/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211116.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 223 Headlines 305 NO FAULT: Paredes et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper OT 3M COMPANY: Lee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Maher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Perez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Termination Based on Discrimination 7-ELEVEN INC: Dildine Slams Artificial Flavoring in Energy Drink 7-ELEVEN INC: Haitayan Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Suit Dismissal ACCESS FEDERAL: Faces Carrese Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees ACTION YOUTH: Chambers Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge ADAM LIPPES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Estevez Alleges ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Illegally Discloses Personal Info, Says Dodd ALRO STEEL: Faces Reeb Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Files Suit in W.D. Washington AMAZON.COM INC: Nicosia Appeals Ruling in Bid to Alter Judgment AMF INDUSTRIAL: Vargas Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Suit Over Alleged Genetic Info Disclosure ANGELICA CORP: Remand of Smith Suit to Alameda Super. Court Denied APPLE INC: Larry Golden Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit AT&T INC: Steamfitters Local Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal AT&T MOBILITY: Bradley/Grombacher Named Acting Counsel in Razo Suit AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Order in Evans Suit Affirmed BABBEL INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BANK OF AMERICA: Castorina Sues Over Debt Collection Practices BAYLOR SCOTT: Court Denies Bid for Corrective Notice in Kunze Suit BCBSM INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review in L.P. Insurance Suit BERLITZ LANGUAGES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIG APPLE: Solis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Construction Workers BIG STAR TRANSIT: Mason Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action BLIND BARBER: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BOOHOO GROUP: Agrees Preliminary Terms to Settle U.S. Class Action BPS FINANCIAL: Rejects Potential Suit on Alleged 'Pyramid Selling' BREAKTIME CORNER: Khan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CALIFORNIA STATE: Bid to Dismiss Anders's Financial Aid Claim OK'd CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Russell Sues Over Inaccurate Payoff Letter CENTERS AGENCY: Faces Zaslavskaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas CERTIFIED CREDIT: Court Dismisses Hughes' FDCPA Class Complaint CHARITYBUZZ LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHEMOURS CO: Wojciehowicz Appeals Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit CHICAGO, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cisneroz Suit Alleges COINBASE GLOBAL: Alfia Suit Alleges Unauthorized Account Access COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Beck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMPASS GROUP: To Settle Fingerprint Scan Class Action for $6.8MM CONSOL COAL: Monteverde & Associates File Securities Class Action CONVERTIBLE CASTLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CORALREEF PRODUCTIONS: Metzler Files Suit in E.D. Michigan CREATIVE EMPIRE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CREDENCE RESOURCE: Church Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter CROW VOTE: Seeks 9th Circuit Review in Ward RICO Suit CYTODYN INC: Bid to Reassess Kodali as Lead in Courter Suit Denied D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of December 20 Deadline DAVACO INC: Chacon Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas DIRECT HIT LOGISTICS: Drivers' Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime DIXON ADVISORY: E&P 'Intends' to Defend Class Action Claim DOCTOR ON DEMAND: C.D. California Dismisses Largaesparda Class Suit DOORDASH INC: Rabah Sues Over Failure to Pay Lawful Overtime DREAMHOST LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXXONMOBIL CORP: Resendiz Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal FACEBOOK INC: Brickman Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Cir. FACEBOOK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 27 Deadline FACEBOOK INC: Suit over 2018 Earnings Report Remains Pending FELTMAN'S OF CONEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIRST COMMUNITY: Heard Files Suit in S.D. Texas FLEXION THERAPEUTICS: Murray Sues Over Exchange Act Violation FLOWERS FOODS: O'Bryant Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification FREIGHT ONE: Johnson Sues Over Violation of Leasing Act GOLDMAN SACHS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Fackler Appeals Contract Suit Dismissal GREENSKY LLC: Pritchard Suit Removed to D. New Jersey HIGHER ED GROWTH: Person Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls HOEGH LNG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 27 Deadline HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Park 80 Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia HP INC: Rhode Island Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal Ruling INTER-CON SECURITY: Beltran Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal JF FLORES: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Appeal Australian Pelvic Mesh Ruling JOHNSON CONTROLS: Renero Sues to Recover Unpaid Prevailing Wages JOSE PEPPER'S: Approval of Florece Suit Deal Denied as Premature JP MORGAN: Chicago Mercantile Appeals Rulings in Behrens RICO Suit JP MORGAN: U.S. Bank Appeals Rulings in Behrens Suit to 2nd Cir. JUUL LABS: Colbert School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Dale County Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Faces Midfield Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Fairfield Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads to Youth JUUL LABS: Fort Payne Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Ottawa Township Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill. JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Coffee County Says JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Fayette Suit Claims KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: Minjarez-Almeida Appeals Case Dismissal KENNETH C. RAY: Morales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KENT PHARMACY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Reuse of COVID-19 Syringes KNAUF GIPS: Appleby Consumer Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to E.D. La. KNAUF GIPS: Farnsworth Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to E.D. La. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sweeney Sues Over Breach of Contract LA MARQUE, TX: Weidman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation LA PETITE: Wise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Suber Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania LIBERTY MUTUAL: Torre Rossa Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal LUCKY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Belmonth Suit Alleges LUXOTTICA US: Faces ERISA Suit Over Early Retirement Availment MADISON SECURITY: Jackson Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments MAMMA CHIA: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARICH CONFECTIONARY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Junk Fax Suit Still Pending MATTEL INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Securities Suit MCDONALD'S USA: Magee Appeals Summary Judgment in ADA Class Suit MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Frawley Sues Over Discriminatory Practices META PLATFORMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline METALS CO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 27 Deadline MIDLAND CREDIT: Powell FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Merida Suit Removed to C.D. California NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Can Subpoena Phone Carriers Under Cable Act NETCOLLECTIONS: Cheek Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NEW YORK PUZZLE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK: Ex Inmates File Suit Over Alleged Inhumane Conditions NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Perry Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida NVA RE LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Gonzales Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal OLIN CORPORATION: Riley Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ON24 INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of January 3 Deadline OPTUM INC: Oddei Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. OTIS WORLDWIDE: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Incentives PAPA MURPHY'S: Appeals Ruling in Brown Securities Suit to 9th Cir. PHYTON TALENT: Klein FLSA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y. PORT AUTHORITY: Faces ADA Suit Over Railroad Workers' Medical Exams PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid for Summary Judgment in Stedman Suit Denied PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 6th Cir. PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop REAL CLIQUE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Martin Suit Claims ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Zullo Claims ROMAN HEALTH: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Costa TCPA Suit Granted S.C. JOHNSON: Court Stays Windex Non-Toxic Suit Through Dec. 10 SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Asset Recovery Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit SEER INC: Kehoe Law Investigates Potential Securities Class Action SOCLEAN INC: Faces Borland Suit Over Defective Ventilators STATE FARM: Baker Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial to 11th Cir. STATE FARM: Fox Appeals Insurance Coverage Suit Dismissal TARGET CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cinnamon Mills' Suit UNITED STATES: $160M Class Settlement in Mercier Suit Has Final OK UNITED STATES: Appeals on Social Security Survivors Suits Dismissed UNITED STATES: Calapristi Appeals Case Dismissal UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Settlement in VA Nurses' Overtime Suit UNITED STATES: Schulz Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal UNITED STATES: SEC's Complaint on False Claims Reached $40M VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Buckley Claims VIACOMCBS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 28 Deadline VIATRIS INC: Dvorak Sues Over Overpriced Epinephrine Injectables VIVID SEATS: $7.5M COVID Refund Class Action Settlement Approved WAKEMED: Elrod Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Adequate Notice, Vazquez Says WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Underpays CSRs, Walker Suit Alleges WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Police Dept.'s Unlawful Conduct WASHINGTON: Pacific Bells Sues Over ERISA Violations WELLS FARGO: McCoy Appeals RESPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. WYOMING: Senate Takes Up Bill to Facilitate Vax Mandate Lawsuits XPO LOGISTICS: Drivers Set to Receive $30M Class-Action Settlement [*] U.S. Asset Recovery Opportunities Up 50% in 2020, Report Shows ********* 305 NO FAULT: Paredes et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper OT -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MIRYAM JULENNY PAREDES RAMIREZ, individually, JOSE MANUEL MIQUILENA, individually, MICHAEL MANTILLA, individually, and LAZARO ARMENTEROS, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 305 NO FAULT, INC., a Florida corporation, THE NOFAULT TEAM, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and C.O.R. INJURY CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-23806-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendants as social media marketers, allege that the Defendants failed to properly pay overtime premiums despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action to recover unpaid overtime premiums for each worked in excess of 40 per workweek and to have such overtime calculated in accordance with Federal Regulations, to include commission/bonus payments earned in the appropriate workweek in the calculation of the regular rate for the purpose of determining overtime entitlement. 305 No Fault, Inc. and The NoFault Team are marketing companies operating as attorney referral service and also as marketer for patients for C.O.R. C.O.R. offers chiropractic, orthopedic, and physical therapy services to the general public. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 544-8900 Fax: (561) 544-8999 E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com 3M COMPANY: Lee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Edmund Kwock Bew Lee, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03527-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Maher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael James Maher, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03539-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Roy Palmer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03537-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Perez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Javier Perez, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03536-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Termination Based on Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02810-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., November 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for terminating the Plaintiff due to her race, gender, age, and disability in violation of Title VII 42 U.S. Code, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a machine operator in August 2018 until she was terminated on December 9, 2020. 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah E. Larimer, Esq. AMBER K. BOYD ATTORNEY AT LAW 8510 Evergreen Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 210-3416 7-ELEVEN INC: Dildine Slams Artificial Flavoring in Energy Drink ---------------------------------------------------------------- Derrik Dildine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06668 (W.D. N.Y., October 30, 2021), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability under various states' consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. 7-Eleven, Inc. manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and sells Extra Strength Energy shots under the 7-Select brand in flavors including Watermelon Lime, purporting to have "100% Natural Flavors." Dildine claims that said product contains a number of artificial flavor enhancers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Tel: (516) 268-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Haitayan Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled SERGE HAITAYAN, et al., v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07454-DSF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2021, the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to demonstrate class certification is appropriate under the Borello test. The Court, therefore, denies certification for their Labor Code claim. Additionally, in light of the individualized issues needed to show franchisees are not exempt executives for purposes of the Wage Order, Plaintiffs have not shown common issues will predominate, and class treatment is therefore not warranted. Their request for certification is denied." The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Judgment dated October 1, 2021, and Order dated September 8, 2021, entering in favor of Defendant, Counter Claimant 7-Eleven and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The order further states that Plaintiffs shall take nothing by way of their First Amended Complaint, and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 21-56144, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 19, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins, Serge Haitayan and Maninder Lobana Mediation Questionnaire was due October 26, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 19, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 17, 2021; -- Appellants Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins, Serge Haitayan and Maninder Lobana opening brief is due on January 20, 2022; -- Appellee 7-Eleven, Inc. answering brief is due on February 22, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGE HAITAYAN, JASPREET DHILLON, ROBERT ELKINS, and MANINDER LOBANA, indiviudally, and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation, is represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. DLA PIPER, LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 615-6052 E-mail: ebronchetti@mwe.com - and - Norman M. Leon, Esq. DLA PIPER, LLP (US) 444 W Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 368-2192 E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com - and - James Speyer, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4141 E-mail: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com ACCESS FEDERAL: Faces Carrese Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CARRESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01189-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021) is an action against the Defendant arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of "overdraft fees" ("OD Fees") on accounts that were never actually overdrawn. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's practice breaches contractual promises made in its adhesion contracts. The checking account contract documents discussing OD Fees promise that the Defendant will only charge OD Fees or NSF Fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover them, says the Plaintiff. Allegedly, the Defendant is not authorized by contract to charge OD Fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an account, but it has done so and continues to do so. ACCESS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION provides financial solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -and- Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com ACTION YOUTH: Chambers Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- EBONEE CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTION YOUTH AMERICA, LLC; CLAUDIA VILLALBA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV41422 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Government Code, California Labor Code, and California's Business and Professions Code including discrimination, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to indemnify for business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in or around August 2019 as a program leader and, later, as site director and cheer coach. She was terminated in April 2021 after she requested for reasonable accommodation for her disability, says the suit. Action Youth America, LLC is a provider of after school program in Downey, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq. John Vafa, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-9627 Facsimile: (424) 255-4035 E-mail: info@starpointlaw.com ADAM LIPPES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Estevez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAM LIPPES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-08953-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, www.adamlippes.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, 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 Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ADAM LIPPES, LLC sells luxury knitwear, outerwear, dresses, men's and women's basics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Illegally Discloses Personal Info, Says Dodd -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda M. Dodd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08899 (S.D. N.Y., October 29, 2021), seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief and an order awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit for violation of Indiana's right of publicity statutes. Advance Magazine Publishers operates as Conde Nast, an international media company that publishes some of the most widely circulated magazines in the United States, including GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Glamour, Allure, and Lucky. Conde Nast maintains a vast digital database comprised of its customers' magazine subscription histories and preferences. Dodd alleges that Conde Nast discloses its magazine subscribers' names and identities to data aggregators and appenders, which then provide Conde Nast with supplemental about each subscriber that they have separately collected. It then packages this information into its Data Brokerage Products that are licensed to its Data Brokerage Clients, all without seeking its customers' prior consent, written or otherwise, for any of these disclosures, and its customers remain unaware that their identities are being rented and exchanged on the open market, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Email: bthomassen@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com ALRO STEEL: Faces Reeb Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS REEB, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-12545-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 28, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged pay policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a third shift warehouse employee from approximately May 2017 until April 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated warehouse employees were expected and instructed by the Defendant to arrive at their workplaces no later than 15 minutes before their shifts began. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for any of the pre-shift time during which they were performing compensable work. Moreover, although they typically worked more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant denied them of 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 Defendant also failed to provide them with accurate wage statements as required by New York law, says the suit. Alro Steel Corporation is a privately-owned industrial supplies distributor headquartered in Jackson, Michigan, with locations in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, and New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. Frances J. Hollander, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main St., Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 663-7550 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com hollander@bwlawonline.com - and – Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, NY 14127 Tel: (716) 242-1234 E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Web Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ann Mayhall, on behalf of her minor child, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated minor D.M. v. Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01473-JCC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Amazon Web Services, Inc. -- https://aws.amazon.com/ -- is a subsidiary of Amazon providing on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered pay-as-you-go basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cecily Jordan, Esq. Jason T Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: cjordan@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com AMAZON.COM INC: Nicosia Appeals Ruling in Bid to Alter Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dean Nicosia filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04513, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The lawsuit is against the Defendant for failure to take adequate measures to prevent the sale of weight loss products containing sibutramine. Products containing sibutramine have never been permitted for sale without a prescription from a licensed physician. On October 8, 2010, the lone FDA-approved weight loss product containing sibutramine was withdrawn from the United States market because it was associated with a serious risk of cardiovascular events and strokes. On June 24, 2019, Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Amazon's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, an appeal has been filed by Dean Nicosia from a ruling in the case, Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 19-1833. The appeal was brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to challenge the district court decision that denied his motion for preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated September 30, 2021, denying his motion to alter judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 21-2624, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peter Dexter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com - and - Joseph Seth Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee Amazon.com, Inc. is represented by: Ezra Dodd Church, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5710 E-mail: echurch@morganlewis.com AMF INDUSTRIAL: Vargas Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned William Jose Guerrero-Vargas, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AMF Industrial, LLC, and Carlos J. Arocha Estrada, Defendants, Case No. 2021-009831-CC-24 filed in the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida on October 13, 2021, was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 1, 2021, under Case No. 21-cv-23844. Guerrero-Vargas accuses AMF Industrial of federal overtime hour violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. AMF sought to remove this action to the Southern District, Miami Division because Vargas alleges in his complaint that the acts complained of occurred within Miami-Dade County, Florida, and because Defendants reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com Defendants are represented by: Yadhira Ramírez-Toro, Esq. TREMBLY LAW FIRM 9700 South Dixie Highway, PH 1100 Miami, Florida 33156 Telephone: (305) 431-5678 E-Mail: yadhira@tremblylaw.com service@tremblylaw.com ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Suit Over Alleged Genetic Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- A new lawsuit has been filed against Ancestry.com for allegedly disclosing Illinois residents' genetic information to Blackstone, a multinational private equity company that bought Ancestry last year, during the acquisition process. A class action complaint was filed on Oct. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, alleging violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, according to the Madison-St. Clair Record. GIPA, similar to the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, became law in 2020. The bill mandates that the defendant may not release genetic testing information to anyone other than the individual tested or to people specifically authorized in writing. The plaintiffs are attempting to file the case as a class-action lawsuit for all Illinois residents whose genetic information was disclosed or released by Ancestry.com to Blackstone. The plaintiffs are seeking trial through the federal court because the amount in question exceeds $5 million and there are more than 100 putative members of the class. The suit states that the case concerns the illegal disclosure of thousands if not millions of individuals' genetic information. The plaintiff alleges Ancestry.com violated the class members' rights under GIPA to prevent disclosing their genetic information to unauthorized third parties without their consent, according to the Record. The lawsuit states that Ancestry.com'ssumer genomics business "uses DNA collected from its customers' saliva to provide its customers with information about their heritage as well as genetically related health characteristics." As such, this resulted in Ancestry.com collecting a "massive database of genetic information" that in part made it an attractive acquisition target for Blackstone. "Compliance with GIPA is straightforward and may be accomplished through a single, signed sheet of paper or its electronic equivalent," the suit says. "GIPA's requirements bestow a right to privacy in one's genetic information and a right to prevent the disclosure of such information without their consent." Ancestry.com allegedly stated on its website that genetic information would be given to Blackstone but did not offer any method to prevent said release. Under GIPA, the results of a DNA or genetic test are confidential and the subject of such testing has a right to prevent others from receiving their genetic test results without written consent. The suit further alleges that Blackstone acquired all of the accompanying information gathered by Ancestry.com, including personal information that could be used to identify individual plaintiffs, including first and last names, email addresses, and/or home addresses, including age and gender in some instances. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the defendant's actions as violating GIPA, an injunction requiring the defendant to comply with GIPA, statutory damages of $15,000 for each willful or reckless violation of GIPA, statutory damages of $2,500 for each negligent violation of GIPA, or actual damages - whichever is greater - attorney's fees, court costs, interest and all other relief the court deems just. [GN] ANGELICA CORP: Remand of Smith Suit to Alameda Super. Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, KENNETH C. SMITH, Plaintiff v. ANGELICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff's motion to remand came on for hearing before the Court on Oct. 7, 2021. On Feb. 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action suit against the Defendant in the Superior Court of the County of Alameda. The Plaintiff purported to represent four classes: (1) the Hourly Employee class; (2) the Vacation Pay class; (3) the Unfair Competition Law class; and (4) the Expense Reimbursement class. He also purported to represent four subclasses of the Hourly Employee class: (1) the Rest Period subclass; (2) the Waiting Time Penalties subclass; (3) the Wage Statement Penalties subclass; and (4) the Meal Period subclass. The Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint where he has dropped the Vacation Pay and Expense Reimbursement classes, but the court focuses on the operative complaint at the time of removal. On March 20, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453 ("CAFA"). In its Notice of Removal, the Defendant asserted that the amount in controversy was $12,327,562 based on its calculations for the Rest Period, Waiting Time Penalties, and Wage Statement Penalties subclasses and attorneys' fees. The Defendant's calculations presumed a 100% violation rate for the Rest-Period, the Waiting Time Penalties, and the Wage Statement Penalties subclasses, and presumed the maximum penalties available for the Wage Statement Penalties subclass. The Defendant supported its calculations with a declaration from its Vice President of Human Resources who identified the number of employees in the relevant classes. It provided no other evidence. On Dec. 20, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation where the Plaintiff made a settlement demand of $21 million. On June 29, 2021, the Plaintiff made a reduced settlement demand of $10 million. He now brings his motion to remand, arguing that the Defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5 million requirement. In response, the Defendant provided a more conservative estimate for the amount in controversy, $7,908,397.60. It included in its calculations classes and subclasses from the complaint that were not factored in its original amount in controversy. But the Defendant reduced the violation rate to 50% for the Rest-Period, the Waiting Time Penalties, and the Meal Period subclasses, and did not seek maximum penalties for the Wage Statement Penalties subclass. It also reduced attorneys' fees from 25% to 10%. And the Defendant provided a nearly identical declaration from its Vice President of Human Resources. Judge Hamilton holds that the Defendant's initial calculations in its Notice of Removal were speculative and not based on reasonable assumptions. He finds that the Plaintiff's complaint does not expressly allege or infer that every class member would qualify for every subclass or would qualify for every claim within a subclass. In other words, nothing in the complaint supports a calculation where there is a 100% violation rate for the Rest Period, the Waiting Time Penalties, and the Wage Statement Penalties subclasses. Likewise, the Defendant cannot support its presumption that all the members of the Wage Statement Penalties subclass would qualify for the maximum statutory penalties because the complaint contains no such allegations and defendant's declarations only speak to class size and class periods. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff made two settlement demands that exceed the $5 million CAFA requirement. Contrary to the Plaintiff's assertions, the Court may consider these settlement demands notwithstanding the mediation privilege under California Evidence Code Section 1119. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, "privileges provided by state law apply in civil actions only with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision." Thus, even if the California mediation privilege applied to settlement demands, the Court would not be precluded from considering them for purposes of determining its subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff made a settlement demand of $21 million in December 2020 followed by a $10 million settlement demand in June 2021. He does not dispute that those demands were reasonable estimates of his claims. Indeed, the Plaintiff would have a particularly difficult time taking this position when he made his reduced settlement demand only two months before he filed the motion. The Defendant's reduced amount in controversy, while speculative, is not based on a 100% violation rate, and the amount is more than $2 million less than the Plaintiff's reduced settlement demand. Taken together, Judge Hamilton finds that the Plaintiff's settlement demands along with the Defendant's reduced amount in controversy calculations establishes that the $5 million CAFA threshold has been met. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. The Plaintiff's request for limited discovery to investigate the Defendant's calculations is similarly denied. Judge Hamilton explains that a court may grant discovery to assist it in determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. A court's denial of discovery is appropriate unless discovery "would create a reasonable probability that the outcome of the factual motion would be different." The Defendant's calculations were only a minor consideration in the Court's analysis of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, more information on the Defendant's calculations would not change Judge Hamilton's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to remand. For these reasons, Judge Hamilton denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denies his request for discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fdjd8zb3 from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Larry Golden Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Larry Golden filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LARRY GOLDEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, USA, LG ELECTRONICS, USA, INC. QUALCOMM INC., FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, and FCA US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-02270-HMH-KFM, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at Greenville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from Defendants' alleged motive to form a conspiracy, unreasonable restraint on trade, unfair competition, combination, unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profits in violation of the Sherman Act, and the South Carolina Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Laws. Plaintiff is the author of three economic stimulus packages submitted to Government beginning in year 2003 that were successful through the development of certain intellectual property technology (i.e. communicating, monitoring, detecting, and controlling (CMDC) devices; Stall, Stop, and Vehicle Slow-Down Systems (SSVSS); Lock Disabling Systems; and Network Connected Vehicles (NCV) that is owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in a continuous and uninterrupted flow in interstate commerce to consumers in South Carolina by unlawfully, manufacturing, marketing, and shipping substantial quantities of Plaintiff's intellectual property technology as their own private property without Plaintiff's knowledge, thereby depriving Plaintiff of royalty compensation. Moreover, Plaintiff has no knowledge of the "fraudulent concealment" until March 29, 2018 when the Court of Federal Claims in Larry Golden v. united States, Case No. 13-307C issued its "Opinion Granting the Government's Motion to Dismiss" that made Plaintiff realize he could not bring an action of patent infringement. The complaint asserts that Defendants actively mislead the public about the government contracts to manufacture CMDC devices by failing to disclose the facts from the public. Thus, every South Carolina tax paying citizen indirectly suffered as a result of Defendants' illegal conduct. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September 20, 2021, dismissing his claims without prejudice and without the issuance of service of process. The appellate case is captioned as Larry Golden v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 21-2160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2021. Plaintiff-Appellant LARRY GOLDEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, of Greenville, South Carolina, appears pro se.[BN] AT&T INC: Steamfitters Local Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiffs Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in IN RE AT&T/DIRECTV NOW SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19-cv-2892, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). In this securities class action, Plaintiffs accuse AT&T Inc. and its senior management of misleading shareholders about the performance and potential of AT&T's video streaming service, DirecTV Now (DTVN). From September 21, 2016, through January 30, 2019, the Defendants allegedly trumpeted subscriber growth without disclosing that the figures were propped up by unsustainable promotions and fraudulent sales practices, which rendered the subscriber base susceptible to high rates of customer attrition (or "churn") and low or nonexistent profit margins. The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants misled investors about the potential for DTVN to compensate for losses in traditional satellite TV and failed to disclose technical problems that plagued the digital platform during its initial launch, all in violation of federal securities laws. Substantially similar allegations of misstatements and omissions underlie Plaintiffs' claims that Defendants' registration statement and prospectus, which were issued in connection with AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, Inc., were materially misleading, added the suit. The Plaintiffs currently seek a review of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2020, dismissing their Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint; and Orders dated September 27, 2021 and September 28, 2021, denying their motion to amend the complaint and dismissing their claims with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE AT&T/DIRECTV NOW SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 21-2698, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 27, 2021.[BN] Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Fund, and additional named Plaintiff Melvin Gross are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Christine M. Fox, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com cfox@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com AT&T MOBILITY: Bradley/Grombacher Named Acting Counsel in Razo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to appoint interim class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) the appointment of his counsel, Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, as the interim class counsel in the action in order to protect the rights of the putative class members. He asserts that a competing action, Wallack et. al v. AT&T Mobility, No. CIVSB2117915, filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, is a reverse auction aimed at "gutting this case" thus necessitating the appointment of interim Class counsel to protect the rights of the putative class. Among other things, the Plaintiff highlights the fact that he has been explicitly carved out of the settlement in Wallack, meaning that normal avenues by which he might object to that settlement are likely unavailable or at the very least uncertain. The pending motion is opposed by the Defendant. On Oct. 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion be granted and ordered that any objections were to be filed within seven days in light of an imminent hearing regarding approval of the settlement in Wallack. The Defendant timely filed objections and a related request for judicial notice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302, Judge Drozd has reviewed the motion de novo. In brief, after reviewing the factual and procedural history of the case, salient aspects of related cases, and the applicable standard under Rule 23(g), the findings and recommendations concluded that appointment of Bradley/Grombacher, LLP is necessary to protect the interests of the putative class. The recommendation acknowledged that in certain circumstances courts have refused to appoint interim class counsel unless all competing class claims have been consolidated before the court hearing the Rule 23(g) motion. But, as the findings and recommendations pointed out, the facts presented are somewhat unique because the Wallack settlement specifically carves out the named plaintiff in the instant action. The findings and recommendations also correctly pointed out that this very issue was discussed in detail by District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California in Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-cv-04303-WHO, 2020 WL 10964876 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020), Judge Drozd holds. There, Judge Orrick declined to limit the reach of Rule 23(g) only to those cases where there is rivalry among competing class counsel (or some other inadequacy related to counsel) in the case before the district court hearing the Rule 23(g) motion. Put simply, at its core, "Rule 23 allows the court to designate interim counsel `during the pre-certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.'" The decision in Torliatt specifically refused to follow the line of cases cited here by defendant in its objections, including White v. TransUnion, LLC, 239 F.R.D. 681, 684 (C.D. Cal. 2006), in which the district court denied a motion to appoint class counsel where there were "ample mechanisms for dissatisfied class plaintiffs to object to a class action settlement." Judge Orrick emphasized that the competing settlement specifically carved out Torliatt and other named plaintiffs, meaning that "Torliatt is himself unable to object to the settlement." "In these circumstances, it is reasonably likely that interim class counsel is necessary to 'protect the interests of the putative California class.'" As the magistrate judge did in the case, Judge Drozd finds the reasoning of Torliatt to be applicable and persuasive and the cases cited by the Defendant in its opposition and objections to be distinguishable. Judge Drozd finds the remainder of the Defendant's objections to be either unpersuasive or largely irrelevant to the Rule 23(g) analysis. For example, the Defendant discusses -- over numerous pages -- the various reasons why it believes the settlement in Wallack is reasonable. But, the reasonableness of Wallack's settlement is not before the Court. To the extent those arguments are presented to demonstrate that counsel in Wallack is sufficiently capable of protecting the class' interests, that issue is not a factor in the Rule 23(g) analysis either. Moreover, the extent to which granting the motion will facilitate the Plaintiff's ability to participate in the Wallack case is not before the undersigned and is not dispositive of the Rule 23(g) inquiry. Conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons he set forth, Judge Drozd adopted in full the findings and recommendations issued on Oct. 15, 2021. He granted the Plaintiff's motion to appoint interim class counsel under Rule 23(g). He aso granted the related request for judicial notice. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/e2nkewzz from Leagle.com. AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Order in Evans Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-6231 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Avectus. Mr. Evans claims that Avectus engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when it filled out a form to perfect a hospital lien and later sent Evans a one-page document with information about the lien. Tennessee law allows a hospital or its agent to place a lien, in the amount of its unpaid medical charges, upon any legal recovery that a patient might later receive as a result of her injuries. To perfect the lien, the hospital or its agent files "in the office of the clerk of the circuit court" a "verified statement" with the patient's name, address, dates of treatment, and amounts owed, among other similar information. The clerk then records the lien in a "hospital lien book." If the hospital is paid the amount owed, it sends the clerk a "certificate" to that effect and the clerk releases the lien. Saint Francis Hospital is located near Memphis. Its usual practice is to perfect liens for unpaid treatment expenses only if the patient is uninsured. In September 2016, St. Francis treated Charles Evans for injuries that he sustained in a car crash. St. Francis charged Evans $4,008.93. Although Evans had health insurance, St. Francis apparently overlooked that fact, because it sent his information to its agent, Avectus, for filing of a lien-perfection form. Avectus accordingly filled out Evans' information on the form, filed it with the court clerk, and mailed Evans a one-page document with generic information about the lien. Mr. Evans' insurance company later paid St. Francis in full for his treatment. Nobody sent a release form to the court clerk, however, so the lien for Evans' invoice remained in place. Eventually Evans' lawyer -- the same lawyer who represents him in the suit -- mailed Avectus a check for $4,008.93, payable to St. Francis. Avectus then sent notice of the payment to the court clerk, who released the lien. Mr. Evans thereafter brought the putative class action against Avectus, alleging that it had engaged in "the unauthorized practice of law" and "law business," in violation of Tennessee law, when it filled out and filed the lien-perfection form with the court clerk and when it sent Evans the one-page explanatory document. An affiliate of St. Francis then sent Evans's lawyer a check for $4,008.93, which his lawyer declined to cash. The parties later moved for summary judgment. In a carefully reasoned opinion, the district court granted summary judgment to Avectus. The Sixth Circuit reviews that decision de novo. It explains that in Tennessee, only licensed attorneys may practice law or engage in "law business." The Tennessee Supreme Court retains "inherent power" to define what those terms mean. An act amounts to the practice of law "only if it requires the professional judgment of a lawyer." And "the essence of professional judgment is the lawyer's educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client." The question is whether Avectus presumed to exercise that kind of judgment in the case. The Sixth Circuit holds that Avectus did not do that when it filled out the lien-perfection form with Evans's information. That was "mere clerical work" rather than work requiring the exercise of legal judgment. Nor did the act of filing that form with the court clerk require any legal judgment. That leaves the one-page document purporting to provide generic information about the lien. As an initial matter, the Sixth Circuit agrees with Evans that the document is badly written and likely inaccurate in some respects. But the document was unrelated to any court appearance or the preparation of "papers, pleadings, or documents in connection with proceedings pending" before a court or similar body. Nor did the provision of that document require a "lawyer's educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client." The case is therefore different from In re Rose, 314 B.R. 663 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004), in which a non-lawyer advised customers as to how to file a bankruptcy petition and other documents in bankruptcy court. Thus, whatever one might say about Avectus's one-page document, it did not constitute the practice of law. The district court's judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yspudn4h from Leagle.com. BABBEL INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Babbel Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Babbel Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09302 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Babbel Inc. -- https://www.babbel.com/ -- is a German subscription-based language learning app and e-learning platform, available in various languages since January 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com BANK OF AMERICA: Castorina Sues Over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CASTORINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-02004-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2021) alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis J. Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC 600 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92024 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dstewart@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com BAYLOR SCOTT: Court Denies Bid for Corrective Notice in Kunze Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BENJAMIN KUNZE, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-01276-N (N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denies the Plaintiffs' motion for corrective notice and related relief. Background The Plaintiffs in the case are medical professionals called Advanced Practice Providers ("APPs"). They filed the collective action against Defendants Baylor Scott and White Health ("BSWH") and HealthTexas Provider Network ("HTPN) to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants' managerial employees have "improperly frustrated the Court-supervised notice process, influencing the potential Class Members not to opt into the lawsuit, and placing them in fear of retaliation if they choose to do so." They claim the Defendants, through at least two specific managers, informed potential class members that the action does not apply to them, that they should ignore the notice they received, and that the lawsuit is not worth pursuing. The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking a corrective notice, the reopening of the opt-in period, and an order limiting communications between the Defendants and the APPs. Discussion A. The Court Declines to Order Specific Restrictions on Defendants' Communications with Plaintiffs and Potential Class Members Judge Godbey opines that the details in the record are insufficient to warrant an order placing limits on the communications between the parties. In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs submit three affidavits of current class members describing various communications from the Defendants allegedly discouraging the Plaintiffs and the potential class members from taking legal action. While the conduct described in the affidavits is concerning, the affidavits do not contain sufficient detail to warrant the extraordinary relief requested, Judge Godbey holds. First, he finds that the information packet and statements about the Defendants' perceived confidence in their legal position and classification of APPs are insufficient to justify wading into the First Amendment problems implicated by limiting communications between Defendants and the APPs. Second, he says the record is insufficiently detailed to call for an order placing limits on party communications because the opt-in period is already closed at this stage of the case. The Plaintiffs' affidavits plausibly allege a concerning pattern of behavior on the part of the Defendants that may discourage full class participation in the case, but the affidavits rely heavily on secondhand accounts and contain little detail beyond the Defendants' expressed confidence in their classification of APPs and the payroll audit. B. The Court Declines to Issue a Corrective Notice or Reopen the Opt-In Period The corrective notice and additional opt-in period requested by the Plaintiffs would also be inappropriate at this stage in the litigation, as both the opt-in period and previously extended class discovery period have already closed, Judge Godbey holds. Additionally, recent Fifth Circuit precedent, Swales v. KLLM Transportation Services, L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021), counsels against issuing a corrective notice, because the Fifth Circuit has rejected the analysis underlying the Court's order authorizing notice in the case. In Swales, the Fifth Circuit rejected the lenient Lusardi two-step test the Court used in granting conditional certification, because courts applying that test waited too long to scrutinize a collective action's compliance with FLSA's "similarly situated" requirement, citing Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). The Fifth Circuit warned that sending notice without first rigorously conducting the "similarly situated" analysis risks crossing the line from using notice as a case management tool to using notice as a claims-solicitation tool. Because the Court relied on Lusardi in granting conditional class certification and authorizing the notices already sent in the case, the pool of potential class members receiving a corrective notice may be too large under the law of this circuit. Judge Godbey declines to compound the problem by issuing an additional notice without the information necessary to ensure that, as required by the Fifth Circuit, those notices are sent only to individuals who are in fact similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. Conclusion Judge Godbey acknowledges the seriousness of employers deterring employees from pursuing their rights under FLSA and reminds the Defendants of their obligation not to do so. However, given the current posture of the case and the Fifth Circuit's decision in Swales, he determines that granting the relief the Plaintiffs request would be inappropriate. Accordingly, he denies the motion for corrective notice and related relief. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vfcdbzu from Leagle.com. BCBSM INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review in L.P. Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendant BCBSM, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled L.P., by and through her father, J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01241-MJD, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. When Plaintiff LP was a teenager, she suffered from mental-health concerns such as such as depression, suicide ideation, self-harm, and reactive attachment disorder, which led her parents to enroll her for inpatient treatment at Change Academy at Lake of the Ozarks, a Missouri residential treatment center, from June 30, 2016 through November 6, 2017. At that time, LP was covered under a self-funded employee benefits plan sponsored by Bolton & Menk, Inc. the employer of her father, JP, and administered by Defendant BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. Change Academy was an out-of-network, non-participating provider, so JP paid Change Academy's bills directly and then sought reimbursement from Blue Cross. Blue Cross paid $83,554.55 to JP toward some Change Academy claims, denied other claims, and later determined that none of the claims were covered. LP appealed Blue Cross's denial of the Change Academy claims. In March 2018, Blue Cross upheld its denial on the grounds that Change Academy was not a qualified residential behavioral health treatment facility as defined in LP's Plan. Under the Plan, a residential behavioral health treatment facility is a facility licensed under state law providing inpatient treatment for mental health disorders, alcoholism, substance abuse, or substance addiction, under the direction of a doctor and "does not, other than incidentally, provide educational or recreational Services as part of its Treatment program." In its final denial letter, Blue Cross stated that it denied the Change Academy claims because the facility provided substantial recreational services, there was a lack of required physician oversight, and the fact that "the charges are being submitted under an all-inclusive room and board code (1001) which identifies these services as hospital-based. The facility does not appear to be hospital-based." The Defendant now seeks a review of the Order dated September 21, 2021 and Judgment dated September 22, 2021 wherein Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Review Following Remand, Entry of Judgment, and Attorney's Fees was granted in part and denied in part as follows: Plaintiff is entitled to $32,028.16 in benefits for the Change Academy claims, which is less than the $83,554. However, the Order states that Defendant previously paid on those claims; therefore, judgment is entered against Defendant for $0. The Order further notes that Defendant's counterclaim is denied and Defendant's Letter Request for Permission to File Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The appellate case is captioned as L.P. v. BCBSM, Inc., Case No. 21-3378, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on Oct. 21, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix was due November 30, 2021; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT BCBSM, Inc. is due on November 30, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Defendant-Appellant BCBSM, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, is represented by: Joel Allan Mintzer, Esq. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA P.O. Box 64560 Saint Paul, MN 55164-0560 Telephone: (651) 662-6383 - and - David M. Wilk, Esq. LARSON & KING 30 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Plaintiff-Appellee L.P., by and through her father, J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Walfred Asp, Esq. Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq. Jennifer Jacobs, Esq. Charles Nathan Nauen, Esq. Derek C. Waller, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL 100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. KELLEY & UUSTAL Courthouse Law Plaza, Third Floor Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 BERLITZ LANGUAGES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berlitz Languages, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Berlitz Languages, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09299 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Berlitz Corporation -- https://www.berlitz.com/ -- is a Japanese-owned language education and leadership training company which is based in Princeton, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com BIG APPLE: Solis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Construction Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN SOLIS, ANDRES GARCIA, JESUS VICENTE IZQUIERDO MACIAS, CARLOS ANDRES MORENO VIVANCO, LEONARDO PATRICIO SABANDO CEDENO, AQUILES BOLANO, JOSE SANCIR, ELISEO CHALI GUORON, HECTOR CHALI, JUAN PEREZ GARCIA, MARLON ANTONIO AVILA AGUILAR, and MARIO CHALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG APPLE DESIGNERS INC., PRIME STRUCTURE INC., BIG APPLE DESIGNERS NY LLC, PRIME STRUCTURE NY INC., VELOCITY FRAMERS USA INC., NYC BEST SQUAD CONSTRUCTION CORP., and GOLD EDGE CONTRACTORS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06224 (E.D.N.Y., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages when due, failure to comply with notification requirements and to maintain records, and failure to pay spread of hours. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as laborers in New York at any time between 2013 and 2021. Big Apple Designers Inc. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. Prime Structure Inc. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. Big Apple Designers NY LLC is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. Prime Structure NY Inc. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. Velocity Framers USA Inc. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. NYC Best Squad Construction Corp. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. Gold Edge Contractors Inc. is a company that operates a construction business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq. THE STEPHENS LAW FIRM PLLC 305 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 835-1400 Facsimile: (212) 835-1401 E-mail: gjs@stephenslawny.com BIG STAR TRANSIT: Mason Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Yvonne Mason filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled YVONNE MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG STAR TRANSIT, LLC, LATANYA BIGGERS, LARRY C. BIGGERS and LARRY BIGGERS, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03566-M, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver from on or about September 2018 through December 2018, and again beginning in January 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other similarly situated current and former drivers as independent contractors. As a result, the Defendant willfully failed to properly pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked more than 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September 28, 2021, granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss, and denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Notice Additional Plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned as Mason v. Big Star Transit, L.L.C., Case No. 21-11058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Oct. 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Yvonne Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jesse Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE P.L.L.C. 400 N. Saint Paul Street Dallas, TX 75201-6843 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com Defendants-Appellees Big Star Transit, L.L.C., Latanya Biggers, Larry C. Biggers, and Larry Biggers, Jr. are represented by: John Bridges Brown, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8117 Preston Road Preston Commons, W. Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 987-3800 E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARVIN PEARLSTEIN, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLACKBERRY LIMITED (formerly known as RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED), THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA, and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN, Defendants. CASE NO. 1:13-CV-7060-CM-KHP SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") on the NASDAQ (ticker "BBRY") during a Class Period from March 28, 2013, through and including September 20, 2013 (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BlackBerry common stock during the Class Period, but only between March 28, 2013 and April 10, 2013 and who sold all of their BlackBerry common stock prior to April 11, 2013, as well as the Defendants, officers and directors of BlackBerry, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered January 26, 2021, certifying the above-captioned Action as a class action. This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time. If you are a Class Member your rights are affected by this action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes in more detail this Class Action and your rights with respect thereto. If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please contact: BlackBerry US Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box. 91399 Seattle, WA 98111 www.BlackBerryUSSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN] BLIND BARBER: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Blind Barber, LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Blind Barber, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06233 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blind Barber -- https://blindbarber.com/ -- is a neighborhood barbershop and lounge born in NYC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BOOHOO GROUP: Agrees Preliminary Terms to Settle U.S. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Boohoo (BOOH.L) said it has agreed to terms of a preliminary settlement with parties that brought a U.S. class action claim alleging that the British online fashion retailer's promotions in California misled shoppers. The company, which sells clothing, shoes, accessories and beauty products, said the preliminary settlement will be covered in full by its existing claims provisions, which stood at 19.1 million pounds ($26.1 million) at Aug. 31. The Financial Times had reported in July that Boohoo could face total damages of more than $100 million if the claims brought in a court for the Central District of California succeed, citing lawyers for the claimants. News of the potential settlement helped to send Boohoo shares 3% higher in early trade. Boohoo said there was no guarantee that the preliminary settlement will result in a final resolution of the claim, but that the parties will now work together to incorporate the terms into a legally binding settlement agreement. ($1 = 0.7321 pounds) [GN] BPS FINANCIAL: Rejects Potential Suit on Alleged 'Pyramid Selling' ------------------------------------------------------------------ abc.net.au reports that a potential class action planned against Gold Coast digital currency Qoin has been dismissed by its governor following months of criticism about the company's future. Salerno Law states it will review whether BPS and Qoin have been "engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct . . . . making false or misleading representations . . . . conducting pyramid selling of financial products" and "fraud", and whether it has failed to "comply with financial services obligations" and "consumer guarantees". "It has been alleged by holders and merchants that they are either unable to accept Qoin payments or exchange the token for fiat currency due to the terms of BTX Exchange, leaving them with a token of no utility," Salerno Law's website stated. "For merchants, this is alleged to have caused a significant loss in revenue." A spokesperson declined to comment but the ABC understands more than 100 registrations of interest have been received. But BPS director and Qoin governor Tony Wiese said "all it is, at this stage, is an attempt by Salerno Law to gain support". "There is an attempt to gain support in order to review the merits of a potential allegation that has been lodged by a person," he said. History of Qoin Qoin launched in 2019 and has since increased in value from $0.15 to $9.19. Qoin can be sold for Australian dollars, exclusively on Block Trade Exchange (BTX) at a pre-determined price, or used to buy goods and services. However both Qoin and BTX are owned by BPS Financial Limited, prompting concerns around transparency and conflicts of interest within some parts of social media. In February, the industry body that represents at least 70 organisations, Blockchain Australia, expelled Qoin from its membership but declined to comment further. In March, BTX capped the sale limit of Qoin to $125 per account, per day. The daily volume of Qoin being sold has dropped from a peak of more than $700,000 in early 2021 to just $2,100 this week. Tony Wiese said a "witch hunt from the last year from the Reddit groups and all our detractors, faceless, fake names, and anonymous profiles" had lead to the decline. "That's obviously contributed significantly to obviously that situation, as well that there are not a lot buyers at the moment," he said. Across some Facebook groups there has been widespread complaints that very few merchants listed in Qoin's database still accept the currency, but Mr Wiese said over $125 million worth of Qoin has been traded in the past 18 months. Qoin doesn't meet 'pyramid scheme' Qoin has engaged around 300 agents - described as "independent contractors" by Mr Wiese - who sign people on to the Qoin system. Salerno Law claims potential contraventions of consumer laws conducted by Qoin include "pyramid selling of financial products". Emails seen by the ABC from an independent accredited Qoin agent detail how some merchants were offered 150 Qoin last year for each person they referred to the digital currency. But a statement on Qoin's website said "merchants who wish to join the Qoin Program are not charged any fees to join and are under no obligation to recruit other merchants or consumers". Mr Wiese said "we don't meet the basic outline of a pyramid scheme". "A pyramid scheme is where you recruit others for payment," he said. "The master agent recruits up to 10 agents and he manages them, and then those agents recruit the merchants. "When they sign up a merchant they get a payment, and then when they sell the merchant a membership they get a percentage of the membership." Black market of 'desperados' A black market has emerged online, with offers to sell Qoin for as low as 35 cents each, well below the official price of around $9. Mr Wiese said that market exists for "the desperados" and there remains strong support among other sectors of social media. "Obviously there are people that either have bought their Qoin for very cheap or have earned their Qoin for very cheap, that are cashing out," he said. "We've had tremendous support from most of our merchants and community members." Salerno Law states on its claim overview that it is not implying BPS or its associates have breached "obligations that they may owe to a third party". Key points: Salerno Law has released a potential claim against Qoin and the digital currency's parent company BPS Financial Limited Qoin claims to have more than 38,000 validated merchants using its currency The BPS director has dismissed the allegations, describing them as part of a "witch hunt"[GN] BREAKTIME CORNER: Khan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Azeem Khan, Tanveer Azmat, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Breaktime Corner Market, L.L.C., and Aldine Westfield Investments, L.L.C., Case No. 4:21-cv-03694 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 10, 2021), is brought seeking to recover unpaid overtime and straight-time wages from the Defendants. In violation of the FLSA, Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendants, yet they did not receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires. Further, both the Plaintiffs received no wages for the last few weeks of their respective employment with the Defendants, for which they now sue. The Defendants engage in a company-wide, uniformly applied, policy that results in the non-payment of employees' wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as store clerks at several of the Defendants' Gas Stations. The Defendants own and operate 50 or more gasoline stations and convenience stores in and around Texas and Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Phone: (713) 898-0982 Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com CALIFORNIA STATE: Bid to Dismiss Anders's Financial Aid Claim OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY EVANS, CASE: ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR, and COURTNEY WALBURGER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a motion to dismiss. Defendant Board of Trustees of California State University moved to dismiss Count II (financial aid claim) of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Background Fresno State announced in October 2020 that it would stop sponsoring women's lacrosse, men's wrestling and men's tennis in the 2021-22 academic year. The Plaintiffs, who were members of Fresno State's women's lacrosse team at the time, filed the putative class action on Feb. 12, 2021, alleging an effective accommodation claim, an equal treatment claim and a financial aid claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. ("Title IX"). They also brought a motion for a preliminary injunction barring Fresno State from eliminating women's lacrosse and requiring Fresno State to treat women's lacrosse as well as other varsity teams while this action was pending. The Court did not bar Fresno State from eliminating women's lacrosse but did order Fresno State to give women's lacrosse equal treatment through the conclusion of the 2020-21 season. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 3, 2021, whereupon the Board brought a motion to dismiss. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the effective accommodation and equal treatment claims but granted it, with leave to amend, as to the financial aid claim. The Plaintiffs filed their SAC on Aug. 12, 2021. On Aug. 26, 2021, the Board filed the instant motion, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' financial aid claim ("Count II") for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, under Rule 12(b)(6), and for lack of standing, under Rule 12(b)(1). Discussion The Board argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a financial aid claim because data reported under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act ("EADA") cannot properly be used "to evaluate the number of athletic participants and assess Fresno State's allocation of athletic aid" due to discrepancies in the way "participants" are counted under Title IX and the EADA. Further, they argue that the Plaintiffs fail to set forth allegations supporting an inference that alleged disparities between female financial aid and male financial aid are due to discrimination (as opposed to neutral factors like the higher cost of out-of-state tuition), and that "alleged disparities in financial awards that may have existed prior to February 12, 2019" are irrelevant because they fall outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Finally, the Board argues that the injury required for Article III standing is lacking because none of the Plaintiffs has shown that the size of her financial aid award was affected by Fresno State's supposed Title IX violations with respect to financial aid. The Plaintiffs argue that they have the injury required for standing because they have all "suffered the psychological harm associated with being the targets of Fresno State's discriminatory conduct and participating in an athletics program that actively discriminates against them." Further, they argue that two Plaintiffs in particular -- Taylor Anders and Abbigayle Roberts -- have suffered "additional concrete injuries-in-fact" because neither "has ever received a full scholarship" and they "received fewer dollars of financial assistance than they should and would have received if Fresno State complied with Title IX." In addition, the Plaintiffs contend they have stated a financial aid claim because the SAC alleges that male student-athletes received 3.5% more financial aid than they were entitled to receive in 2018-19 and 1.9% more financial aid than they were entitled to receive in 2019-20. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend they have shown an "unbroken pattern of awarding female student-athletes a disproportionately low amount of financial assistance" from 2003-04 through 2018-19 that precludes an inference that alleged financial aid disparities were due to non-discriminatory factors. Judge Ishii concludes that when correctly applied, the data in the sources cited by the Plaintiffs do not show that the female share of athletics-based financial aid was less than the female share of the student-athlete population at Fresno State in 2018-19 or in 2019-20—the two most recent years for which allegations are made. Moreover, allegations regarding the cumulative financial aid imbalance since 2003-04 cannot be credited because they are evidently marred by the same counting defect as the Plaintiffs' allegations with respect to 2018-19 and 2019-20 and, in any event, they cannot reasonably be interpreted to show a female financial aid deficit within two years of the Feb. 12, 2021 filing of the action. The Plaintiffs concede that this bars Title IX claims for retrospective relief and have made no effort to show how a claim for injunctive relief could properly be predicated on allegations that are several years old. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a financial aid claim under Title IX. This is the third opportunity the Plaintiffs have had to plead a financial aid claim, and in light of the findings set forth, it appears further amendment would be futile, Judge Ishii declares. He will therefore dismiss Count II of the SAC for unequal allocation of financial assistance with prejudice. As such, it is unnecessary to address the other arguments set forth in the Parties' briefing. Order Accordingly, Judge Ishii granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice Count II of the SSAC for unequal allocation of financial assistance. The Defendants are ordered to file an answer to the SAC within 21 days of the date of electronic service of the Order. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bx5ekzfp from Leagle.com. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Russell Sues Over Inaccurate Payoff Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Russell, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-62303-RKA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2021), is brought for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act due to inaccuracies in payoff letter. On December 27, 2004 Plaintiff Russell and her late husband purchased the Subject Property secured by a promissory note and adjustable rate mortgage in the amount of $135,000.00 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. as lender. On or about August 1, 2010 Plaintiff and her late husband executed a Home Affordable Modification Agreement in favor of Chase Home Finance. Due to financial hardship caused in large part by the death of her husband, Plaintiff defaulted on her mortgage. On July 24, 2021 the Plaintiff, through her authorized agent, sent a written request to CARRINGTON for an accurate payoff statement (the "1st payoff request"). On August 4, 2021, CARRINGTON responded to Plaintiff's 1st payoff request by sending Plaintiff a letter entitled "Payoff Statement Amended." However, the Defendant's August 4, 2021 payoff letter was inaccurate as it contains a line item of charges which are completely vague and identified only as "Other Unpaid Expenses." The composition and the amounts comprising the charges for "Other Unpaid Expenses" is not itemized or disclosed. There is no explanation provided concerning the ambiguously labeled "Other Unpaid Expenses." Indeed, there is no indication that the amounts of the charges contained within the "Other Unpaid Expenses" are estimates or were actually incurred or even owed by Plaintiff. CARRINGTON is fully aware and has actual knowledge that the standard mortgage loan agreements it services, including those of the Plaintiffs, do not authorize the charging of fees which are estimates or not actually incurred such as those contained in the "Other Unpaid Expenses." As CARRINGTON's August 4, 2021 payoff letter did not represent an "accurate" or sufficient payoff statement as requested, Plaintiff, on or about August 23, 2021, sent CARRINGTON a "notice of error" (the "1st NOE"). In her 1st NOE, Plaintiff made a second request for an accurate payoff statement ("second payoff request"). CARRINGTON received Plaintiff's 1st NOE and 2nd payoff request on August 27, 2021 but still has not yet responded to, and/or investigated Plaintiff's 1st NOE. CARRINGTON has violated RESPA by failing to make appropriate corrections to the Plaintiff's account in response to Plaintiff's NOEs and by failing to transmit written notice of such corrections to the Plaintiff no later than 7 days after receipt of the Plaintiff's notice of errors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County. CARRINGTON is one of the country's largest loan servicers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Phone: (561) 569-7062 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Jessica L. Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (954) 282-8277 Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com CENTERS AGENCY: Faces Zaslavskaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- YELENA ZASLAVSKAYA and OLGA ABRAMOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTERS AGENCY LLC d/b/a CENTERS LABORATORY, KENNETH ROZENBERG, JAY LEVIN and SHLOMO LEHRMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06267 (E.D.N.Y., November 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide them with compliant wage notice and wage statements. Ms. Zaslavskaya and Ms. Abramova were hired by the Defendants as a laboratory technologist and a laboratory technician, respectively, from March 23, 2019 until they were laid off from their employment on July 26, 2021. Centers Agency LLC, doing business as Centers Laboratory, is a clinical medical laboratory in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ira A. Sturm, Esq. RAAB, STURM & GANCHROW, LLP 2125 Center Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 292-0150 E-mail: isturm@rsgllp.com - and – Malvina Lin, Esq. MALVINA LIN P.C. 1203 Avenue J, Suite 4B Brooklyn, NY 11230 Telephone: (718) 377-3500 Facsimile: (718) 377-4174 E-mail: malvina@malvinalaw.com CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Metro Realty LLC. The case is styled as Franziska Roesner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Central Metro Realty LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01012 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Central Metro Realty -- https://www.centralmetro.com/ -- is a Texas real estate firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Samuel J Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 WILLIAMSON ST., STE 201 MADISON, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 CERTIFIED CREDIT: Court Dismisses Hughes' FDCPA Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MILENA M. HUGHES, Plaintiff v. CERTIFIED CREDIT & COLLECTION BUREAU, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-18819 (MAS) (TJB), Consolidated with Civil Action No. 20-8217 (MAS) (TJB),, Civil Action No. 20-13461 (MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Milena M. Hughes' Amended Complaint. The Motion was filed by Defendants Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, Joanne M. Possumato, and Diana M. Schobel. Background In the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, the Court must determine whether a one-page debt collection letter is fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading. The Plaintiff raises two statutory concerns with the letter: First, that the letter fails to unambiguously identify the creditor (in the case, Morristown Medical Center); and second, that the letter fails to specify how the debtor must dispute the debt in writing. Based on these alleged violations of the Act, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants in a class action. The instant Motion followed. Discussion The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is remedial legislation that Congress enacted to stop the rash of "abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors." As part of the Act, debt collectors must provide debtors notice of five facts -- two of which are relevant in the case: "the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed" and a statement advising debtors that they may notify the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion therefore, is disputed. Further, in assessing the debt collector's compliance with these rules, the Third Circuit employs the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. The standard is objective and easy to meet. A. The Least Sophisticated Consumer Could Ascertain the Identity of the Creditor Against that backdrop, Judge Shipp assesses whether the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to show that the least sophisticated consumer would be duped by the Defendants' letter. He begins with whether the letter unambiguously identifies the creditor. He finds that it does. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint cannot survive the chorus of case law in the Circuit that has interpreted similar letters. Judge Shipp agrees. At issue is the sufficiency of the reference to the creditor after "RE:" at the top of the letter and later reference after "CLIENT:" at the bottom. Although the Defendants' letter lacks clarity, Judge Shipp concludes that it sufficiently identifies the creditor. He agrees with the Seventh Circuit in Steffek v. Client Services, Inc., 948 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2020) that, without the "CLIENT:" line indicating the creditor, the letter would not sufficiently identify the creditor. But in the case, the Defendants' letter does. B. The Least Sophisticated Consumer Would Know to Dispute the Debt in Writing The Plaintiff further alleges and argues that the Defendants' letter violates the Act because it "does not indicate what it is that consumers must include in their written notification." According to the Plaintiff, the least sophisticated consumer might think to notify the debt collector without ever verifying or disputing the underlying debt. As an example, the Plaintiff posits that "a consumer could write to the Defendants and stated, 'This is my notification pursuant to your October 8 letter.'" Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's argument, Judge Shioo finds the plain language of the letter unambiguous. To be fair, he says, the Defendants' letter could have conveyed the statutory requirements more clearly. But, although the Defendants' letter lacks clarity, Judge Shipp finds penalizing the Defendants for splitting one sentence into two a step too far. That's especially so considering the multiple cases from this District interpreting the same language and finding no ambiguity. C. Plaintiff's Derivative Claims Also Fail The Plaintiff also asserts claims under Section 1692e and Section 1692f of the Act, which broadly prohibit debt collectors from collecting debt through false, misleading, and unconscionable methods. These claims, however, are based on the same deficiencies analyzed. Because the Plaintiff has not identified separate statutory violations supporting these claims, her Section 1692e and Section 1692f claims must fail as a matter of law. Conclusion Judge Shipp concludes that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged claims under the Act. He, thus, dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/8hptnkwd from Leagle.com. CHARITYBUZZ LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charitybuzz, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charitybuzz, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09305 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Charitybuzz -- https://www.charitybuzz.com/ -- is an internet company that raises funds for nonprofit organizations through online charity auctions with celebrities and brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com CHEMOURS CO: Wojciehowicz Appeals Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Wojciehowicz filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit DAVID WOJCIEHOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00355, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 9, 2020, the lawsuit seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were required to travel back to the locker room at the Defendant's facility; remove their contaminated work uniform and protective gear; deposit these items into an assigned container; and then shower before leaving the Defendant's facility. However, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid overtime wages--or any wages at all--for the time they worked before and after their scheduled shifts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment as a mechanic at the production facility/chemical plant located in Belle, West Virginia which was formerly operated by Dupont, and continued his employment at this facility upon Defendant assuming ownership in or around 2015. He remained employed in this position until November 2019. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September 17, 2021, where the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment; the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant, and held that all pending motions be terminated, and that the case be dismissed and stricken from the docket. The appellate case is captioned as David Wojciehowicz v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Case No. 21-2197, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID WOJCIEHOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, is represented by" Sean Willard Cook, Esq. MEYER FORD GLASSER & RADMAN, PLLC P. O. Box 11090 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (681) 313-9809 E-mail: seanwcook@hotmail.com - and - Jack C. Dolance, Esq. WARNER LAW OFFICES, PLLC 227 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6789 E-mail: jdolance@wvpersonalinjury.com Defendant-Appellee THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC is represented by: Eric Wayne Iskra, Esq. Eric E. Kinder, Esq. Chelsea Elizabeth Thompson, Esq. SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC Spilman Center 300 Kanawha Boulevard, East P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340-3875 E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cisneroz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY CISNEROZ; MARIA RAMIREZ; ROBERT NOWAK; KELLY JOINER; SAMANTHA GREEN; JAMES CARUSO; JOSE MARTINEZ; SEAN DOYLE; JEREMY WAKEFIELD; MICHAEL MAIDA; KURT STEIGERWALD; and EDWARD J FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05818 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Kelly Cisneroz, Samantha Green, James Caruso, Jose Martinez, Sean Doyle, Jeremy Wakefield, Michael Maida, Kelly Joiner are employed with the Defendant's Department of Transportation. Plaintiffs Francisco Roman, Maria Ramirez are employed with the Defendant's Police Department. Plaintiff Robert Nowak was employed at the Department of Fleet Services. Plaintiffs Jose Martinez, and Edward J Fields are employed at the Streets and Sanitation Department. Plaintiff Kurt Steigerwald was employed at the City of Chicago. CITY OF CHICAGO is a city in the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Avila 7132 North Harlem Avenue Suite 107 Chicago, IL 60631 Telephone: (773) 671-3480 Email: FrankAvilaLaw@GMail.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Alfia Suit Alleges Unauthorized Account Access --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM ALFIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08689 (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the breach of the Plaintiff's Coinbase account by an unknown source and the Defendant's failure to do something about it. The Plaintiff alleges that Coinbase locked him out of his account for approximately two months after he lodged a complaint about the breach. He was not able to transact any of his cryptocurrency during this period of time, the suit says. Coinbase Global, Inc. is an operator of a cryptocurrency online platform, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Selik, Esq. Christine Zaouk, Esq. McCATHERN LLP 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com czaouk@mccathernlaw.com COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Beck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Beck, Mohannad M. Dawood, Sylvia Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Medical Centers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2021-0010483 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 10, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." Community Medical Centers is a regional primary health care system serving San Joaquin, Yolo and Solano Counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: 916-777-7777 Email: andersonberry@gmail.com COMPASS GROUP: To Settle Fingerprint Scan Class Action for $6.8MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a $6.8 million settlement could end an Illinois biometrics privacy lawsuit targeting a North Carolina operator of vending machines that utilize fingerprint scanners to process transactions. On Oct. 28, attorneys from the firm of Werman Salas, of Chicago, filed a motion asking a federal judge to grant preliminary approval of a settlement with Compass Group. Attorneys have yet to file a motion for fees. But in the motion for approval, Werman Salas said it will request up to one third of the $6.8 million settlement fund, or more than $2.2 million, in fees. Up to $10,000 could go to named plaintiff Christine Bryant as class representative. The settlement administrator would be paid $90,000. The remainder would be prorated to class members who submit valid claim forms. According to the motion, if 12.5% of class members submit successful claims, class members could expect to receive "over $500" each. The lawyers said that class claims rate has been established as a sound estimate in other similar BIPA settlements The Werman Salas laywers, representing a class of plaintiffs led by Bryant, sued Compass Group in 2019, alleging Compass violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to secure authorization from customers before requiring them to scan a fingerprint when using their vending machines. According to the complaint, Bryant used the vending machines in the cafeteria of her employer, a Rockford call center. Bryant said her employer told her during hiring to establish a Compass account. The case to this point has produced significant decisions, which have influenced the direction and outcome of many other class actions brought under the BIPA law. The BIPA law has been used by a growing number of class action plaintiffs' firms to bring thousands of lawsuits in the past six years against all manner of businesses operating in Illinois. Many of the lawsuits have particularly been used to target employers of all types and sizes, which require workers to scan fingerprints or other so-called biometric identifiers to verify their identity when punching the clock or accessing secure areas in the workplace. However, a number of such class actions have also targeted businesses, like Compass Group, which either require or encourage customers to scan their fingerprints or other biometrics to make purchases or access services, like rewards programs. Such class actions typically accuse businesses of failing to obtain consent or provide certain notices to people before scanning and storing their fingerprints or other biometrics. Whether plaintiffs are employees or customers, businesses targeted by BIPA class actions face potentially staggering losses, should the case go to trial. Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. Individual violations have been defined by courts to include each time a person scans a biometric, which could leave businesses on the hook for millions or even billions of dollars in potential damages, depending on the nature of their work and how many employees or customers they may have. At the same time, courts have routinely denied businesses nearly all avenues of defense deployed thus far against such lawsuits, particularly in state court. This has led many businesses sued under the BIPA law to settle, typically paying settlements ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars up to $25 million to end the lawsuits. In the Compass Group case, a federal appeals court in Chicago used Bryant's action in May 2020 to rule on the question of whether such BIPA class actions over fingerprint scans can even be heard in federal court. Bryant originally filed the class action lawsuit against Compass Group in Cook County Circuit Court. Compass, however, wanted it removed to federal court in an attempt to limit is liability exposure. However, Bryant challenged that strategy, arguing she didn't intend to claim legal harm under BIPA. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, Bryant would have needed to prove she suffered "concrete" injury to allow the lawsuit to proceed in federal court. Bryant wanted the case to remain in state court, where an Illinois Supreme Court decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags established plaintiffs need only show a defendant violated the technical notice and authorization procedures to bring their lawsuit and cash in on a potential large judgment or settlement. Although U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall agreed with Bryant and sent the case back to Cook County court, the Seventh Circuit panel said Bryant alleged Compass, by failing to provide the notices BIPA requires, deprived her of the choice to provide informed consent for collection of fingerprint data. That deprivation counts as a concrete injury suitable for litigation in federal court, the appeals panel ruled. Then in November, Kendall rejected Compass' attempt to end the lawsuit by targeting BIPA as unconstitutional. Compass argued BIPA conflicts with the state constitution's prohibition on so-called "special legislation" because the law exempts state and local governments, as well as banks and other financial institutions, from legal liability. Kendall said lawmakers excluded banks from BIPA because federal laws control their privacy obligations, while government units have sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Douglas M. Werman and Zachary C. Flowerree, of Werman Salas. Compass Group has been represented by attorneys Molly K. McGinley and Joseph C. Wylie II, of K&L Gates LLP, of Chicago. Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report. [GN] CONSOL COAL: Monteverde & Associates File Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:21-cv-01504, on behalf of public common shareholders of CONSOL Coal Resources LP ("CCR" or the "Company") who held CCR securities as of the record date on November 29, 2020, and were harmed by CCR and its board of directors (the "Board"), alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the merger of CCR with CONSOL Energy, Inc. ("CEIX") (the "Transaction"). Under the terms of the Transaction, CCR acquired CEIX, with former CCR stockholders receiving 0.73 shares of CEIX per share of CCR they owned (the "Exchange Ratio"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration was inadequate and that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 provided stockholders with materially incomplete and misleading information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The merger completed on December 30, 2020. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this case with you and if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 3, 2022. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/consol-coal-resources-lp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. [GN] CONVERTIBLE CASTLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Convertible Castle, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Convertible Castle, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09306 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Convertible Castle, Inc., doing business as Bernie & Phyl's Furniture -- https://www.bernieandphyls.com/ -- provides furnishing products offering sofas, chairs, recliners, ottomans, sleepers, tables, cabinets, hutches, buffets, benches, and bookcases products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com CORALREEF PRODUCTIONS: Metzler Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coralreef Productions, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coralreef Productions, Inc. doing business as Nine9, Case No. 2:21-cv-12635-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Coralreef Productions, Inc. doing business as Nine9 -- https://nine9.com/ -- was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes providing business consulting services on contract and fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com CREATIVE EMPIRE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Empire, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Creative Empire, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09303 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Creative Empire doing business as Mango Languages -- http://www.mangolanguages.com/-- is an American online language-learning website and mobile app based in Farmington Hills, Michigan for academic institutions, libraries, corporations, government agencies, and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com CREDENCE RESOURCE: Church Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00656-CHB (W.D. Ky., October 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants sent him letters on or about May 11, 2021 and May 12, 2021 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred by him to AT&T Mobility for medical treatment and telecommunication services. The Letter dated May 11, 2021 states a balance of $2,753.25 and contains an offer of settlement on the alleged debt owed to AT&T, whereas the Letter dated May 12, 2021 states "REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY." It is deceptive and misleading to state in a letter that the Plaintiff was represented by an attorney when that was not factually accurate. Additionally, if the Plaintiff was represented by an attorney, it is deceptive, misleading and illegal to contact the Plaintiff directly and not through the attorney. Moreover, it is deceptive and misleading to send an introductory g-notice letter one-day after the settlement letter as it is confusing and misleading to the Plaintiff who would not understand why he is receiving the introductory letter immediately after a letter offering settlement, says the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Credence Resource Management, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CROW VOTE: Seeks 9th Circuit Review in Ward RICO Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Defendants CROW VOTE, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Bridget Ward, et al. v. Crow Vote LLC, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01110-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14, 2021, the lawsuit was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on June 24, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated October 7, 2021, denying their motions to compel arbitration, motion to transfer, and motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Bridget Ward, et al. v. Crow Vote, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-56168, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Darrin Austin, Crow Vote, LLC and Edward Matney Mediation Questionnaire was due October 29, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 22, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 20, 2021; -- Appellants Darrin Austin, Crow Vote, LLC and Edward Matney opening brief is due on January 31, 2022; -- Appellees Bridget Ward and Lisa Ward answering brief is due on March 2, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendants-Appellants CROW VOTE, LLC, DARRIN AUSTIN, and EDWARD MATNEY are represented by: Scott J. Hyman, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON, APC 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 442-7110 - and - Ronald Zdrojeski, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas The Grace Building, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5000 Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIDGET WARD and LISA WARD, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER LAW FIRM 1211 Puerta Del Sol San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net - and - Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd. Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: (714) 854-7205 E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org CYTODYN INC: Bid to Reassess Kodali as Lead in Courter Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRIAN JOE COURTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CYTODYN, INC., et al. Defendants, Case No. C21-5190 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denies Movant Dr. Smila Kodali's motion for reconsideration. Background The action is a putative securities class action lawsuit against Defendant CytoDyn and two of its executive officers, Defendants Nader Pourhassen and Michael Mulholland. The action asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CytoDyn common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021. Then-plaintiff Angela Lewis filed the action on March 17, 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). On March 18, 2021, Lewis (the first-filed Plaintiff) published notice pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(1)-(3)(B)(i), over Globe Newswire, a widely circulated national business-oriented wire service. Members of the purported class have 60 days after the date on which the notice is published to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff. On May 17, 2021, motions to consolidate cases and to appoint lead plaintiff and approve selection of counsel were filed by seven putative lead plaintiffs. Three of the movants filed notices of non-opposition, one movant withdrew his motion, and one movant did not respond. The remaining movants for lead plaintiff were Movant Smila Kodali and Movant Brian Joe Courter and Courter and Sons, LLC (collectively "Courter"). Kodali and Courter hotly contested who suffered the greater loss and therefore had the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. On Aug. 19, 2021, the Court granted Courter's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel, concluding that Courter had the largest financial interest and was the most adequate plaintiff, and denied Kodali's motion. On Aug. 25, 2021, Kodali filed the instant motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court committed manifest error by ignoring Courter's windfall gains during the Class Period and that the Court should appoint her as lead plaintiff. The Court ordered Courter to respond, and Courter did so on Sept. 7, 2021. On Sept. 10, 2021, Kodali replied. Discussion Judge Settle explains that motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7(h). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Neither the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow for motions for reconsideration, are intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought through -- rightly or wrongly. Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court." Ms. Kodali's motion does not meet this standard, Judge Settle holds. As Courter highlights, Kodali reasserts many of the same arguments the Court considered in the underlying Order. While Kodali disagrees with the ultimate outcome, she has not made a showing that the Court committed manifest error in its analysis of which movant had the largest financial interest. Judge Settle determined, and reaffirms, that Courter is not a net gainer and suffered the largest loss during the Class Period based on a last in, first out methodology, even though he sold more shares than he purchased. Additionally, Kodali raises new arguments and submits new evidence in her reply. However, Judge Settle says these arguments and evidence could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision, and thus he will not consider them at this juncture. In sum, Kodali has not met her burden in establishing that reconsideration on the Court's previous order appointing Courter as lead plaintiff is warranted. Order Therefore, Judge Settle denied Movant Kodali's motion for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ewukdxwc from Leagle.com. D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of December 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading (d/b/a "Hepsiburada") (NasdaqGS: HEPS), if they purchased the Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") issued in connection with its July 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). Shareholders have until December 20, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-heps/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] DAVACO INC: Chacon Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Chacon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Davaco Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-01589, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Nov. 