum wage rate for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages. The Defendant pays its tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA and, in Arizona, under the AMWA. Under the tip-credit provisions, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers. Therefore, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers the applicable federal or Arizona minimum wage. As a result of these violations, the Defendant has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, the Defendant must account for the difference between the wages paid to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at the First Watch location in Tucson, Arizona as a waitress. The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of restaurants under the trade name "First Watch" throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP Texas Bar No. 24050022 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com FPI MANAGMENT: Morris Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00128-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement. FPI Management provides real estate services. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bwq9x4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 413-1494 E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com - and - Shayne Sutherland, Esq. CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 315-4507 E-mail: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Seeks Certification of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILIND DESAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEICO CASUALTY CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-02327-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the "Class" or "Class members" defined as: "All individuals who: (a) on or after September 6, 2011; (b) are or were covered by a Geico Casualty Compamy Ohio personal automobile insurance policy; (c) made a claim under the Collision or Comprehensive coverages of that policy for damage or loss to a covered vehicle which Geico accepted and treated as a total loss claim; and (d) GEICO paid the claim on a cash settlement basis;" The class period will be from September 6, 2011, to the date of class certification; 2. appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g); and 3. appointing Desai as Class Representative. Geico Casualty operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AwG3X0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C. 2833 Crockett St., Suite 135 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (214) 253-8300 E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com - and - Drew Legando, Esq. Edward S. Jerse, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com edjerse@merrimanlegal.com - and - Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A. 954 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com khill@jeeveslawgroup.com - and - Craig E. Rothburd, Esq. CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A. 320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700 Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone (813) 251-8800 E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com maria@rothburdpa.com - and - Casim Adam Neff, Esq. NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 15063 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Telephone: (727) 342-0617 E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.comaq - and - Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Reloj Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Conrad Reloj, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-AGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2021), is brought seeking full compensation for all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, noncompliant meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, and premium pay and seeking to recover for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, applicable California Labor Code provisions; applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; the Unfair Business Practices Act; and California Business and Professions Code. This is a collective and class action complaint against GEICO to challenge its policies and practices of: failing to pay non-exempt, hourly employees who work as Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters for all hours worked; failing to pay required minimum wage; failing to pay required overtime wages; failing to authorize, permit, and/or make meal and rest periods available, and failing to pay premium pay for these missed breaks; failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages after termination of employment. The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime. Ultimately, the time that the Defendant requires the Plaintiff to work without compensation deprives them of substantial amounts of pay to which they are entitled under federal law and the laws of California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly employee who worked as an Auto Damage Adjuster for GEICO in San Diego, California. The Defendant furnishes car insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Brett D. Watson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com bwatson@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 Email: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com - and - 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 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com GROCERY OUTLET: Chavis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Outlet Inc., et al. The case is styled as Reginald Antonio Chavis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Grocery Outlet Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00308972-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 29, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited." Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. -- https://www.groceryoutlet.com/ -- is a chain of discount supermarkets that offer discounted, overstocked and closeout products from name brand and private label suppliers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGLSEY & KINGLSEY 16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 818-990-8300 Fax: 818-990-2903 Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Kuchar Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLLEEN KUCHAR v. SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02542-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) class: "Hourly nurses who worked in one or more workweeks at Aurora Manor Special Care Centre any time between November 11, 2018 and the present and have not executed an arbitration agreement with Defendants;" 3. appointing the named Plaintiff as class representative; 4. appointing Tittle & Perlmuter and the Fuchs Firm as class counsel; and 5. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the name, last known home address (including zip code), last known telephone number, last known email address, and dates of employment of all individuals within the above- defined class. Saber is to provide this information to the Plaintiffs within fifteen days of this order. The Plaintiff Kuchar makes overtime and wage claims against her former employer and against related employers. With her motion to certify her Ohio law claims as a class action, Kuchar seeks to represent herself and other Aurora Manor hourly nurses for unpaid worktime during lunch breaks. From 2012 to 2020, the Plaintiff Kuchar worked at Aurora Manor Special Care Centre, a nursing and care facility. With her class action claims, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Ohio law by automatically deducting a half-hour lunch break despite knowledge that nurses' job duties frequently required them to work through lunch. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3atFwui at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHY PAWS: Modification of Scheduling Order in Benanav Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, BRYAN GAGE, MONICA KOWALSKI, LINDSAY PURVEY, STEPHANIE CAUGHLIN, and KATHERINE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00421-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Court's scheduling order as follows:. -- Last day by which to add any 30 days after Defendant necessary parties files Answer -- Close of Fact Discovery June 30, 2022 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to July 22, 2022 file Motion for Class Certification and Class Certification Expert Reports -- Deadline for Defendant to September 23, 2022 file Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Class Certification Expert Reports; Deadline for Defendant to Complete Deposition of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to October 21, 2022 file Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification; Deadline for Plaintiffs to Complete Deposition of Defendant's Class Certification Experts -- All Parties' Daubert Motions November 15, 2022 as to Class Certification Experts -- All Parties' Oppositions December 6, 2022 to Daubert Motions as to Class Certification Experts -- All Parties' Replies to December 22, 2022 Daubert Motions as to Class Certification Experts -- Hearing on Motion for Class To be set by the Court Certification Healthy Paws is a pet health insurance provider. A copy the Parties' motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPByo8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 - and - Stan M. Doerrer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STAN DOERRER PLLC 950 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone (703) 348-4646 E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com Attorneys for Defendant Healthy Paws Pet Insurance LLC, are: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Stephen A. Broome, Esq. Justin C. Griffin, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 Facsimile: (206) 905-7100 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com sb@quinnemanuel.com - and - Rick Werder, Esq. Robert Longtin, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue 22 nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com HUGO BOSS: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices ---------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUGO BOSS RETAIL INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01687-H-MDD (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on Hugo Boss branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, Hugo Boss engages in a practice of false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to sell their goods above their true market price, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. Hugo Boss Retail Inc. operates Hugo Boss outlet stores in California and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells clothing and clothing accessories in California and throughout the United States. It is the American branch subsidiary of parent Hugo Boss AG, which is headquartered in Metzingen, Germany, and functions as Defendant's corporate parent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com IRVING K MOTOR: Class Cert. Response & Brief Filing Due Oct. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE WILLIAMSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IRVING K. MOTOR COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Clay Cooley Kia, Case No. 3:21-cv-01599-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered an order that: -- The respondent may file a response and brief containing citations to relevant authorities no later than Monday, October 18, 2021. -- The movant may file a reply no later than Monday, November 1, 2021. -- No hearing will be scheduled on the motions. Irving K is located in Irving, Texas, and is part of the Automobile Dealers Industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mU6IIy at no extra charge.[CC] JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Court Enters Initial Case Management Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH ELLENBERGER and CAITLAN SHOOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00732-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an initial case management order as follows: 1. Settlement Negotiations: Counsel for the parties shall confer with their clients and any involved insurance carriers before all case management, status, or pretrial conferences to obtain authority to participate in settlement negotiations conducted by the Court. 2. Initial Scheduling: The parties shall comply with the following deadlines: a) Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall be made on or before November 1, 2021. b) Additional parties shall be joined on or before December 1, 2021. c) Pleadings shall be amended by December 1, 2021. d) Class certification discovery should be completed by January 28, 2022. e) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by February 28, 2022. f) Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification and supporting evidence shall be filed within 21 days after the filing of the Motion for Class Certification. g) Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in support of Class Certification, if any, shall be filed within 14 days after the filing of Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification. h) Any Class Certification hearing will be scheduled by further order of Court. 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Counsel have requested and are granted leave to defer ADR until after a decision of the Court on Conditional Class Certification. 5. An Order implementing Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) shall be entered. 6. Discovery and Other Case Management Disputes: In the Court's experience, many discovery and case management disputes can be promptly resolved in a conference with the Court and counsel. 7. Other Deadlines/Post-Certification Determination Status Conference: A Post-Certification Determination Status Conference will be scheduled after decision upon class certification, at which time the Court will address the possibility of settlement; and as necessary, will set deadlines for completion of fact discovery; expert discovery; dispositive motions; pre-trial statements; motions in limine; and a presumptive trial date and final pre-trial conference. JusticeWorks is a family and child social services company providing child welfare services and serving youth in the Juvenile Court System. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FD2fm5 at no extra charge.[CC] KEEFE GROUP: Raney Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM S. RANEY, JESUS FLORES, CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, ET AL., v. ANDREW C. TAYLOR, CHRISSY TAYLOR, and KEEFE GROUP LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00485-bbc (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff Adam S. Raney asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to allow this case to proceed as a class action. Mr. Raney says that the class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticle. This class concerns all inmates in the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections (approximately 24,000 inmates). He asserts the actions of the defendants violated the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Act, Fraudulent Representations, and the Lanham Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. Keefe Group operates as a supplier of products to correctional facilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2mZOh at no extra charge.[CC] KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michelle Francione, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-10928 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 8, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05346 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Kraft Heinz Company -- https://www.kraftheinzcompany.com/ -- is the third-largest food and beverage company in North America and the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward L. Manchur, Esq. P.O. Box 3156 Peabody, MA 01960 Phone: (978) 333-1013 Email: alton823122@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Michael Smith, Esq. Kate Spelman, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Email: asmith@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com - and - Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq. Thomas Edward Quinn, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 222-9350 Email: dpanos@jenner.com tquinn@jenner.com - and - Nelson G. Apjohn, Esq. Ritika Bhakhri, Esq. NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2699 Phone: (617) 439-2246 Email: napjohn@nutter.com rbhakhri@nutter.com KROEGER CO: Castle Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The case is styled as Stacey Castle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:21-cv-01171 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger -- https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 260-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: Poole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory Corporation of America. The case is styled as Brian Loyd Poole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-102295 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 29, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- provides vital information to help doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and patients make clear and confident decision.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq. 10045 SW 111th St Miami, FL 33176-3462 Phone: 305-439-7872 Fax: 305-270-3203 LACY KATZEN: Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lacy Katzen, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Tovia Jakubowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lacy Katzen, LLP, AccessLex Institute doing business as: Access Group, Provest LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05579-EK-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Lacy Katzen Attorneys at Law -- https://www.lacykatzen.com/ -- is a full-service law firm, with a staff of more than 25 lawyers and multiple offices located throughout the Rochester NY area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com LENDGINGCLUB CORPORATION: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendingclub Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Yamita Anderson, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lendingclub Corporation, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00309434-CU-NP-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 7, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Civil Unlimited." LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is a fintech company that provides range of financial products and services through a technology-driven platform in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Loper Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HEATHER LOPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-583-CLM (N.D. Ala.), Judge Corey L. Maze of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division: (i) grants in part and denies in part Lifeguard's motion for summary judgment; and (ii) grants in part and denies in part its motion to strike and disregard. Background Ms. Loper brought a class action against Lifeguard to challenge its alleged practice of billing certain ambulance passengers excessive rates without contracting for or otherwise disclosing the price Lifeguard would charge for its services. In March 2017, Loper was a patient at Thomas Hospital in Fairhope, Alabama. After a few days in the hospital, Loper's doctor decided to transfer her either to UAB Hospital in Birmingham or Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville, whichever had the first available bed, to obtain more effective treatment. Loper's doctor contacted both hospitals on her behalf. Thomas Hospital contacted Lifeguard about providing an ambulance transport. And the hospital directed Lifeguard to deliver Loper by no later March 12, which was the next day. Lifeguard knew that Loper had health insurance through BlueCross and BlueShield of Alabama. But because this story began on Saturday and concluded on Sunday, Lifeguard was unable to determine the amount of coverage BlueCross would provide and thus didn't know whether BlueCross would pay for all, some, or none of the transport. So Lifeguard didn't make a pre-transport disclosure of the estimated cost. Loper and Murray believed that BlueCross would cover the entire cost. In his deposition, Murray vaguely recalled a Thomas Hospital representative saying that BlueCross would cover the transport. And Loper and her husband, Murray, each recalled an on-site Lifeguard representative saying that insurance would cover the trip. But the form did not set out the amount that Lifeguard would charge. Lifeguard submitted an $8,166.11 bill to BlueCross. That amount represented Lifeguard's base charge of $590.79 for a non-emergency basic-life-support transport and a mileage charge of $7,575.32 (458 miles at $16.54 per mile). Lifeguard calculated the total using its commercial rates for uninsured and privately insured passengers. But the parties dispute whether those align with "market" rates. BlueCross paid $3,889.96 to Lifeguard. That amount represented Loper's $4,862.45 in coverage minus Loper's 20% deductible. BlueCross then sent a notice to Murray that explained the amount it paid and that Loper still owed $4,276.15 to Lifeguard -- i.e., the sum of her deductible and the balance of the charge. In April 2017, Lifeguard sent an invoice to Loper for $4,276.15. Then, in August 2017, Lifeguard referred the debt to a collection agency. So Loper hired an attorney. In December 2017, Loper's counsel sent a letter to Lifeguard expressing that no written contract existed, that Loper did not consent to charges beyond what BlueCross paid, and that Lifeguard's rates were unreasonable. Loper made several demands, including "cease and desist any attempts at collection," and she threatened to sue. In her October 2020 deposition, Loper testified that she began paying "around $20 or $30 a month" for a credit-monitoring service because of the collection effort. But Lifeguard has not reported Loper's debt to any credit agencies and her credit has not suffered. Nor has Lifeguard pursued collection efforts since December 2017. Indeed, Loper testified that she "never heard another word" about the debt after her counsel sent the December 7th letter. Ms. Loper filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. Lifeguard removed it to this federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. After removal, the Court denied Loper's requests to voluntarily dismiss and to remand to state court. Ms. Loper then filed an amended complaint with claims for declaratory judgment (seeking declaratory and injunctive relief), fraudulent suppression, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Her amended complaint seeks these declarations: a. that the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Class did not enter into any express written contract for the Plaintiff and the Class to pay the prices charged by the Defendant for the transportation services it provided; b. that the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Class did not enter into any express oral contract for the Plaintiff and the Class to pay the prices charged by the Defendant for the transportation services it provided; c. that the law implies a contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class whereby the Defendant rendered services and in return is to receive a reasonable value for its services; d. that the Defendant charged the Plaintiff and the Class rates in excess of reasonable charges as required by state law; e. that the Defendant has no legally enforceable right to charge and/or collect the prices charged in any court proceeding or other collection effort, and the Plaintiff and the Class have no legal obligation to pay Defendant the prices charged by the Defendant for the transportation of patients; and f. that the Defendant charges prices that are excessive and unsupportable by market rates. Ms. Loper also asks for an injunction ordering Lifeguard to stop "charging excessive rates for the transporting of patients without an express agreement" and to quit its "attempts to collect outstanding bills representative of excessive rates for which no express agreement as to price exists." She also requests "disgorgement" of funds wrongfully collected. Lifeguard filed a motion for summary judgment on Loper's claims. Foreseeing a different ending, Loper filed a motion (and corrected motion) for class certification. She asks to proceed on behalf of: "All individuals with private health insurance and/or uninsureds who, within the applicable statute of limitations under their respective state's law, have been charged in excess of reasonable market rates by the Defendant for medical transport services from a location within the United States without an express contract to pay specific mileage and other amounts charged." Lifeguard opposes class certification. Discussion Judge Maze divides its discussion section into two main parts. First, he addresses Lifeguard's motion to strike and disregard. Second, he analyzes whether Lifeguard is entitled to summary judgment. I. Lifeguard's Motion to Strike and Disregard After briefing and a hearing on Lifeguard's summary judgment motion, Loper presented two documents contending that Lifeguard's actions harmed her in three ways: (1) unlawfully billing her; (2) forcing her to incur the cost of a credit-monitoring service; and (3) forcing her to hire counsel to fight Lifeguard's collection effort. Lifeguard asks the Court to strike those filings and to disregard those damages allegations because Loper introduced them "for the first time in response to Lifeguard's motion for summary judgment." Judge Maze grants in part and denies in part that request. He grants Lifeguard's motion to strike in part and disregard's Loper's reliance on her attorney expenses. She cannot rely on that information to oppose summary judgment. As for the unlawful billing and credit monitoring, Loper complied with Rule 26(a) and Rule 26(e) because that information came out during discovery, which put Lifeguard on notice that Loper might rely on it to support her claims. So even though Loper's supplemental filings that identified those alleged damages were untimely, the Judge will not strike them as to that information because the filings were unnecessary and any violation was therefore harmless. II. Lifeguard's Motion for Summary Judgment Judge Maze analyzes Lifeguard's motion proceeds in two parts. First, he analyzes whether Loper presents a justiciable controversy. Second, he discusses the merits of Loper's claims. The Judge grants Lifeguard's motion in part and denies it in part. A. Does Loper present a justiciable controversy? Judge Maze holds that the Court has a continuing and independent obligation to assure itself of jurisdiction before reaching the merits. Citing Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020). The case involves two jurisdictional questions: standing and mootness. Judge Maze opines that Loper has Article III standing to pursue retrospective relief for breach of contract, and the prospective relief of the part of declaration (e) pertaining to Lifeguard's right to collect charged amounts and her second injunction request. With regards mootnes, Lifeguard has not pursued collection against Loper since December 2017. But Lifeguard's counsel admitted that it ceased doing so to avoid litigation, shortly after Loper hired an attorney. And Lifeguard has confidently acknowledged that it continues to apply the commercial rates that are the subject of the lawsuit for other ambulance passengers. For those reasons, the case is not moot. Judge Maze now proceeds to the merits. B. Are there questions of fact for the jury to decide? Ms. Loper brought claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment (and injunctive relief), fraudulent suppression, and negligent misrepresentation. Judge Maze addresses her claims in that order. 1. Breach of Contract Lifeguard contends that the parties entered an express agreement that committed Loper to pay Lifeguard's standard commercial rates. In the alternative, Lifeguard says that Loper agreed to pay Lifeguard's standard rates under any implied-in-fact agreement. And Lifeguard argues that Loper's claim fails because Loper didn't suffer any actual damages. Ms. Loper, by contrast, argues that the price term in the Acknowledgment Form is too indefinite to enforce. Her view is that the parties entered an implied-in-fact contract without a price term. This means that the contract contained an open, undefined, or missing price term, and the law therefore implies a promise to pay the reasonable value of the service. And Lifeguard breached that contract by charging more than the reasonable value. Judge Maze opines that questions of fact exist about the parties' implied-in-fact agreement and the reasonableness of Lifeguard's charge. So Loper's failure to pay that amount (to date) does not preclude that question from going to the jury. He thus denies summary judgment on breach of contract. 2. Declaratory and injunctive relief Lifeguard presses several arguments against prospective relief. In its initial brief, Lifeguard focused its arguments on the improbability of Loper and Lifeguard interacting in the future. In its reply brief, Lifeguard added that the Court cannot issue a declaratory judgment that adjudicates past behavior and that declarations that are "merely duplicative of a breach of contract claim" must also be dismissed. Of her six declaratory-judgment requests, Ms. Loper only has standing to pursue the part of request (e) related to Lifeguard's right to collect and Loper's obligation to pay previously charged amounts. Judge Maze allow request (e) to continue because it would adjudicate Lifeguard's right to pursue collection from Loper in the future. And it neither adjudicates past conduct nor is duplicative of her breach-of-claim. He issues such a declaration -- in sufficiently specific form -- if Loper prevails at trial. Ms. Loper also seeks two injunctions. The first would require Lifeguard to "cease charging excessive rates for the transporting of patients without an express agreement." The second would order Lifeguard to "cease its attempts to collect outstanding bills representative of excessive rates for which no express agreement as to price exists." Lifeguard's only argument against injunctive relief is that Loper lacks prospective standing. But because the Court has already rejected that argument, the second injunctive-relief request survives summary judgment. 