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02786-C to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. DAVACO -- https://www.davaco.com/ -- is the total solutions provider of high-volume remodels, resets and rollouts for retail, restaurant and hospitality brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Gayle M Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101-1406 Phone: (619) 238-1811 Fax: (619) 544-9232 Email: gmb@cglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. Brhan Ali-Hamud Ahmed, Esq. Poopak Nourafchan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4640 Fax: (310) 765-1601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com brhan.ahmed@hoganlovells.com poopak.nourafchan@hoganlovells.com - and - Michelle A. Kisloff, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-6631 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Email: michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com DIRECT HIT LOGISTICS: Drivers' Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Hicks and Jamie Sherman, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Direct Hit Logistics, Inc. and DHL Express (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00589 (W.D. N.C., November 1, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated and statutory damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Direct Hit provides last-mile delivery services to DHL. They jointly employ non-exempt courier drivers, such as Plaintiffs, to transport packages from DHL's facilities to customers. Hicks and Sherman claim that they were unable to take rest breaks and routinely worked through their meal periods. They also claim to have regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, without the proper overtime premiums. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Reginald Streater, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4620 Email: josterwise@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net apiazza@bm.net rstreater@bm.net DIXON ADVISORY: E&P 'Intends' to Defend Class Action Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Carrie LaFrenz and Jonathan Shapiro at afr.com reports that E&P Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Pty Ltd (DASS), says it intends to defend the class action claim brought against it in a Melbourne court alleging it provided conflicted advice that was not in the best interest of the firm's clients. Former Dixon Advisory client Trudy Stott is a director of the corporate trustee of her self-managed super fund, Kosen-Rufu Pty Ltd, which is the lead plaintiff in a class action filed in the Federal Court of Australia on November 1. The listed wealth manager placed its shares in trading halt in order to consider its reply to the legal action, which The Australian Financial Review revealed. E&P Financial shares fell 4¢, or 6.7 per cent, to 56¢ at the opening of trade. "EP1 and DASS are reviewing the Statement of Claim and intend to defend the proceeding," it said. The company statement said that given the proceedings are before the court, it would not provide further commentary. "In addition, EP1 does not make any comment in relation to whether and if so how Mr Alan Dixon will respond to the proceeding." Mr Dixon was a director of Dixon Advisory's parent company from 2015 to 2020, served on the firm's investment committee from 2013 to 2019 and was a director of the troubled US Masters Residential Fund from 2015 to 2019. He since has left the business, including selling his major stake. The proceeding has been brought by Piper Alderman on behalf of retail clients of DASS who acquired, renewed or continued to hold units, unsecured notes and/or convertible step-up preference units in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) after receiving personal advice from Dixon Advisory representatives. According to court documents obtained by Financial Review, Mr Dixon allegedly had knowledge of the issues raised, and he with other members of the committee "wilfully shut their eyes to the obvious" in facilitating investments in funds in which the parent company earned lucrative fees. Mr Dixon did not respond to the Financial Review's request for comment on the court matter. [GN] DOCTOR ON DEMAND: C.D. California Dismisses Largaesparda Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NOEL LARGAESPARDA, an individual California resident, on behalf of himself individually and the proposed class, Plaintiff v. DOCTOR ON DEMAND, INC. a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV 20-2773-MWF (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order: a. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's individual claims in the matter; and b. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff's PAGA and proposed class action claims in the matter. Judge Fitzgerald has reviewed the parties' Request to Dismiss Proposed Class Action Complaint. Pursuant to the settlement agreement in the matter, the Defendant will make payment to the Plaintiff and his counsel within 30 days after the Order is signed by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ds649464 from Leagle.com. DOORDASH INC: Rabah Sues Over Failure to Pay Lawful Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron Rabah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOORDASH INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00235-JM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 9, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and other drivers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per weekly pay period. It was the Defendant's commonly applied practice to not pay the Plaintiff and other drivers for all of the hours during which they were performing labor for the Defendant, and to not pay them a lawful overtime premium. As a result, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other drivers a lawful overtime wage of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours in excess of 40 in a week. The Plaintiff and other drivers were and are entitled to lawful overtime compensation in the amount of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff and other drivers for all hours worked, even though the Defendant was aware of those additional hours worked. The Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for, whether the way it paid the the Plaintiff and other drivers violated the FLSA and AMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a driver. DoorDash, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that contracts employees to work as drivers throughout Arkansas and the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is epresented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WHLAW | WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.la w DREAMHOST LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamhost, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dreamhost, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09298 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DreamHost -- https://www.dreamhost.com/ -- is a Los Angeles-based web hosting provider and domain name registrar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com EXXONMOBIL CORP: Resendiz Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Aldo De Leon Resendiz filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALDO DE LEON RESENDIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00692-M, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. According to the complaint, ExxonMobil Corporation denies employment opportunities on the basis of alienage to entire categories of individuals authorized to work in the United States. Specifically, ExxonMobil denies employment to individuals who have temporary work authorization, including those who have acquired work authorization through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. Plaintiff Aldo de Leon Resendiz, individually and as the class representative on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this suit against ExxonMobil to challenge this facially discriminatory policy and practice, which constitutes intentional discrimination on the basis of alienage and is unlawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as codified by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September 28, 2021, granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The appellate case is captioned as Aldo De Leon Resendiz v. ExxonMobil Corporation, Case No. 21-2211, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 26, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALDO DE LEON RESENDIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Esq. Andres Ricardo Holguin-Flores, Esq. Deylin Thrift-Viveros, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90014-0000 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 E-mail: bescobosa@maldef.org aholguin-flores@maldef.org dthrift-viveros@maldef.org - and - William Golden Simpson, Jr., Esq. TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 1526 East Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone: (919) 240-7089 E-mail: wsimpson@tinfulton.com Defendant-Appellee EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION is represented by: A. Todd Brown, Esq. Kathleen E. Perkins, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP Bank of America Plaza 101 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28280-0000 Telephone: (704) 378-4700 E-mail: tbrown@hunton.com - and - Daniel J. Butler, Esq. Juan C. Enjamio, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810-2519 E-mail: dbutler@huntonak.com FACEBOOK INC: Brickman Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Colin R. Brickman filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled COLIN R. BRICKMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00751-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Thelton E. Henderson denied Facebook's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case. Facebook owns and operates the online social networking service, http://www.facebook.com/. Facebook employed computer software to send Birthday Announcement Texts to users. On December 15, 2015, Facebook, through its short code SMS number 32665033, texted Mr. Brickman's cell phone number an unsolicited Birthday Announcement Text stating "Today is Jim Stewart's birthday." Although Mr. Brickman supplied Facebook his cell phone number, which is associated to his Facebook page, he indicated in the Notification Settings of his Facebook account, prior to receiving the text message, that he did not want to receive any text messages from Facebook, and also did not activate text messaging for his cell phone. In his order, Judge Henderson opined that Mr. Brickman has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and that the TCPA is constitutional. Accordingly Facebook's Motion to Dismiss was denied. On September 23, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff appeals the Court's ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Colin Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 21-16785, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 26, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Colin R. Brickman Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 2, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 24, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2021; -- Appellant Colin R. Brickman opening brief is due on February 2, 2022; -- Appellee Facebook, Inc. answering brief is due on March 4, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant COLIN R. BRICKMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Frank Bartela, Esq. Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Hassan Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC. is represented by: Melanie Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 - and - Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com - and - Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 FACEBOOK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 27 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FB) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Facebook between November 3, 2016 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fb. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Facebook misrepresented its user growth; (2) Facebook knew, or should have known, that duplicate accounts represented a greater portion of its growth than stated, and it should have provided more detailed disclosures as to the implication of duplicate accounts to Facebook's user base and growth; (3) Facebook did not provide a fair platform for speech, and regularly protected high profile users via its Cross Check/XCheck system; (4) despite being aware of their use of Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond meaningfully to drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent organizations; (5) Facebook has been working to attract preteens to its platform and services; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fb or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Facebook you have until December 27, 2021, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Suit over 2018 Earnings Report Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Facebook, Inc. continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in connection with the disclosure of earnings results for the second quarter of 2018, the social media giant said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit. Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and elsewhere against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in connection with the social media giant's platform and user data practices as well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with third parties in violation of the Company's terms and policies, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in federal court in the United States against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified damages. These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with the putative securities class action relating to the Company's platform and user data practices. On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action, with leave to amend. On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class action. On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave to amend. On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class action. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we are vigorously defending them," Facebook said. Facebook offers online social networking services. FELTMAN'S OF CONEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feltman's Of Coney Island Holdco, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Feltman's Of Coney Island Holdco, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09295 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Feltman's Of Coney Island -- https://www.feltmansofconeyisland.com/ -- is The Original Hot Dog Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com FIRST COMMUNITY: Heard Files Suit in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Community Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Jaimie Heard, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. First Community Credit Union, Does 1-5, Case No. 4:21-cv-03690 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 10, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking. First Community -- https://www.firstcommunity.com/ -- is the largest credit union in Missouri and among the Top 10 financial institutions in the region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@swclaw.com FLEXION THERAPEUTICS: Murray Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- James Murray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLEXION THERAPEUTICS, INC., MICHAEL D. CLAYMAN, ELIZABETH KWO, ANN MERRIFIELD, SCOTT A. CANUTE, SAMUEL D. COLELLA, MARK STEJBACH, HEATH LUKATCH, PATRICK J. MAHAFFY, ALAN W. MILINAZZO, and UTPAL KOPPIKAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-01590-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 10, 2021), is brought against Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14d-9, and to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer by Pacira BioSciences, Inc. (the "Offer"), through Pacira's subsidiary Oyster Acquisition Company Inc. ("Purchaser") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on October 11, 2021, Flexion announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which, each Flexion stockholder will receive: (i) $8.50 per share in cash, and (ii) one contingent value right, which will represent the right to receive one or more contingent payments of up to $8.00 per share in the aggregate, in cash, upon the achievement of specified milestones. The Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute following 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on November 18, 2021. On October 22, 2021, Flexion filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC, which omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Flexion's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Lazard Freres & Co. LLC; and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest of the Company's other financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. The failure to adequately disclose such material information renders the 14D-9 false and misleading. For these reasons, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act as Flexion's stockholders need such information in order to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Flexion. Flexion is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel, local therapies for the treatment of patients with musculoskeletal conditions, beginning with osteoarthritis ("OA"), the most common form of arthritis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 729-9100 Email: BDLong@longlawde.com - and - Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 860-9158 Fax: (212) 214-0506 Email: raymond@bespc.com FLOWERS FOODS: O'Bryant Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles O'Bryant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Derst Baking Company LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03501-BHH (D.S.C., Oct. 26, 2021), is brought alleging that the Defendants violated the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as independent contractors rather than employees. The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants violated Federal and South Carolina state laws by, inter alia: failing to pay them the appropriate minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked; and improperly taking deductions wages and failing to pay wages that are owed. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and Defendants fail to compensate them at a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly wage in violation of the FLSA when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants' mischaracterization of the Distributors as independent contractors, the concealment or non-disclosure of the true nature of the relationship between Defendants and the distributors, and the attendant deprivation of substantial rights and benefits of employment are part of an on-going unlawful practice by Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Distributor from June 2015 to December 2020. Flowers Foods Inc. ships bakery and snack products to warehouses and distributors. Flowers is one of the largest producers of packaged bakery foods in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 652 Rutledge Ave Ste A Charleston South Carolina 29403 Phone: (843) 588-5587 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net FREIGHT ONE: Johnson Sues Over Violation of Leasing Act ------------------------------------------------------- Augustine Johnson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and ANTHONY FLOMO v. FREIGHT ONE, INC. and FREIGHT ONE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06003 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 9, 2021), is brought against the Defendant alleging claims under the Truth in Leasing Act and the Illinois common law of contract by paying the Plaintiff significantly less than his equipment lease required for each load that he transported. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TILA by paying him significantly less than his equipment lease required for each load that he transported. The Defendant promised to pay him a certain percentage of the price of each load, but it lied to him about that price, so it could pay him less than his lease required. The Defendant also violated TILA by deducting certain chargebacks from Johnson's and other owner-operators' pay without disclosing those deductions in the owner-operator's equipment lease, and by not paying interest on owner- operators' escrow deductions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Freight One from March 2021 until October 2021. Freight One is a transportation carrier licensed with the U.S. Department of Transportation. It contracts with drivers to transport its customers' freight in interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Lauren E. Miller, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD. Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-580-0100 GOLDMAN SACHS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley on behalf of purchasers of ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VIAC) securities between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/viac. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants sold a large amount of ViacomCBS shares while in possession of material non-public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully liquidate its position in ViacomCBS because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants avoided billions in losses combined. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/viac or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in ViacomCBS you have until December 28, 2021, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Fackler Appeals Contract Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Larry Fackler, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LARRY FACKLER, EDWARD HOBBS, and STEPHEN HAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUCOR CORPORATION and GREENLAND ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00539-DJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 24, 2020, the lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged intentional interference with prospective contractual and business relations, violation of the Open Meetings Act, and civil conspiracy. According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a secret agreement with certain public officials at Meade County Fiscal Court and the Meade County - Brandenburg Industrial Development Authority and Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. (CGB) in August and September 2019 to terminate CGB's grain facility lease with the Meade County Riverport Authority in Brandenburg. Defendant Nucor offered to pay CGB $20 million to terminate the lease and destroy its grain facility by March 31, 2020, so that Nucor can occupy the area and build a steel mill at the Meade County River Port. In order to accomplish the transaction as quickly as Nucor wished, the public officials at Meade County Fiscal Court and Brandenburg Industrial Development Authority conceived a plot to remove and replace Riverport Authority members Nicholas Hardesty and Don Bewley who objected the termination of CGB's lease because of concerns about the damage it would cause to farmers. On October 1, 2019, the lease termination agreement was approved by the Riverport Authority following the removal of Hardesty and Bewley. This action affected the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated farmers because it destroyed their prospective contractual relationships with CGB. The Plaintiffs and the Class sold and delivered grain to CGB at the grain facility and they intended and expected to continue selling all or nearly all of their grain to CGB for the remaining term of the lease, which should be binding and effective at a minimum through the year 2024, and likely through 2034. As a result of the Defendants' illegal acts, CGB ceased operation of the grain facility and terminated all contractual relationships with the Plaintiffs and the Class as of February 1, 2020. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated September 30, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Larry Fackler, et al. v. Greenland Acquisition Company, et al., Case No. 21-5989, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Oct. 22, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LARRY FACKLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; EDWARD HOBBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and STEPHEN HAGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Charles Merrick, Esq. KAPLAN, JOHNSON, ABATE & BIRD 710 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 242-9099 E-mail: mmerrick@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com Defendants-Appellees GREENLAND ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC. and NUCOR CORPORATION are represented by: Christopher E. Schaefer, Esq. STOLL KEENON OGDEN 500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 333-6000 E-mail: christopher.schaefer@skofirm.com GREENSKY LLC: Pritchard Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- Lisa A. Pritchard, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. GREENSKY, LLC d/b/a GREENSKY INSTALLMENT; GREENSKY SERVICING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-7150-21 was removed from Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Essex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 29, 2021, and assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-19429-CCC-CLW. The Complaint alleges two causes of action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that she did not seek any credit from GreenSky and that GreenSky obtained her information from a consumer reporting agency on April 20, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Youngmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701 Hackensack, N.J. 07601 Phone: 201-273-7117 Email: ymkim@kimlf.