3. Ms. Loper's tort claims Finally, Loper brought claims for fraudulent suppression and negligent misrepresentation. Lifeguard asks for summary judgment on those claims. And Loper did not oppose summary judgment in her briefing. So Judge Maze grants Lifeguard's motion as to those claims. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Maze grants in part and denies in part Lifeguard's motion to strike and disregard. He grants in part and denies in part its motion for summary judgment. He will enter a separate order that dismisses the claims for which he grants Lifeguard's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 29, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pz3rwx5v from Leagle.com. LOUISIANA: Seeks to Stay Tellis Case Pending Petition in 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TELLIS and BRUCE CHARLES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, JERRY GOODWIN, Warden of David Wade Correction Center COL. LONNIE NAIL; DOCTOR GREGORY SEAL; ASSISTANT WARDEN DEBORAH DAUZAT; STEVE HAYDEN; AERIAL ROBINSON; JOHNIE ADKINS; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETYAND CORRECTIONS, Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that the district court stay this matter pending their petition for permission to appeal filed on October 4, 2021 with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In connection with the Petition, the Defendants have filed this motion for stay with this Court, a Request for Stay with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a Motion for Expedited Consideration with the Fifth Circuit. Th Defendants submit that a granting of a stay will serve the parties in allowing the appellate court time to consider whether it will entertain Defendants' appeal and the subsequent disposition of the appeal should it agree to review at this time. On September 20, 2021, this Court certified a class and subclass in this matter. The certification of the class and subclass gives the Defendants an opportunity to petition the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Defendants are exercising through the filing of a Petition for Permission to Appeal on October 4, 2021. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mNsn4V at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeff Landry, Esq. Randal J. Robert, Esq. Connell L. Archey, Esq. Keith J. Fernandez, Esq. Aliena W. McCain, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 445 North Boulevard, Suite 300 (70802) P. O. Box 2997 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-2997 Telephone: (225) 383-4703 Facsimile: (225) 343-0630 E-mail: Randv.Robert@butlersnow.com Connell.Archev@butlersnow.com Keith.Fernandez@butlersnow.com Allena.McCain@butlersnow.com MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Chavira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark III Construction, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nelson Chavira, Michael Bird, Mickey Lathum, Michael McCreven, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mark III Construction, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00308972-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 29, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited." Mark III Construction, Inc. -- https://mark-three.com/ -- is an industry leading design/build mechanical, electrical, and underground utility contractor specializing in commercial and industrial construction throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN HELMAN et al., v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00036-RM (D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Classes because common evidence will be used to prove the Marriott Defendants' liability on every claim in this case, and all other Rule 23 requirements are satisfied: -- CICO, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding/Abetting, and Breach of Implied Covenant Class "All entities and individuals (including their assignees) who owned a 1/12 fractional interest at the Ritz-Carlton Great Bay as of July 17, 2012, but excluding (a) those who financed their purchases through any Defendant and whose fractional interest was foreclosed upon; (b) any Defendants named in the complaint and any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of any defendant; any successor or assignee of any defendant; any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; and any officer, director, or employee of any defendant; and (c) anyone who was a member of the board of directors of either the Great Bay Condominium Owners Association or the Neighborhood Association between 2008-2014;" and -- Fraudulent Concealment Class "All members of the Class described above who also owned their fractional interests as of January 26, 2014." The Ritz-Carlton St. Thomas is a luxury private residence club in the Virgin Islands that has 105 condominiums sold in 1/12 fractional interests. Each fractional is a separately deeded property interest that allows its owner to stay at the Club for three weeks per year. The Plaintiffs paid premium prices for their fractionals -- between $100,000 and $200,000 per interest -- and also pay annual maintenance fees that average over $12,000. Marriott’s uniform control over all class members' property Marriott drafted the Club's governing documents to provide itself with practical control over all class members' interests. Marriott International (MI) also had control over the Association when it was formed in 2002, and caused it to enter into a management agreement that would allow Marriott to have perpetual control over the Club and its management. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2X66fdc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler Meade, Esq. THE MEADE FIRM p.c. 12 Funston Ave., Suite A San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 724-9600 E-mail: tyler@meadefirm.com - and - J. Russell B. Pate, Esq. THE PATE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 890 St. Thomas, VI 00804 Telephone: (340) 777-7283 E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com SunLawVI@gmail.com - and - Michael J. Reiser, Esq. REISER LAW, P.C. 1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 256-0400 E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com - and - Michael L. Schrag, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 530-9700 E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com - and - Clay Townsend, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-6041 E-mail: ctownsend@forthepeople.com - and - Matt Ferguson, Esq. FERGUSON SCHINDLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 119 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-6288 E-mail: matt@fsaspenlaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN HELMAN et al., v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00036-RM (D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Classes. -- CICO, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding/Abetting, and Breach of Implied Covenant Class: "All entities and individuals (including their assignees) who owned a 1/12 fractional interest at the Ritz-Carlton Great Bay as of July 17, 2012, but excluding (a) those who financed their purchases through any Defendant and whose fractional interest was foreclosed upon; (b) any Defendants named in the complaint and any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of any defendant; any successor or assignee of any defendant; any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; and any officer, director, or employee of any defendant; and (c) anyone who was a member of the board of directors of either the Great Bay Condominium Owners Association or the Neighborhood Association between 2008-2014;" and -- Fraudulent Concealment Class: "All members of the Class described above who also owned their fractional interests as of January 26, 2014." The Ritz-Carlton St. Thomas is a luxury private residence club in the Virgin Islands that has 105 condominiums sold in 1/12 fractional interests. Marriott drafted the Club's governing documents to provide itself with practical control over all class members' interests. Marriott International (MI) also had control over the Association when it was formed in 2002, and caused it to enter into a management agreement that would allow Marriott to have perpetual control over the Club and its management. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lsaFoe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler Meade, Esq. THE MEADE FIRM P.C. 12 Funston Ave., Suite A San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 724-9600 E-mail: tyler@meadefirm.com - and - J. Russell B. Pate, Esq. THE PATE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 890 St. Thomas, VI 00804 Telephone: (340) 777-7283 E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com SunLawVI@gmail.com - and - Michael J. Reiser, Esq. REISER LAW, P.C. 1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 256-0400 E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com - and - Michael L. Schrag, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 530-9700 E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com - and - Clay Townsend, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-6041 E-mail: ctownsend@forthepeople.com - and - Matt Ferguson, Esq. FERGUSON SCHINDLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 119 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-6288 E-mail: matt@fsaspenlaw.com MAVERICK FIELD: Misclassifies Manual Workers, McCaig Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MCCAIG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAVERICK FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00173 (W.D. Tex., September 24, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Completions Foreman from approximately January 2020 to July 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying him and other similarly situated manual workers as exempt from overtime. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff adds. Maverick Field Services, LLC operates in the oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com METORPOLITAN LIFE: Stewart Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Alverta Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-08092-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Professional Business Systems doing business as Practicefirst Medical Management Solutions -- https://www.practicefirstsecure.com/ -- provides billing, coding, credentialing, enrollment, chart audits, compliance and practice management.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Fax: (914) 824-1561 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com MEWBOURNE OIL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAY CREEK ROYALTIES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01199-F (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Friot entered a first amended scheduling order as follows: -- Class certification fact January 31, 2022 discovery cutoff -- Plaintiff's class certification March 1, 2022 expert report -- Defendant's class certification March 31, 2022 expert report -- Plaintiff's class certification not later than April expert deposition 19, 2022 -- Defendant's class certification not later than May 16, expert deposition 2022 -- Class Certification Motion June 15, 2022 filed with all supporting evidence -- Class Certification Response July 13, 2022 filed with all supporting evidence -- Class Certification Reply August 1, 2022 filed with any rebuttal evidence -- Class Certification Hearing September 12, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. Mewbourne Oil Company operates as an oil company The Company specializes in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCkQym at no extra charge.[CC] MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Baten Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY BATEN, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, WESTERN DELIVERY & LOGISTICS, LLC, d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, and LARRY BROWNE, Case No. 2:18-cv-10229-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class of: "All individuals who worked as delivery drivers under contract with CLI and/or WD&L in California between November 2, 2014 and September 9, 2021 for whom Defendants have not produced by September 9, 2021 an executed Arbitration Agreement." On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court, which Defendants removed to the United States District for the Central District of California. On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's FAC asserts the following causes of action under California law: (1) Overtime Claim; (2) Minimum Wage Claim; (3) Unlawful Wage Deductions Claim; (4) Meal and Rest Break Claims; (5) Timely Wage Payment Claim; (6) Wage Statement Claim; (7) Expense Reimbursement Claim; and (8) Unfair Business Practices Claim based on the foregoing violations. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303H4Jl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. OLIVIER SCHREIBER AND CHAO LLP 1149 N. Gower St., Suite 215 Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (415) 484-0522 Facsimile: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: rachel@osclegal.com - and - Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25 th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com - and - Adam Koshkin, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: akoshkin@outtengolden.com - and - Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Marijana Matura, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, New York 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com mmatura@kesslermatura.com MIELE INC: Alcazar Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, and PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIELE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02890-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification to November 1, 2021. No further extensions will be granted, says Judge Chhabria. Miele is a German manufacturer of high-end domestic appliances and commercial equipment, headquartered in Gutersloh, Ostwestfalen-Lippe. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iSLGZt at no extra charge.[CC] MRS BPO: Rosenberg Seeks to Certify Class of New York Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naftali Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MRS BPO, L.L.C. d/b/a MRS Associates, Case No. 1:21-cv-02200-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the putative Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because it readily meets the requirements of Rule 23(a): "All individuals with addresses in New York; to whom Defendant sent a collection letter; on behalf of Verizon Wireless; that did not include any information regarding the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs if not paid by the provided dates; which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 2l days after the filing of this action;" 2. appointing Tamir Saland as Class Counsel for the proposed Class; and 3. appointing Naftali Rosenberg as Class Representative for the proposed Class. This is class action case where Defendant allegedly engaged in the same uniform conduct for each member of the Class in violation of Section 15 U.S.C. section 1692 e et seq. of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The conduct at issue concerns the deceptive practice of omitting any information regarding the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs if not paid by the provided dates, when in fact the balance was subject to increase due to fees and other charges. Each member of the proposed class is a New York debtor who incurred or allegedly incurred a debt with Verizon Wireless that was subject to increase due to the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs. Each member of the proposed class was subject to the exact same conduct and methodology. The Plaintiff has a New York State address, located in Kings County. The Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter on May 1, 2020 on behalf of Verizon Wireless that did not include any information regarding the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs if not paid by the provided dates, when in fact the debt was subject to increase due to the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs, exactly like the other consumers in the putative class. On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff was sent a subsequent collection letter, evidencing the increased amount of debt due, related to "fees and other charges." MRS provides business process outsourcing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lsmdYo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ, 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 122 E-mail: tsaland@SteinSaksLegal.com NATIONAL CONSUMER: Time Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. TREPETA, on behalf himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. (NCTUE) and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-RCY-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order for enlargements of time to complete briefing on Plaintiff's upcoming renewed motion for class certification as follows: Event Current Requested Deadline Deadline -- Plaintiff's Renewed Motion Oct. 15, 2021 Nov. 5, 2021 for Class Certification -- Equifax's Response Nov. 15, 2021 Dec. 6, 2021 -- Plaintiff's Reply Dec. 6, 2021 Dec. 27, 2021 NCTUE is a reporting agency that collects data such as, payment history, account history, from paid tv services, utilities, and telecommunications services. Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Parties motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DAbhhw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: len@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com The Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC, is represented by: Zach McEntyre, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572 4636 E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Mohammadb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Mia Mohammadb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05606 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Enterprise Systems (NES) -- https://www.nes1.com/ -- is an account receivable collection agency servicing credit grantors from retail, automotive, financial services, and telecommunications industries in all fifty states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com NEW DAY HOME: Faces McKinsey Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- GWENDOLYN MCKINSEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW DAY HOME CARE, INC., CREATIVE LIVING COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, CLEMENT POWNALL, and GRACE POWNALL, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01284 (D. Conn., September 24, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover damages as a result of its violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Wage Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on or about August 26, 2019 as an Independent Living Support Trainer to provide care and companion services to its consumers. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the FLSA by refusing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees and former employees in accordance with the provisions of the FLSA for all hours worked, that includes an overtime rate for any of the hours they worked more than 40 hours in a week. New Day Home Care, Inc. provides homecare and companionship services. Clement Pownall and Grace Pownall are owners of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Petela, Esq. Richard Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 900 Chapel St., 11th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Tel: (203) 691-6491 Fax: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com OAKLAND, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gaffett Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE GAFFETT, et al., v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02881-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying in part and granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion is denied except as to the conspiracy claim and the part of the Ralph Act claim for discrimination based on national origin and religion; those parts of the motion are granted. Should Plaintiffs elect to file a further amended complaint on the claims identified in this order, they must do so within 21 days of this date, says Judge Seeborg. The Plaintiffs were injured by police while protesting police brutality last summer. They sued the unknown law enforcement officers who injured them, the Oakland Police Department and some of its leaders, and Alameda County and its Sheriff, Gregory Ahern. Alameda County and Sheriff Ahern move to dismiss. They argue Plaintiffs cannot show they will likely be injured again, or that the County can be held liable for its deputies' actions in this case. Neither of Defendants' arguments supply sufficient grounds to dismiss Plaintiffs' core claims. The Plaintiffs adequately plead that Defendants' failure to train, for example, may give rise to liability. However, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs have not averred enough facts for their conspiracy claim. Similarly, the Complaint contains no facts to explain how Defendants could have discriminated against Plaintiffs based on religion or national origin. For the reasons further set out below, the Defendants' motion is denied, except that it is granted as to the conspiracy count and part of the Ralph Act count. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJ7qYQ at no extra charge.[CC] PATRICK MEYERS: Collins Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrick Meyers. The case is styled as Stephen E. Collins, Resort Meeting Source, a Colorado limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Patrick Meyers, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Case No. 1:21-cv-02713-WJM (D. Colo., Oct. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Patrick Meyers -- https://oedit.colorado.gov/pat-meyers -- was appointed by Governor Polis as the Executive Director of the Office of Economic Development and International Trade and as the Chief Economic Recovery Officer in April 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn E. Roper, Esq. Wencong Fa, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION-HIGHLANDS RANCH 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 Phone: (720) 344-4881 Fax: (916) 419-7747 Email: geroper@pacificlegal.org wfa@pacificlegal.org PHIL LIGHTFOOT: Gomillion Files Suit in M.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phil Lightfoot, et al. The case is styled as C. G. Gomillion, Celia B. Chambers, Alma R. Craig, Frank H. Bentley, Willie D. Bentley, Kenneth L. Buford, William J. White, Augustus O. Young, Jr., Detroit Lee, Delia D. Sullivan, Lynwood T. Dorsey, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Phil M. Lightfoot, as mayor of the City of Tuskegee; G. B. Edwards, Jr., L. D. Gregory, Frank A. Oslin, W. Foy Thompson, H. A. Vaughan, Jr., as member of the Tuskegee City Council; O. L. Hodnett, as Chief of Police of the City of Tuskegee, Alabama; E. C. Leslie, Charles Huddleston, J. T. Dyson, F. C. Thompson, Virgil Guthrie, as members of the Board of Revenue of Macon County, Alabama; Preston Hornsby, as Sheriff of Macon County, Alabama; William Varner, as Judge of Probate of Macon County, Alabama; City of Tuskegee, Alabama, a Municipal Corporation; Case No. 3:58-cv-00462-FMJ (M.D. Ala., Oct. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Voting Civil Rights. Phil M. Lightfoot is the mayor of the City of Tuskegee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred Sr. D. Gray, Esq. GRAY LANGFORD SAPP MCGOWAN GRAY GRAY & NATHANSON PC PO Box 830239 Tuskegee, AL 36083-0239 Phone: (334) 727-4830 Fax: (334) 727-5877 Email: fgray@glsmgn.com PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Seeks Decertification of Green Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GREEN, et al., v. PLATINUM RESTAURANTS MID-AMERICA LLC d/b/a EDDIE MERLOT'S PRIME AGED BEEF AND SEAFOOD, Case No. 3:14-cv-00439-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, Platinum requests that the Court decertify this matter as a class and collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Platinum contends that it is entitled to decertification because permitting this case to proceed as a class and collective action while Plaintiffs are clearly not similarly situated, and do not assert any common contention, would lead to anomalous results and would create an administrative nightmare for the Court and Platinum. Platinum is a full-service restaurants. A copy of the Defendant motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DreQGX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kyle D. Johnson, Esq. John T. Lovett, Esq. Jennifer L. Bame, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor Louisville, KY 40202-3363 Telephone: (502) 589-5400 Facsimile: (502) 581-1087 E-mail: jlovett@fbtlaw.com kjohnson@fbtlaw.com jbame@fbtlaw.com PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Amendment of Scheduling Order in Kohl Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KOHL and MATTHEW KOHL, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, v. PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, LLC, PLURIS HOLDINGS, LLC, and PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline -- Motion for Class Certification October 29, 2021 -- Opposition to Class Certification December 13, 2021 -- Reply in support of Class Certification January 7, 2022 A copy of the Parties motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YBRW0n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Maher, Esq. Matthew S. Mokwa, Esq. Jason R. Fraxedas, Esq. THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A. 271 W. Canton Ave.. Suite 1 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 839-0866 Facsimile: (407) 425-7958 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com mmokwa@maherlawfirm.com jrfraxedas@maherlawfirm.com - and - Christopher B. Hood, Esq. Timothy C. Davis, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com tim@hglawfirm.com - and - Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com Michelle.montecalvo@normandpllc.com Service@normandpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Jenny A. Hergenrother, Esq. Douglas S. Arnold, Esq. Cari K. Dawson, Esq. Jenny A. Hergenrother, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: doug.arnold@alston.com cari.dawson@alston.com jenny.hergenrother@alston.com - and - Phil Sandick, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 239-3000 Facsimile: (202) 239-3300 E-mail: phil.sandick@alston.com PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Bid for Class Certification Due October 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohl, et al., v. Pluris Wedgefield, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered an endorsed order granting joint motion to amend case management and to modify the class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification due Octobber 29, 2021 -- Opposition to Class Certification due December 13, 2021 -- Reply in support of Class January 7, 2022 Certification due The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] PROBUILD COMPANY: Settlement in Sengvong Suit Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTINA SENGVONG, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02231-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class settlement and granting in substantial part Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and an incentive award; 2. certifying the Settlement Class for the purposes of the Settlement; 3. approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); 4. directing the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement that arise out of this Order; 5. awarding attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $350,000 and costs in the amount of $8,581.33; 6. awarding Plaintiff an incentive payment for work performed as the class representative in the amount of $15,000;p[ 7. directing the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment of dismissal in accordance herewith, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), and to close the case. The Settlement Class consists of: "all persons employed by Defendants in California as non- exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class Period (October 15, 2015 through October 3, 2020)." There are 1894 Settlement Class Members with two opt-outs. The Defendant will pay a total sum of $1.4 million (the "Gross Settlement Amount") in full settlement of all claims. The parties have agreed that no portion of the Gross Settlement Amount will revert to Defendant. The Defendants are suppliers of structural and related building products for new residential construction, including lumber, windows, pre-hung doors, and other general construction tools and supplies. In California, the Defendants operate retail locations. The Plaintiff resides in San Diego, California. The Defendants first employed Plaintiff on January 25, 2018 to work as a materials handler at their Dixieline Lumber & Home Centers in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff continuously worked for Defendants from the time of his hire until approximately February 6, 2019, when his employment ended. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, sent a written notice by certified mail to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and Defendants of the specific California Labor Code provisions to have been allegedly violated by the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against the Defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to provide meals periods; (2) Failure to provide rest periods; (3) Failure to compensate for all hours worked; (4) Failure to Indemnify; (5) Failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (6) Waiting time penalties; (7) Unfair competition; and (7) Civil Penalties. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ay7zDe at no extra charge.[CC] PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY SHARP, MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. f/k/a NBTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class: "All individual consumer residents of California who purchased Defendants' Products pursuant to a BOGO price, directly from Defendants, within the applicable statutory limitations period, including the period following the filing of the date of this action;" and 2. appointing Plaintiffs Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, Mary Ludolph-Aliaga, and Penelope Mueller as Class Representatives; The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' BOGO marketing scheme runs afoul of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Certification is appropriate because whether Defendants' perpetual BOGO prices are false, deceptive, and unlawful is a common question that will be determined by reference to an objective, "reasonable consumer" standard and established by common proof for the numerous class of consumers." This common question is "capable of class-wide resolution -- which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Finally, because Defendants continue to engage in this misconduct, they can prove entitlement to both monetary relief under the CLRA and injunctive relief under the UCL, on a common basis, the Plaintiffs add. The Class period in this case is defined as October 14, 2012 through the present. The Plaintiffs sought detailed sales and marketing information from Defendants for the entire class period in discovery, which Defendants refused to produce. The Defendants have offered Products for sale under BOGO prices throughout the entire Class Period. Throughout this time, Defendants have directly marketed and sold their branded Products to consumers via catalog, email, mail, and through their website www.puritan.com. Defendants do not sell the Products through brick and mortar retailers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YBVXlv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com - and - William Hansult, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT 1399 Ramona Avenue, # C Grover Beach, CA 93433 Telephone: (805) 489-1448 E-mail: hansultlaw@aol.com - and - Tina Mehr, Esq. VISION LEGAL, INC. 445 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (877) 870-9953 Facsimile: (877) 348-8509 E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com PVH CORP: Fallenstein Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices --------------------------------------------------------- CALLY FALLENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVH CORP., a Delaware Corporation, PVH RETAIL STORES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01690-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on Calvin Klein branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants engage in a practice of false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. PHV Corp. operates Calvin Klein outlet stores, as well as the calvinklein.com website, and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells clothing and clothing accessories in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying three Classes of persons who have dined at any of the public food service establishments owned and operated by the Defendant Ritz-Carlton Hotel since November 28, 2013 and who paid an undisclosed or improperly disclosed automatic gratuity: -- No Notice Class "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food service establishment in the state of Florida owned and/or operated by Defendant; (ii) were presented with a menu that provided no notice that an automatic gratuity or service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full;" -- Inadequate Notice Class "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food service establishment in the state of Florida owned and/or operated by Defendant; (ii) were presented with a menu that provided inadequate notice that an automatic gratuity or service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full. -- Miami Inadequate Notice Class: "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food service establishment in Miami-Dade County-owned and/or operated by Defendant; (ii) were not presented with conspicuous notice, either on a sign or in a statement on the establishment's menu in the same form and manner as the other items on the menu, that an automatic gratuity or service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full. The Plaintiff asserts that Ritz has for years pursued a deceptive practice of imposing an automatic gratuity or service charge on customers' bills with no advance notice, or with inadequate notice, on the restaurants' menus. The Plaintiff's claims are based on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. 501.201 et seq. ("FDUTPA"), Fla. Stat. Ann. 509.214 and Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8A-110.1(3). A. The Experience of Plaintiff Michael Fox From April 4 through April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff Fox stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne in Miami, Florida. During his stay, he ordered and paid for food and beverages from three separate public food service establishments located in the hotel -- Lightkeepers, Cantina Beach, and Key Pantry. On each occasion he was unaware he would be charged an automatic service charge. B. Ritz's Common Practices Discovery produced to date demonstrates Defendant's violations of Florida law with respect to the Classes. Mr. Coleman's review of the menus produced to date demonstrates that it was Defendant's widespread practice to omit any notice to consumers whatsoever of an automatic gratuity or service charge from the face of the menus used in its Florida public food service establishments. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an American multinational company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton. The company has 108 luxury hotels and resorts in 30 countries and territories with 29,158 rooms, in addition to 46 hotels with 8,755 rooms in the pipeline. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DnFYXg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITH MARCO, P.C. 7204 Kyle Ct. Sarasota, Florida 34240 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 - and - P.C. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 - and - Lewis J. Saul, Esq. Edward A. Coleman, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 SAN GABRIEL: Misclassifies Recovery Care Technicians, Forbes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTY FORBES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN GABRIEL RECOVERY RANCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00851-LY (W.D. Tex., September 24, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a recovery care technician from October 2018 to September 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has misclassified her and other similarly situated recovery care technicians as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. Even though they worked more than 40 hours a week, the Defendant denied them of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff. San Gabriel Recovery Ranch, LLC operates a chain of mental health facilities known as "The Arbor." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Device Unsafe, Blank Says --------------------------------------------------- Larry Hunter-Blank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SoClean, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02425, (D. Kan., September 28, 2021), seeks actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available resulting from fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. SoClean manufactures and markets devices used to clean continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, which are used to treat sleep apnea. SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize CPAP machines. Blank alleges that ozone used is an unstable toxic gas that causes respiratory problems in humans and are not safe. Plaintiff is the owner of a SoClean CPAP cleaning device. Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com STERIGENICS US: Court Junks Vallejo's First Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. e 3:20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order: 1. granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint and class allegations; and 2. denying defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations. The Court finds that Plaintiff's claim for unfair competition is derivative of 25 first through sixth causes of action. Therefore, because the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first through sixth causes of action, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claim for unfair competition WITH leave to amend. The Plaintiff brings this class action for alleged violations of wage abuse under California's Labor Codes and Business and Professions Code. Between January 2013 and January 2018, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid non-exempt Machine Operator. During this time, the Defendant allegedly "had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the Class; to directly or indirectly control work rules, working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiff and the Class; and to hire and terminate the employment of Plaintiff and the Class." The Plaintiff asserts Defendant "engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees." For example, the Plaintiff states Defendant regularly required Plaintiff and the purported class to work off the clock without compensation, rounded employee time in a manner that was not neutral which advantaged Defendants, and failed to adequately inform Plaintiff and the purported class of their right to take meal and rest periods. Sterigenics is a business unit of Sotera Health along with Nordion (TM) and Nelson Labs (TM). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lAsLUS at no extra charge.[CC] TULSA INSPECTION: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mitchell Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TULSA INSPECTION RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-H (N.D. Tex., September 24, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from approximately November 2019 to February 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt from overtime. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff added. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC operates in the oil and gas industry and performs inspection services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Patel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILA Y KAMAL PATEL, RACHEL A. GLADSTONE, ELIJAH BLOW, and AVERY ARROYO, v. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00061-gwc (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The court declines to bifurcate class certification and merits discovery. 2. The parties and the court are all committed to reaching the class certification issues as early as possible. The court sets a deadline of six months -- April 1, 2022 -- for the filing of a class certification motion. The court intends this deadline to hold. It is not intended to be the first of multiple extended deadlines. That means that discovery relevant to the class issues must be largely complete by March 1, 2022 in order to allow time for counsel to draft the motion papers. 3. The court allows Defendant 45 days to file a response to the class certification motion. The Plaintiffs have 15 days for a reply. The court will set a hearing on the class certification motion soon after June 1, 2022. Following a ruling on the motion, the court will meet with the parties to discuss any remaining need for discovery. 4. The Plaintiffs will disclose any class certification experts within 60 days. 5. Prior to April 1, 2022, the defendant is also entitled to conduct discovery without limitation about whether it relates to class or merits issues. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' counsel has agreed that discovery into the individual tuition and scholarship arrangements for thousands of UVM students during the spring semester of 2020 is not necessary at least at this time. The parties agree that discovery into information concerning the various sources of student tuition payment and the decision to move to an online format as a result of the COVID-19 emergency is generally appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel advised that they were primarily interested in the communications sent out to students and the university community as well as the internal discussions and policy statements by senior administrators concerning this decision. They do not intend to seek every email by a UVM faculty member, department chair, or administrator concerning the movement to online instruction. With this commitment to a focused discovery effort, the court declines to create two stages of discovery." The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, is a public land-grant research university in Burlington, Vermont. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FFhhHK at no extra charge.[CC] VCG ENERGY: McCaig Seeks Foremen's Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MCCAIG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VCG ENERGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-03430 (W.D. La., September 24, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover damages against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a completions foreman from approximately September 2015 to December 2019. The Plaintiff asserts that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, he and other similarly situated manual workers were not compensated at the federally mandated overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hour worked. This is because the Defendant has misclassified them as exempt from overtime compensation, says the Plaintiff. VCG Energy Group, LLC operates in the oil and gas industry and provides various services at oil wells across the Southwest US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and – Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Edgar Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EDGAR v. WESTCHESTER PARKWAY CONSULTING LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Court entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by October 15, 2021. -- Venue and jurisdiction There are no contested issues related to venue or jurisdiction at this time. -- Parties and pleadings Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by February 18, 2022. The motion for class certification shall be filed by September 30, 2022. Defendants' motion for decertification of any conditionally certified FLSA collective action shall be filed by September 30, 2022. -- Issues This is a putative collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, based on his allegation that Defendants failed to pay employees overtime wages in purported violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: (1) an FLSA collective action for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; (2) a Rule 23 class action for alleged unpaid overtime under the Ohio Wage Act; (3) a Rule 23 class action for alleged violations of the OPPA; and (4) alleged recordkeeping violations under the Ohio Wage Act. Defendants deny that they are liable under any of Plaintiff's causes of action and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief he and the putative class and collective seek in this action. Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. -- Discovery procedures All discovery shall be completed by August 31, 2022. -- Dispositive motions Any dispositive motions shall be filed by September 30, 2022. -- Expert testimony Primary expert reports must be produced by 45 days after a ruling on dispositive motions. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by 45 days after primary expert reports. -- Settlement Plaintiff will make a settlement demand 30 days after Defendant produces Plaintiff's and the class members' payroll and timekeeping records after the notice period. The Defendant will respond 30 days after receiving Plaintiff's demand. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVvKt8 at no extra charge.[CC] WORKDAY INC: Juster Sues Over Unauthorized Backgrounds Checks ------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Juster, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Workday, Inc. and Hireright, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07555, (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2021), requests statutory and punitive damages, including attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief for violation of the California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, as well as for breach of contract. Juster applied to Workday, Inc. in approximately May 2021 and was hired to work in June of 2021. He was required to fill out a standard authorization form permitting Defendants to obtain a consumer report verifying his background and experience. He alleges that Defendants forced him to sign an unlawful non-compete and non-solicitation clause. He also asserts that their background checks are in violation of his rights. Hireright provides background checks for employees, with its principal place of business located in Orange County, California. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ashwin Ladva, Esq. Scott S. Nakama, Esq. LADVA LAW FIRM 530 Jackson Street, 2nd Flr. San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 296-8844 Fax: (415) 296-8847 Email: ladvalaw@gmail.com snakama@ladvalaw.com - and - Daniel Martinez de la Vega, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGA 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 287-6203 Fax: (415) 704-5067 Email: dvega@vegalawyer.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Alleges MRM Improperly Disposed Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- Apnews.com reports that the former owners of a Salem property recklessly cut corners that probably led to the release of asbestos during demolition at the site, the state attorney general's office said in a lawsuit. The office alleges in the suit, filed this week, that MRM Project Management, its principals and a contractor broke the law by knocking down buildings containing asbestos, leaving the contaminated debris on the site uncovered, and hauling it away in cardboard containers on open trucks, The Salem News reported. The 6.7-acre (2.7-hectare) former home of Salem Oil and Grease is the site of a planned 129-unit apartment complex. MRM purchased it in 2006 and sold it in 2018. Two buildings at the site were never checked for asbestos before they were demolished, according to the suit, and the company failed to follow a plan it had submitted for the ones that were known to be contaminated. "These defendants recklessly cut corners while redeveloping this site, ignored our important air pollution and asbestos laws, and put the health and safety of their workers and the public at risk," Attorney General Maura Healey said in a news release. Her office seeks fines of up to $50,000 per violation per day under state laws. Attorney Marshall Handly, who has been representing MRM, said he had not yet seen the complaint but has had conversations with the attorney general’s office. "We've asked for some specificity as to the violations they're claiming," Handly said. "The place was completely cleaned by MRM under the direction of the (Department of Environmental Protection)." ********* 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 ***