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Turano, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWUCH & VOLUCK, LLP Court Plaza North 25 Main Street, Suite 500 Hackensack, NJ 07601-7086 Phone: 201.488.6655 Facsimile: 201.488.6652 Email: cturano@kdvlaw.com Web: www.kdvlaw.com HIGHER ED GROWTH: Person Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elcinda Person, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Higher Ed Growth, LLC d/b/a Inquir, Case No. 2:21-cv-01906-SRB (D. Ariz., Nov. 10, 2021), is brought against the Defendant to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls, including calls made using artificial or pre-recorded voice messages to cellular telephone numbers, without consent. The Defendant hires third parties to use telemarketing and cold calling to solicit their products and services to potential customers across the country, including those that use pre-recorded messages. In response to these calls, the Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Georgia. Higher Ed offers lead generation services to colleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Brown, Esq. BROWN PATENT LAW 15100 N 78th Way Suite 203 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (602) 529-3474 Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com - and - Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com HOEGH LNG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Hoegh–Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on Nov. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoegh LNG Partners ("Hoegh" or the "Company") (NYSE: HMLP) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Hoegh securities between August 22, 2019 and July 27, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 27, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Hoegh LNG Partners LP (the "Partnership") was facing issues with the PGN FSRU Lampung charter; (2) as a result, the PGN FSRU Lampung charterer would state that it would commence arbitration to declare the charter null and void, and/or to terminate the charter, and/or seek damages; (3) the Partnership would need to find alternative refinancing for its PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (4) the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility matured in September 2021, not October 2021 as previously stated; (5) the Partnership would be forced to accept less favorable refinancing terms with regards to the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (6) Hoegh LNG would not extend the revolving credit line to the Partnership past its maturation date; (7) Hoegh LNG would reveal that it "will have very limited capacity to extend any additional advances to the Partnership beyond what is currently drawn under the facility"; (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Partnership would essentially end distributions to common units holders; (9) the COVID-19 pandemic was not the sole or root cause of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia, in 2019, before the pandemic, there were already a very low amount of demand in Indonesia for the Partnership's gas; (10) the auditing, tax, nor maintenance of PGN FSRU Lampung were not the sole or root cause(s) of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia; and (11) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On July 27, 2021, the Partnership issued a press release revealing that its Board of Directors had reduced its quarterly cash distribution to $0.01 per common unit, down from a distribution of $0.44 per common unit in the first quarter of 2021. The Partnership also revealed that it had received notice from Hoegh that the Partnership's revolving credit line would not be extended when it matured on January 1, 2023. On this news, the Partnership's common unit price fell $11.57 per common unit, or 64%, to close at $6.30 per common unit on July 28, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hoegh shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Park 80 Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Park 80 Hotels, LLC, PL Hotels, LLC, Louisiana limited liability companies, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and entities v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC, IHG Owners Association, Inc., Six Continents Hotels, Inc. doing business as: Intercontinental Hotels Group, Case No. 2:21-cv-00974, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Nov. 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04650-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC -- https://www.ihgplc.com/ -- marketed as IHG Hotels & Resorts, is a British multinational hospitality company headquartered in Denham, Buckinghamshire, England.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Anne McDonough Horn Baroody, Esq. Jared C. Miller Ronald Thomas Coleman , Jr. PARKER, HUDSON, RAINER & DOBBS, LLP 303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 523-5300 Email: abar@phrd.com jmiller@phrd.com rcoleman@phrd.com HP INC: Rhode Island Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL TREASURER, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., et al., Plaintiffs v. HP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California on February 19, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 19, 2021, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies business, including alleged statements made about changes to HP's channel inventory management and sales practices, and stabilization of printing supplies revenue. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP's printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. On June 4, 2021, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as State of Rhode Island, Office, et al. v. HP, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-16718, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 25, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 18, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 16, 2021; -- Appellants Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island opening brief is due on January 24, 2022; -- Appellees Steven J. Fieler, HP, Inc., Catherine A. Lesjak, Enrique Lores, Christoph Schell and Dion J. Weisler answering brief is due on February 24, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL TREASURER, ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF RHODE ISLAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; and IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT FUNDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 - and - John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (800) 380-8496 - and - Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3740 Defendants-Appellees HP, INC.; DION J. WEISLER; CATHERINE A. LESJAK; STEVEN J. FIELER; ENRIQUE LORES; and CHRISTOPH SCHELL are represented by: Sara Beth Brody, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104-1715 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 - and - Brian Michael Lutz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 - and - Katherine Leigh Henderson, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC One Market Plaza, Spear Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 947-2065 - and - Steven Mark Schatz, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 INTER-CON SECURITY: Beltran Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Guillermo Beltran, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Guillermo Beltran, et al., Plaintiffs v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04927-VAP-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. Mr. Beltran filed this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Inter-Con. Beltran and other putative class members worked as Armed Nuclear Security Officers for Inter-Con at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS") located in Camp Pendleton, California. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Inter-Con failed to pay overtime wages and failed to provide rest periods to Beltran and other putative class members. Accordingly, Beltran asserts labor law claims and unfair business practices claims against Inter-Con. On June 16, 2021, Inter-Con timely removed the Complaint based on federal question jurisdiction by asserting the federal enclave doctrine. Plaintiffs Guillermo Beltran, et al., filed a Motion to Remand on June 29, 2021. Defendants Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., et al., filed opposition on Aug. 23, 2021, and Beltran replied on Aug. 30, 2021. Inter-Con filed a Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 9, 2021. Beltran filed opposition on Aug. 23, 2021, and Inter-Con replied on Aug. 30, 2021. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4, 2021, District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; and granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order entered by Judge Phillips. The appellate case is captioned as Guillermo Beltran, et al. v. Inter-Con Security Systems, In, et al., Case No. 21-56139, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Frank Anicoche Jr., Guillermo Beltran, Joshua Bolden, Louis Dawkins, Rudy Delao, Luis Jimenez and Paganini Louissaint Mediation Questionnaire was due on Oct. 25, 2021; -- Appellants Frank Anicoche Jr., Guillermo Beltran, Joshua Bolden, Louis Dawkins, Rudy Delao, Luis Jimenez and Paganini Louissaint opening brief is due on Dec. 20, 2021; -- Appellees Does, Enrique Hernandez Jr. and Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. answering brief is due on Jan. 20, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GUILLERMO BELTRAN, LUIS JIMENEZ, FRANK ANICOCHE, Jr., LOUIS DAWKINS, PAGANINI LOUISSAINT, JOSHUA BOLDEN, and RUDY DELAO, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Yesenia L. Rodriguez, Esq. PIMENTEL LAW, PC 30 N Raymond Avenue, Suite 211 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 765-9800 E-mail: ylr@pimentellaw.com Defendants-Appellees INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, Jr. are represented by: Brandon C. Fernald, Esq. FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP 510 West 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (323) 410-0320 JF FLORES: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- Jose Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JF FLORES CONSTRUCTION CORP. and JOSE F. RAMOS FLORES, as an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-06246 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment, under the Federal and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours or more per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all for his final two weeks and three days of employment by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a patio creator, construction worker, helper and performing other miscellaneous duties from March 2020 until August 2021. JF FLORES CONSTRUCTION CORP., is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in Hempstead, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Appeal Australian Pelvic Mesh Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- economictimes.indiatimes.com reports that Australia's High Court on Friday refused to hear an appeal that Johnson & Johnson sought to overturn a federal court ruling that its subsidiary, Ethicon, had sold defective pelvic mesh implants, a court spokesman said. J&J and Shine Lawyers, which led the class action, said the matter would now go back to the Federal Court to set up a process to determine payments to the more than 11,000 claimants in Australia's biggest product liability class action. "Ethicon is disappointed that it has not been successful in its application for special leave to appeal," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement. The three lead members of the class action, Kathryn Gill, Diane Dawson and Ann Sanders, will now be eligible to receive the A$1.276 million ($943,000), A$555,555 and A$757,372 they were awarded, respectively, Shine Lawyers said in a statement. The claims of the remaining members of the class action would be assessed separately. The pharmaceutical giant wanted to appeal a March ruling by the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia that upheld a November 2019 decision by a federal court judge. That judge found that Ethicon had sold implants to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse without warning women and surgeons about the risks and had rushed the products to market before proper testing. Shine Lawyers filed a second class action against Ethicon and J&J in the Federal Court in April on behalf of women implanted with a defective mesh product from July 2017, to include women who were not eligible to join a first class action that was filed in 2012. The allegations in the second class action are basically the same as those in the first. It will be up to the court to decide how that will proceed, Shine Lawyers spokesperson Miriam Sawan said. J&J has faced similar lawsuits on its pelvic mesh products in the United States, Canada and Europe.[GN] JOHNSON CONTROLS: Renero Sues to Recover Unpaid Prevailing Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Renero, Albert Aguero, Yobany Hernandez, Juan Pedroza, Armando Negrete and Ray DeGuzman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-08804 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2021), is brought seeking to recover unpaid prevailing wages, and unpaid employee benefits or their value included in per diem wages mandated by California law, which they and members of the proposed class are entitled to receive but did not receive for work they performed on the public works projects. The California Prevailing Wage Law, requires that employers with public contracts pay their laborers, workers, and mechanics on public works projects the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, including overtime at least at the rate of one and one-half times the basic rate of pay, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations. Plaintiffs and the putative class members worked for Defendant as "technicians" responsible for programming, commissioning, maintenance, repairs, testing and inspection of fire and security, HVAC and other building controls systems on private and public works projects. For their work on public works projects, Defendant has paid Plaintiffs and the putative class members substantially lower than the prevailing rate of per diem wages applicable to their work, in violation of the California Prevailing Wage Law. The Plaintiffs therefore bring claims on behalf of themselves and putative class members for violations of the CPWL, for waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code, for unfair business practices in violation of California Unfair Competition Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as "technicians." Johnson Controls, Inc. is a corporation formed in the state of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM 456 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 437-9100 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 Email: graham@peltongraham.com pelton@peltongraham.com JOSE PEPPER'S: Approval of Florece Suit Deal Denied as Premature ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIRA FLORECE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOSE PEPPER'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-2339-ADM (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order: a. granting in part and denying in part Florece's Unopposed Motion for Conditional Class Certification & Preliminary Approval of Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release; and b. denying without prejudice as premature Florece's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Award. Background Plaintiff Florece, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, asserts that Defendants Jose Pepper's and Edward J. Geiselman violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"). Jose Pepper's owns and operates nine restaurants in Kansas, and Gieselman owns and operates four Jose Pepper's restaurants in Missouri. Florece worked as a server at the Jose Pepper's restaurant in Belton, Missouri, from April 2019 through February 2020. She filed the lawsuit as a putative collective and class action in July 2020, alleging that she and other servers who work at the thirteen Jose Pepper's locations were not properly paid minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and, as to Missouri employees, the MMWL. Specifically, Florece's complaint alleges that she and similarly situated employees were: (1) required to be present and working before they clocked in but they were prohibited from clocking in until they began serving customers; (2) allowed to work overtime if they did not clock in; (3) denied overtime compensation after defendants removed reported overtime hours from the timekeeping system; and (4) asked to report overtime hours worked as regular hours worked under another employee's name. Ms. Florece's amended complaint further alleges that the Defendants (5) asked servers to work off the clock during the COVID-19 pandemic solely for tips, inappropriately pooled and shared those tips with non-tipped employees, and had servers spending more than 20% of their time during workweeks performing non-tipped tasks; and (6) failed to inform servers of the FLSA's tip credit provisions. The Defendants deny Florece's allegations. The Court bifurcated discovery into two phases, beginning with discovery relating to conditional certification of the FLSA collective action. In this first phase, the parties exchanged initial disclosures and written discovery. The Defendants produced personnel-related records, payroll records, timekeeping data, and policies and procedures related to timekeeping, compensation, and training. The parties also had a dispute over the scope of pre-certification discovery, with the Court ultimately ordering the Defendants to produce the names, contact, and employment information for servers and lead managers. Florece then interviewed witnesses, and both sides produced witness declarations. Florece engaged a statistical and pay data expert to prepare a report regarding alleged damages; the Defendants responded and provided their own analysis. The Defendants also deposed Florece. The parties mediated the case and reached a settlement before Florece filed any motions to certify a collective or class action. Florece now seeks conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and certification of a Rule 23 class action for settlement purposes. She also seeks preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement, including the parties' proposed notices to class and collective members, objection process, and claim process. The Defendants do not oppose Florece's motion. Analysis A. Certification 1. Rule 23 Class Certification for the MMWL Settlement Class Judge Mitchell turns first to Florece's request that the Court certifies a Rule 23 class action for the MMWL settlement class. The parties' proposed MMWL settlement class consists of "all persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at Defendants' four restaurant locations in the state of Missouri from July 7, 2017, through May 21, 2021." Judge Mitchell finds that Florece has met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). She therefore grants the aspect of Florece's motion seeking preliminary certification of the following settlement-only MMWL class: "All persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at Defendants' four restaurant locations in the state of Missouri from July 7, 2017, through May 21, 2021." She further appoints Florece as the class representative. The Settlement Agreement names Florece's attorneys as the class counsel, but Florece's motion does not specifically request that they be appointed class counsel. Nevertheless, Judge Mitchell has reviewed the materials submitted with Florece's attorneys' fee motion, which detail the Plaintiffs' counsel's extensive experience litigating FLSA and related class action claims. In view of this and the Court's knowledge of the counsel's work in the case, she finds that the Rule 23(g)(1)(A) criteria are satisfied. Accordingly, she appoints Brendan J. Donelon of Donelon, P.C. and Brandon Boulware and Erin Lawrence of Boulware Law as the joint class counsel. 2. Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action Judge Mitchell now turns to Florece's request that the Court conditionally certifies an FLSA collective action. The parties' proposed FLSA settlement collective consists of "all persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at Defendants' nine restaurant locations in the state of Kansas from May 21, 2018, through May 21, 2021." Given the lenient standard applicable to conditional certification, Judge Mitchell finds it appropriate to certify a collective action for the purpose of sending an opt-in notice to potential plaintiffs. She therefore grants the aspect of Florece's motion seeking conditional certification of the following settlement-only FLSA collective: "All persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at Defendants' nine restaurant locations in the state of Kansas from May 21, 2018, through May 21, 2021.: B. Preliminary Settlement Approval Judge Mitchell now turns to the Settlement Agreement, which proposes to resolve the MMWL class action and FLSA collective action. The Settlement Agreement requires the Defendants to pay no more than $1.75 million to settle the case. Out of the Gross Settlement Fund, the Defendants will pay court-approved attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs; costs and expenses incurred for the services provided by Simpluris, Inc., the third-party administrator the parties selected to assist with settlement administration ("Claims Administrator"); and Florece's service award, resulting in a Net Settlement Fund from which the MMWL class members' and FLSA collective members' claims will be paid. The Settlement Agreement limits the Plaintiffs' counsel to seeking $577,500 in attorneys' fees (33% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and an estimated $13,154.33 in expenses and costs. Florece will seek a service award of $2,000. The Settlement Agreement does not specify the amount of the Claims Administrator's anticipated costs and expenses, but Florece's motion states that they will be $21,500. After these deductions, the Net Settlement Fund will consist of approximately $1,135,845 to divide amongst class and collective members who return a Claim and Release Form. Florece's expert witness Dr. Fox analyzed payroll data for class and collective members and calculated: (i) minimum and overtime wages owed for off-the-clock work, by applying an average time -- 30 minutes -- for each shift worked during the relevant time period; (ii) minimum wages owed if the Defendants were not able to apply a tip credit; and (iii) minimum and overtime wages owed as a result of formula errors in the Defendants' payroll system. The parties have agreed to a Plan of Allocation by which the amount paid to each class and collective member under the Settlement Agreement will be a prorated portion of the Net Settlement Fund based on Dr. Fox's calculations of the minimum and overtime wages owed to each. Prior to proration, Dr. Fox will apply a 1.3 multiplier to the amounts owed to class members to reflect the greater recovery possible under the MMWL because of its three-year statute of limitations and treble damages provision. Under the Plan of Allocation, the average payment to class and collective members will be $568.49, and no payment will be less than $50. 1. FLSA Settlement Approval Judge Mitchell does not preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement at this time. Given the parties' positions and the Court's prior experience with the case, she concludes that a bona fide dispute over whether the Defendants violated the FLSA exists, and it is possible that either side could prevail if the case continued. However, she has identified more obvious, threshold flaws in the proposed settlement. These flaws include (i) Florece has not provided enough information for the court to evaluate whether the Settlement Agreement provides adequate compensation to the collective members; (ii) the release is overbroad to the extent that it also requires collective members to release any ERISA claims regardless of whether they are related to the wage-related claims asserted in the lawsuit; (iii) the confidentiality provision undermines the FLSA's purpose; and (iv) Florece has not provided any estimate of the number of hours she has invested in the lawsuit, or any other specifics from which the Court can gauge how to value her involvement. The parties' Settlement Agreement limits the Plaintiffs' counsel to seeking $577,500 in attorneys' fees, or 33% of the Gross Settlement Fund, and an estimated $13,154.33 in expenses and costs. In conjunction with Florece's motion for conditional certification and preliminary settlement approval, she also filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of these fees, expenses, and costs. But because Florece has not shown that the Settlement Agreement is fair and equitable, any such request is premature. Florece may file a renewed motion when she reapplies for approval of an amended settlement agreement. 2. MMWL Settlement Approval Judge Mitchell turns now to settlement approval under Rule 23. She finds that Florece's motion does not specifically address whether the Court would "likely be able to" approve the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e)(2). After reviewing the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2), she concludes that Florece has not made the showing required for preliminarily settlement approval. In particular, Florece has not provided enough information for the Court to evaluate whether the Settlement Agreement provides adequate compensation to the class members. Because she cannot fully evaluate that compensation, Judge Mitchell cannot evaluate whether the proposed Settlement Agreement provides adequate relief to the class members. She therefore declines to preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement. C. Notices and Claim Forms Ms. Florece asks the court to allow the parties to send their proposed Notices and Claim Forms to the class and collective members. Because the FLSA requires potential collective members to opt in, they must "receive accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the collective action, so that they can make informed decisions about whether to participate." Because she has declined to approve the Settlement Agreement, Judge Mitchell holds that approving the parties' proposed Notices and Claim Forms would be premature at this time. However, she has identified at least the following areas of concern in the proposed Notices and Claim Forms: a. The proposed Notices state that the lawsuit alleges servers were required to work off the clock and were not provided adequate notice of how wages were to be paid to tipped employees under the law, and that these practices allegedly denied servers minimum wages and overtime. This explanation does not fully and accurately explain Florece's claims in this lawsuit. b. The proposed Notices state that the class is made up of an estimated 1,998 servers employed by Defendants at its Missouri and Kansas restaurants. But the Court has certified an FLSA collective and a separate MMWL class, and each group spans a specific time period. The statement in the proposed Notices is therefore also inaccurate. c. The proposed Notices do not provide an estimate for what the Claims Administrator's costs and expenses will be, nor do they explain that those costs and expenses will be paid out of Gross Settlement Fund. d. The proposed Notices should clarify that collective and class members who chose to opt out and collective members who do nothing will be free to pursue their claims on an individual basis subject to the applicable statute of limitations. e. The proposed Notice does not inform class members of their right to enter an appearance in the lawsuit through an attorney if desired, as required by Rule 23(c)(2)(b)(iv). f. The proposed Claim Form for MMWL class members, states that they are consenting to join the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is not accurate because the court is certifying the MMWL class as a Rule 23 class action, not an FLSA collective action. These issues should be corrected in advance of filing a renewed motion for preliminary settlement approval. Conclusion For the reasons she discussed, Judge Mitchell conditionally certifies the FLSA collective action and certifies the MMWL class action but cannot preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement at this time. The parties may address the issues in the Settlement Agreement and attached proposed Notices and Claim Forms that the Court has identified above and file a renewed unopposed or joint motion seeking the Court's approval. Plaintiff Florece's Unopposed Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. Plaintiff Florece is appointed as representative of the MMWL class, and Brendan J. Donelon of Donelon, P.C. and Brandon Boulware and Erin Lawrence of Boulware Law are appointed as the joint class counsel. Plaintiff Florece's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Award is denied without prejudice as premature. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2njdeucw from Leagle.com. JP MORGAN: Chicago Mercantile Appeals Rulings in Behrens RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and The CME Group, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled BRUCE BEHRENS, KATHLEEN BEHRENS, SHERRY SCHEFFERT AND DAVID SCHEFFERT, RICHARD WAKEFORD on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A., CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. MILLENIUM TRUST COMPANY a/k/a MILLENIUM TRUST CO. LLC, RUSSELL WASENDORF,. RUSSELL WASENDORF, JR. STEVEN BREWER a/k/a STEVEN JOHN BREWER, GARLON MAXWELL, AMBER MAXWELL, PERRY COMEAU, John Does #1-40, Case 1:16-cv-05508, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Bruce Behrens, Kathleen Behrens, Sherri Scheffert, David Scheffert, and Richard Wakeford brought this action against Defendants asserting violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, along with various state common law claims. The Plaintiffs allege that they invested with Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., a futures commission merchant. They assert that they suffered significant thefts from and losses in their Peregrine accounts prior to and during the market crash that occurred in approximately October 2008. These thefts and losses were caused by a massive conspiracy-referred to in the Second Amended Complaint as the "RICO Ponzi Scheme" in which some or all Defendants conspired to permit Russell Wasendorf, Sr., Peregrine's CEO and Chairman, to steal customer funds from segregated accounts held by Peregrine. On March 31, 2019, Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued an opinion and order holding, among other things, that the motions to dismiss of the MTD Defendants are granted and Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is dismissed as to the MTD Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations can be construed to give rise to state law claims, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over such claims and they were dismissed without prejudice to filing those claims in state court. Plaintiffs filed a motions for reconsideration which were denied on September 9, 2021. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and The CME Group, Inc. now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2019, and Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2021, denying Defendants' motions for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as Behrens v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 21-2651, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 21, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and The CME Group, Inc. are represented by: Abby Rudzin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Plaintiffs-Appellees Bruce Behrens, Kathleen Behrens, David Scheffert, Richard Wakeford, and Sherri Scheffert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Susan Joan Levy, Esq. SUSAN J. LEVY, ESQ. 40 East 10th Street New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 962-1782 E-mail: susanjlevy@aol.com JP MORGAN: U.S. Bank Appeals Rulings in Behrens Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled BRUCE BEHRENS, KATHLEEN BEHRENS, SHERRY SCHEFFERT AND DAVID SCHEFFERT, RICHARD WAKEFORD on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A., CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. MILLENIUM TRUST COMPANY a/k/a MILLENIUM TRUST CO. LLC, RUSSELL WASENDORF,. RUSSELL WASENDORF, JR. STEVEN BREWER a/k/a STEVEN JOHN BREWER, GARLON MAXWELL, AMBER MAXWELL, PERRY COMEAU, John Does #1-40, Case 1:16-cv-05508, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Bruce Behrens, Kathleen Behrens, Sherri Scheffert, David Scheffert, and Richard Wakeford brought this action against Defendants asserting violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, along with various state common law claims. The Plaintiffs allege that they invested with Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., a futures commission merchant. They assert that they suffered significant thefts from and losses in their Peregrine accounts prior to and during the market crash that occurred in approximately October 2008. These thefts and losses were caused by a massive conspiracy-referred to in the Second Amended Complaint as the "RICO Ponzi Scheme" in which some or all Defendants conspired to permit Russell Wasendorf, Sr., Peregrine's CEO and Chairman, to steal customer funds from segregated accounts held by Peregrine. On March 31, 2019, Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued an opinion and order holding, among other things, that the motions to dismiss of the MTD Defendants are granted and Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is dismissed as to the MTD Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations can be construed to give rise to state law claims, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over such claims and they were dismissed without prejudice to filing those claims in state court. Plaintiffs filed a motions for reconsideration which were denied on September 9, 2021. U.S. Bank, N.A. now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2019, and Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2021, denying Defendants' motions for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as Behrens v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 21-2662, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 22, 2021.[BN] Defendant-Appellant U.S. Bank, N.A. is represented by: Eric R. Sherman, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-6609 Plaintiffs-Appellees Bruce Behrens, Kathleen Behrens, David Scheffert, Richard Wakeford, and Sherri Scheffert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Susan Joan Levy, Esq. SUSAN J. LEVY, ESQ. 40 East 10th Street New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 962-1782 E-mail: susanjlevy@aol.com JUUL LABS: Colbert School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- COLBERT COUNTY SCHOOL, COLBERT COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08714 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Colbert County School, Colbert County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 425 US-72 West Tuscumbia, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Dale County Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth -------------------------------------------------------------- DALE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DALE COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08708 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Dale County Board of Education, Dale County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 202 South Highway 123, Ozark, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Faces Midfield Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------ MIDFIELD CITY SCHOOLS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08705 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Midfield City Schools, Jefferson County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 417 Parkwood Street Midfield, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Fairfield Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads to Youth ----------------------------------------------------------------- FAIRFIELD CITY SCHOOLS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08715 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Fairfield City Schools, Jefferson County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 6405 Avenue D., Fairfield, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Fort Payne Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------- FORT PAYNE CITY SCHOOLS, DEKALB COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08685 (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Fort Payne City Schools, DeKalb County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 205 45th St. NE, Fort Payne, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Ottawa Township Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OTTAWA TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #140, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08716 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Illinois Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, alleges the suit. Ottawa Township High School District #140 is a public school district with its offices located on East Main Street in Ottawa, Illinois. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Coffee County Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- COFFEE COUNTY SCHOOLS, COFFEE COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08704 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Coffee County Schools, Coffee County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 400 Reddoch Hill Road Elba, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Fayette Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- FAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOLS DISTRICT, FAYETTE COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08686 (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Fayette County Schools District, Fayette County, State of Alabama is a school district with its offices located at 103 First Ave. NW, Fayette, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: Minjarez-Almeida Appeals Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs AZRIEL MINJAREZ-ALMEIDA AND ANDREA VIERTHALER filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Minjarez-Almeida et al. v. Kansas Board of Regents and Kansas State University, Case No. 2020-CV-000378, in Shawnee County District Court in Kansas. On July 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages for a pro-rated refund of dining plan fees and other university fees proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and utilization of campus services was restricted because of COVID-19. The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of persons who paid dining and other fees. On August 2, 2021, the court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Minjarez-Almeida case. The Plaintiffs seek a review of that order. The appellate case is captioned as AZRIEL MINJAREZ-ALMEIDA, AND ANDREA VIERTHALER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS v. KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS AND KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, APPELLEES, Case No. 124475, in the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, filed on October 26, 2021.[BN] KENNETH C. RAY: Morales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Morales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KENNETH C. RAY, a business organization from unknown; KENNETH C. RAY, individually and DOES 1-100, Case No. 21CV390163 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 9, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or in excess of 40 hours in a week and was not compensated at the applicable overtime or double-time rate as required by the Labor Code. The Plaintiff remains available for duty during their meal periods. Thus, the Plaintiff was not paid for the amount of time they worked during what was supposed to be their off-duty meal period under the Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contracted with the Defendants to do various work for the Defendant whenever needed. KENNETH C. RAY is a California business with its principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. Label Esq. Steven A. Kronenberg, Esq. Lauren E. Miller, Esq. THE VEEN FIRM, P.C. 20 Haight Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 673-4800 Fax: (415) 771-5845 Email: al.team@veenfirm.com KENT PHARMACY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Reuse of COVID-19 Syringes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie MacLellan at alaskahighwaynews.ca reports that a New Westminster pharmacy is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over allegations that it reused syringes to administer COVID-19 vaccines to patients in the summer. The lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver Oct. 13, arises from vaccinations that took place between Aug. 24 and 26, 2021 at Kent Pharmacy on Columbia Street. The notice of claim says patients who received their vaccines on those days were notified about a month later (on or about Sept. 22) that the syringes had been reused. (The "syringe" refers to the plastic tube containing the vaccine solution, not the actual needle.) "As a result, patients were advised that they could be at risk of contracting blood-borne illnesses and needed to be tested three times over the course of the next three months," it says. The plaintiff named in the notice is Marie Powell, an education assistant who lives in New Westminster. The suit says she has: "sustained personal injury, loss and damage and, in particular, has sustained: a. Mental injuries; and b. Such further and other injuries as may become apparent through medical reports, testing and examinations, details of which shall be provided as they become known." Powell's suit is seeking an order certifying it as a class action, with her as representative plaintiff. It asks for general damages, special damages, damages for lost income and loss of opportunity, damages for loss of past and future earning capacity, aggravated damages and punitive damages. It's also looking to recover the costs of future care, costs of the action and the recovery of health-care costs incurred by the Ministry of Health, on their behalf. The notice of claim names three defendants: Kent Pharmacy, pharmacist/pharmacy manager Bhanu Prasad Seelaboyina and pharmacy owner Fabina Kara. "As a result of the defendants' failure to use reasonable care, skill and diligence in and about the treatment of the plaintiff and other class members, the plaintiff and other proposed class members suffer, at a minimum, mental injuries and alteration of lifestyles as a result of potential exposure to illnesses. Further, the plaintiff and proposed class members may in fact develop illnesses that could seriously harm them and impair their functioning, and possibly cause death," the notice of claim says. No response to the claim has yet been filed, and the allegations have not yet been proven in court. B.C. College of Pharmacists has taken action Seelaboyina has also been the subject of a complaint to the B.C. College of Pharmacists. A complaint outcome posted on the college's website notes that: "The registrant has admitted to using the same syringe barrel for multiple patients while administering COVID-19 vaccinations between August 24, 2021 and August 26, 2021. This conduct occurred while he was in a leadership role as a pharmacy manager." A College of Pharmacists inquiry committee has reached an agreement with Seelaboyina that places conditions on his practice, pending an investigation into his conduct, "until further notice." He is required "to not act in the role of a pharmacy manager" and "to not administer drugs or substances by injection and/or intranasal route." The college has also revoked his drug administration certification.[GN] KNAUF GIPS: Appleby Consumer Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled VERONICA APPLEBY; PRISCILLA BROWN; JULIAN BROWN; PETER C. DEATON; JERMAINE V. ELLIS; MONIQUE ELLIS; EQWETRUST, LLC; HESTON SAMUEL o.b.o. H. H. SAMUEL PROPERTIES, LLC; CINTIA M. IGARZABAL; NEVILLE A. KELLY; VALENTIN MANSUROV; NELINDA MARTINEZ; TREVORLYN FAY MCELROY; MESSINA R. MOHAMMED; FAROUK MOHAMMED; JEFFREY ROBBINS; PATRISHA SAMANTHA SAMAROO; RAFAELA C. WAGNER; ANDREW K. WAGNER; DUEANE WARREN; and, STACEY WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 8:21-cv-01099, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 10, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02033-EEF-MBN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and violation of consumer protectional acts by manufacturing, distributing, and marketing defective gypsum drywall products. Knauf Gips KG is a multinational, family-owned building material company based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of building products based in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James V. Doyle, Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: Jim.doyle@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Farnsworth Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DAVID M. FARNSWORTH, ELOISE B. FARNSWORTH, ERIN PEDEN, ZACHARY PEDEN, DOUGLAS PREMOE, IUDOK PREMOE, JEREMY SKINNER, RENEE SKINNER, CASEY WEEMS, and JENNIFER WEEMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-00329, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 10, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02046-EEF-MBN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and violation of consumer protectional acts by manufacturing, distributing, and marketing defective gypsum drywall products. Knauf Gips KG is a multinational, family-owned building material company based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of building products based in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James V. Doyle, Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: Jim.doyle@doylefirm.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sweeney Sues Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Sweeney, John C. Tennery, Annilaurie Cammack, and John M. Cammack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC; Case No. 1:21-cv-00297-JFC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 27, 2021), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Philips Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure ("BiPAP"), Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP"), and mechanical ventilator devices, which contain polyester based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") sound abatement foam ("PE-PUR Foam"), seeking to recover damages based on, inter alia, Philips' negligence, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, and breach of state consumer protection law in connection with its manufacture, marketing, and sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam. According to the complaint, on April 26, 2021, Philips disclosed it had determined that there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in certain devices manufactured by Philips may degrade under certain circumstances. On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a recall (the "Recall") of devices containing PE PUR Foam, noting that Philips had determined that the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles which may enter the device's pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users of devices which contain PE-PUR Foam, as well as off-gassing certain chemicals. Philips recommended that patients using Philips BiPAP and CPAP devices immediately discontinue their use of their devices. On July 22, 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration classified the recall of Philips devices containing PE-PUR Foam as a Class 1 recall, the most serious type of recall reserved for recalls of devices that may cause serious injuries or death. The Plaintiffs all owned or leased Philips CPAP, BiPAP, or mechanical ventilator devices prior to June 14, 2021. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that their CPAP, BiPAP, or mechanical ventilator devices had been recalled by Philips due to the presence of a dangerous PE-PUR Foam that could cause them to suffer from adverse health effects, including, inter alia, cancer. The Plaintiffs have been advised by Philips to discontinue use of their devices. Plaintiffs must now spend a substantial amount of time and/or incur substantial expenses to replace the device. Philips has refused thus far to provide refunds of their products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of Philips CPAP, BiPAP, or mechanical ventilator devices. Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Royal Philips") is a Dutch multinational corporation with its principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com ekilpela@lcllp.com elizabeth@lcllp.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238-2434 Phone: (205) 908-4906 Email: kirk@woodlawifrmllc.com LA MARQUE, TX: Weidman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Weidman, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE CITY OF LA MARQUE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00314 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2021), is brought against the Defendant's conduct of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring the Plaintiff to work more than forty hours in a workweek without the proper overtime compensation. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other employees the same hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked. That is, during declared emergencies, Defendant would pay straight time for overtime. During his employment tenure with the Defendant, the Defendant paid Plaintiff over 170 hours of overtime at his regular hourly rate instead of 1.5 times that hourly rate, as the FLSA requires, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from July of 2019 to July of 2021 as the chief of the fire department. The City of La Marque is a municipality located in Galveston County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Phone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com LA PETITE: Wise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Petite Academy, Inc. The case is styled as Anisha Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Petite Academy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010461 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 9, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." La Petite Academy, Inc. -- https://www.lapetite.com/ -- owns and manages child care and preschool education centers for children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. 1110 Franklin St. Ste. 6 Oakland, CA 94607-6528 Phone: (415) 779-2888 Fax: (415) 738-7873 Email: larry@ysleelaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Suber Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric Suber, Mary Lynne Forrey-Suber, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Mutual Insurance, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04750-GAM (E.D. Pa., Oct. 28, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of Insurance Contract. Liberty Mutual Group Inc. -- https://www.libertymutual.com/ -- provides insurance services. The Company offers auto, home, life, and business insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Torre Rossa Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Torre Rossa, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Torre Rossa, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No. 1:20-cv-01095, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was removed from the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on May 19, 2020. The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of business interruption insurance policyholders whose claims for losses from forced COVID-19 pandemic-related closures have been declined by the insurer. On September 30, 2021, the district court granted Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's business interruption complaint. The court held that "neither the government shut-down orders nor the physical presence of COVID-19 particles constitutes a 'direct physical loss of or damage to' property," as the "thrust of Ohio law interpreting language similar to the provisions at issue is that a tangible harm to property is necessary to invoke insurance coverage for property damage." The Plaintiff seeks a review of the district court's order. The appellate case is captioned as Torre Rossa, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No. 21-3988, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 26, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant brief is due on December 6, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due on January 4, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TORRE ROSSA, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas J. Connick, Esq. CONNICK LAW 25550 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 101 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 364-0512 E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com Defendant-Appellee LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE is represented by: Michael Kevin Farrell, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1900 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114-3485 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 E-mail: mfarrell@bakerlaw.com LUCKY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Belmonth Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FORTINO BELMONTH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKY DOLLAR 207 INC. (d/b/a 99 CENT GRANT); and LAL SINGH LOLA A.K.A. LALI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08949 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Belmonth was employed by the Defendants as stocker. LUCKY DOLLAR 207 INC. owns and operates a discount store, located at Bronx, NY under the name “99 cent Grant”. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LUXOTTICA US: Faces ERISA Suit Over Early Retirement Availment -------------------------------------------------------------- JANET DUKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP.; OAKLEY, INC.; LUXOTTICA GROUP ERISA PLANS COMPLIANCE & INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and LUXOTTICA GROUP PENSION PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06072 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2021) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Luxottica Plan violates the ERISA rules for individuals whose benefits were calculated before an April 1, 2021 plan amendment took effect. For these individuals, when the Plan converts a single life annuity to a joint and survivor annuity, it uses a mortality table that is 50 years out of date, despite massive increases in life expectancy in the intervening decades. As a result, these participants and beneficiaries receive significantly less than the actuarial equivalent of their single life annuity, directly contrary to ERISA's requirements, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members are allegedly harmed by the Defendants' disclosures because they did not receive accurate information that is mandated by law and thus made retirement decisions based on misimpressions about the value of benefits available to them. LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and distributes sports eyewear products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Mary J. Bortscheller, Eq. Daniel J. Sutter, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com mbortscheller@cohemilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com -and- Todd Jackson, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 Email: todd@feinbergjackson.com nina@feinbergjackson.com -and- Peter K. Stris, Esq. Rachana A. Pathak, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. John Stokes, Esq. Dana Berkowitz, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St. Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 Email: dberkowitz@stris.com -and- Shaun P. Martin, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW SCHOOL 5998 Alcala Park Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 MADISON SECURITY: Jackson Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Antony Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MADISON SECURITY GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08721-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2021), seeks to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions such as hourly security guards (collectively, "Hourly Workers") who work or have worked for the Defendants in New York State. Despite being manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers in New York their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Hourly Workers in New York. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Hourly Workers in New York pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a security guard from June 2019 through May 2021. Madison Security Group, Inc. provides security services to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 MAMMA CHIA: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mamma Chia, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mamma Chia, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09265 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mamma Chia -- https://www.mammachia.com/ -- offers chia beverages, chia squeezes, chiamilk, and chia seeds for delicious and nutritious additions to their diet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com MARICH CONFECTIONARY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marich Confectionery Company, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marich Confectionery Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09270 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marich Confectionery -- https://marich.com/ -- is a U.S.-based confectioner that was established in 1983 by Marinus van Dam, creator of the Jelly Belly brand of jelly beans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Junk Fax Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Masimo Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., according to Masimo's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2021. A California court has previously narrowed the claims asserted in the litigation. No new trial date has been set. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (District Court) by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on October 7, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and deferring ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied on January 24, 2020. Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was scheduled for June 2, 2020, but on April 1, 2020, the District Court vacated the trial date and directed the parties to conduct an in-person mediation. The mediation has not occurred and no new trial date has been set. On July 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets a variety of noninvasive patient monitoring technologies, hospital automation solutions, home monitoring devices, ventilation solutions, and consumer products. MATTEL INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiffs Dekalb County Employees Retirement System and New Orleans Employees' Retirement System Employees and additional named Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension System filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE MATTEL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-10860-MCS-PLA, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This securities fraud action stems from a "cover-up of known, material misstatements in Mattel's financial results and known, severe weaknesses in its internal controls" as recounted in large part by Mattel's former tax director, Brett Whitaker. The Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mattel, its top executives, its registered accounting firm (PwC), and PwC's lead audit partner (Abrahams). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 19, 2021, the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mattel, Inc. from August 2, 2017 to August 8, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" 2. certifying a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) subclass defined as: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mattel, Inc. from February 27, 2018 to August 8, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" Excluded from the Class and the PwC Subclass are Defendants Mattel, PwC, and Joshua Abrahams; Mattel's and PwC's affiliates and subsidiaries; the officers and directors of Mattel and PwC and their subsidiaries and affiliates at all relevant times; members of the immediate family of any excluded person; heirs, successors, and assigns of any excluded person or entity; and any entity in which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest; 2. appointing Joseph J. Euteneuer, Margaret H. Georgiadis, Kevin as Lead Plaintiffs and New Orleans and DeKalb as class representatives; and 3. appointing Bernstein as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs seek a review of Judge Scarsi's Ruling. The appellate case is captioned as In re Mattel, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-80110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Mattel, Inc., Margaret H. Georgiadis, Joseph J. Euteneuer, and Kevin Farr are represented by: John W. Spiegel, Esq. John M. Gildersleeve, Esq. Lauren C. Barnett, Esq. Rowley J. Rice, Esq. Brian R. Boessenecker, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 MCDONALD'S USA: Magee Appeals Summary Judgment in ADA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Scott Magee filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled No. SCOTT MAGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-05652, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Plaintiff Scott Magee sued McDonald's after various McDonald's USA franchises refused to serve him as a pedestrian in the drive-through lane. Magee is legally blind and cannot drive a car in the McDonald's drive-through lane. Certain McDonald's USA franchises, however, only serve food late at night via the drive-through lane (or through an online application using a third-party delivery service), meaning that Magee cannot order McDonald's food late at night from those restaurants. In this lawsuit, Magee alleges that, by excluding disabled non-driving persons like himself from late-night food service, McDonald's USA has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In response, McDonald's USA argued in a motion for summary judgment that it does not "operate" its franchised restaurants within the meaning of the ADA. On October 5, 2021, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by McDonald's USA holding that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and because McDonald's USA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Plaintiff seeks a review of that order. The appellate case is captioned as Scott Magee v. McDonald's USA LLC, Case No. 21-2991, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 27, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript information sheet was due November 10, 2021; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 6, 2021 for Scott Magee.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SCOTT MAGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Roberto Costales, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES 107 W. Van Buren Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 Defendant-Appellee MCDONALD'S USA LLC is represented by: Jennifer J. Froehlich, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 N. Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 715-5775 MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Frawley Sues Over Discriminatory Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Frawley on her own behalf, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT GROUP OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08894-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021), seeks to remedy systemic discriminatory practices that order people to submit to "Independent Medical Examinations" (IMEs) at medical offices that are inaccessible or fail to provide accommodations to people with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Defendant is a for-profit company that contracts with insurance carriers, lawyers, and others to schedule IMEs. The Defendant maintains a network of doctors and other medical providers to perform IMEs. Defendant controls which doctors to include in this network, sets conditions on their work, and monitors their performance under its auspices. The Defendant routinely sends legal notices that require Class Members to attend IMEs at a specified doctors' office, at a designated date and time. The IMEs are often mandatory for Class Members to pursue their claims. However, defendant routinely schedules people with disabilities for IMEs in offices that are not accessible to them. Defendant sent plaintiff Donna Frawley, who uses an electric scooter for mobility, to doctors' offices that can only be reached by a flight of steps, are too small for her scooter to fit in the examination room, lack accessible equipment or restrooms, and have other serious accessibility barriers. The Defendant also schedules people with disabilities for IMEs in doctors' offices that have policies and procedures systematically denying accommodations to people with disabilities. The Plaintiff has a compromised immune system yet was sent to a doctors' office that required her to wait in a crowded waiting room for the appointment during the height of the COVID pandemic. The doctor's office refused her request to wait outside. In scheduling these inaccessible IMEs, defendant has ignored disabilities it knows or should know about. If Class Members do not attend the IMEs, they risk losing their claims. If they do attend these inaccessible and discriminatory IMEs, they are degraded, humiliated, and face safety risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Dutchess County, New York who uses an electric scooter for mobility and has a compromised immune system from chemotherapy. MMG describes itself as a "complete source for Independent Medical Examination appointment services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maia Goodell, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 195 Montague Street, 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 705-8730 Fax: (646) 759-1587 Email: maia@kakaleclaw.com META PLATFORMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FB) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 3, 2016, and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 27, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Facebook misled the market regarding its user growth. The Company knew or should have known that duplicate accounts represented a considerable portion of its purported growth and failed to disclose the implications of duplicate accounts on its business and revenue growth. The Company failed to maintain a fair platform for all users, including protecting high-profile users with the "Cross Check/XCheck" system. The Company failed to take effective action against bad actors on its platform such as drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent criminals. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Facebook, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] METALS CO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of loanDepot, Inc. (NYSE: LDI), TMC the metals company (NASDAQ: TMC), Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME), Camber Energy, Inc. (NYSE: CEI). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. loanDepot (NYSE: LDI) Class Period: February 11, 2021 IPO Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 8, 2021 In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at $14.00 per share. By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock had declined to $8.07 per share, a more than 42% decline from the IPO price after the Company disclosed disappointing second quarter 2021 financial results and provided significantly lower guidance for its business. According to the complaint, loanDepot violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's loan originations had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity and increased competition; (2) that the Company's gain-on-sale margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; (4) that the Company had already been forced to embark on a significant expense reduction plan due to the significantly lower growth and refinance originations that the Company was experiencing; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the loanDepot class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LDI TMC the metals company (NASDAQ: TMC) Class Period: March 4, 2021 to October 5, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2021 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the Company had significantly overpaid to acquire Tonga Offshore Mining Limited ("TOML") to undisclosed insiders; (2) the Company had artificially inflated its Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI") exploration expenditures to give investors a false scale of its operations; (3) the Company's purported 100% interest in NORI was questionable given prior disclosures to the International Seabed Authority ("ISA" or the "Authority") that NORI was wholly owned by two Nauruan foundations and that all future income from NORI would be used in Nauru; (4) defendants had significantly downplayed the environmental risks of deep-sea mining polymetallic nodules and failed to adequately warn investors of the regulatory risks faced by the Company's environmentally risky exploitation plans; (5) the Company's private investment in public equity ("PIPE") financing was not fully committed and, therefore, the Company would not have the cash necessary for large sale commercial production; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's valuation was significantly less than defendants disclosed to investors; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the TMC class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TMC Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) Class Period: March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2021 According to the lawsuit, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Tencent Music American Depository Shares (ADSs) during the Class Period while in possession of material non-public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully liquidate its position in Tencent Music because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants in the case, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses combined. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the TME class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TME Camber Energy, Inc. (NYSE: CEI) Class Period: February 18, 2021 to October 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2021 Throughout 2021, Camber has failed to timely file required financial statements with the SEC. As a result, financial reporting services such as Yahoo! Finance and Bloomberg were forced to rely on infrequent and outdated updates in SEC filings to estimate the Company's shares of common stock issued and outstanding. For example, before a recent update by the Company on October 6, 2021, the widely-reported estimate of the Company's shares of common stock issued and outstanding amounted to 104.2 million, which itself was based on a filing the Company made with the SEC on July 12, 2021. When the Company provided an update on October 6, 2021, it reported 249.6 million shares of stock issued and outstanding, a significantly higher figure. Throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Camber overstated the financial and business prospects of Viking as well as the combined company post-Merger; (ii) Camber failed to apprise investors of, and/or downplayed, the fact that its acquisition of a controlling interest in Viking would exacerbate the Company's delinquent financial statements and listing obligations with the NYSE; (iii) an institutional investor was diluting Camber's shares at a significant rate following the Company's July 12, 2021 update regarding the number of its shares of common stock issued and outstanding; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Camber class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CEI About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Powell FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled IESHA POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. BUR-L-001074-21, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-19836 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a specialty finance company located in San Diego, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. Trainor, Esq. Jonathan F. Ball, Esq. BLANK ROME, LLP One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5500 Facsimile: (215) 832-5342 E-mail: michael.trainor@blankrome.com jonathan.ball@blankrome.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Merida Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elsa Merida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mondelez International, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company; Does 1 through 10, inclusive; Case No. CIV SB 2122624 was removed from the County of San Bernardino Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 28, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01827-GW-SHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mondelez International, Inc., often stylized as Mondelez -- https://www.mondelezinternational.com/ -- is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J Clarkson, Esq. Zachary Chrzan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kate Spelman, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Fax: (213) 239-5199 Email: asmith@jenner.com KSpelman@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 923-2765 Fax: (312) 527-0484 Email: dpanos@jenner.com NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Can Subpoena Phone Carriers Under Cable Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, LLC, and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Florida limited liability companies, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John L. Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, grants Scoma's motion for authorization to subpoena third-party phone carriers under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. Background Scoma received an unsolicited fax from the Defendants advertising telemedicine services and "in-office visits for urgent matters." In response, Scoma filed a class action complaint against the Defendants for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) junk-fax provision. According to Scoma, the Defendants' advertisement was transmitted 47,619 times by Upland Software, Inc. "to 11,193 unique phone numbers," a list of which Scoma possesses. Neither side knows what proportion of the faxes' recipients used standalone fax machines versus online fax services. The distinction is significant because recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings have interpreted the TCPA as not applying to online fax services. Courts are divided on whether the FCC's rulings are entitled to deference. Scoma does not concede that the FCC's rulings are correct. As a contingency plan, however, Scoma suggests that it can distinguish between the two types of fax recipients using a three-step method: 1. Subpoena the Local Number Portability Administrator (LNPA) of the Number Portability Administrative Center (NPAC) to identify the carriers of the 11,193 numbers. 2. Use the response to the first subpoena to serve a second round of subpoenas on the identified phone carriers and identify whether the subscriber of each number was using online fax services on the date of the faxing in the class definition. 3. Provide the Court with the option to exclude all telephone numbers where the subscriber was using online fax services. Step one of the process is apparently already complete, and Scoma is "prepared to issue over 90 subpoenas for step two." These subpoenas would authorize the phone carriers of each number at issue to disclose: (1) whether the carrier provided online fax services to the subscriber of the number, and (2) the name and address of the subscriber. The Defendants do not oppose Scoma's approach per se, but they do oppose its scope. Instead of issuing ninety subpoenas to all the carriers identified by the LNPA, the Defendants propose a staggered process: The Court should authorize Scoma to subpoena only the "top three" providers, which account for "over 40% of the putative class." If Scoma is "successful in obtaining the needed information from the 'top three' providers," it can then seek additional authorization to "complete the process." But if "the process does not work," then Defendants see no reason to "burden these non-parties with unnecessary work." The Defendants also read the Cable Act to mean that carriers "may" provide (rather than "must" provide) personal information when authorized by court order under the Cable Act. Accordingly, the Defendants argue that the Court's authorization should make clear that carriers may elect not to respond irrespective of court authorization. Discussion Scoma's proposed subpoenas are based on its well-justified assumption that the Defendants will adopt the FCC's most recent position, i.e., that the TCPA's junk-fax provision does not extend to online fax services. Without conceding that the FCC's position is correct, Scoma recognizes that it may be "necessary to distinguish between stand-alone fax recipients and online fax service recipients." Hence, Scoma has proposed its three-step plan to subpoena the carriers for information about the 11,193 numbers of the fax recipients in the case. Under the Cable Act, a cable operator is generally prohibited from disclosing any personally identifiable information about subscribers without prior written consent or a number of statutory exceptions. One of these exceptions allows a cable operator to disclose such information when "made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure and if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed." A subpoena from the Court would satisfy the exception. The Defendants readily admit that they will rely on the FCC's rulings to argue that the TCPA does not extend to online fax services. But, Judge Badalamenti holds that the Defendants do not categorically oppose Scoma's approach; they only oppose its scope. Instead of issuing 90 subpoenas at once, the Defendants argue that Scoma's subpoenas should initially be limited to the "top three" carriers. If this first round is "successful," Scoma may obtain authorization for additional subpoenas. But issuing all of the subpoenas at once, according to the Defendants, would burden the carriers with "unnecessary work." Judge Badalamenti sees no reason why the Defendants have standing to challenge Scoma's subpoenas based on any "unnecessary work" created for the carriers. For that reason alone, he may dispense with the Defendants' arguments. Even so, the Defendants' arguments are not persuasive on the merits. The Defendants rely heavily on a Report and Recommendation where the Magistrate Judge recommended rejecting the same three-step discovery process now proposed by Scoma in the context of a motion to certify class. The Report and Recommendation analyzed Scoma's three-step process as a post-certification method of tracking down class members who fell within the putative class definition. In this case, Scoma intends to use the process as a pre-certification method of distinguishing between fax recipients who used standalone fax machines and those who used online fax services. This distinction is relevant because the Defendants intend to argue that users of online fax services have no cause of action under the TCPA and therefore cannot prevail on the merits, Judge Badalamenti holds. Because the Report and Recommendation analyzed the question from an entirely different procedural perspective, he says, it is less persuasive here. Moreover, regardless of whether TCPA coverage is a merits question or a certification question, the requested discovery would be valuable because it would allow the Court and the parties to narrow the class-based claims whenever the question ultimately is resolved. The Defendants' comparison also fails from a factual standpoint. At the time of the Report and Recommendation, Scoma had apparently not yet executed any part of its proposed three-step process. In the case, by contrast, Scoma has already performed step one and received the carrier information from the LNPA. The Defendants' final argument is that the Court's order should clarify that carriers are not required to respond to Scoma's subpoenas. Their argument is based on language from 47 U.S.C. Section 551(c)(2), which provides that a cable operator "may disclose" personally identifiable information if one of the statutory exceptions is fulfilled. Judge Badalamenti interprets the Defendants' argument to mean that a carrier's response to a court order authorizing disclosure of personally identifiable information is always discretionary, regardless of what form the request might take. He does not agree. In the context of a subpoena, the "may" language in the statute implies that the carrier should be given an opportunity to file an objection or a motion to quash. The Defendants cite no case law -- and the Court has uncovered none -- to suggest that the Cable Act affords carriers the privilege of ignoring a subpoena absent some legal basis to do so. Judge Badalamenti will, however, provide the carriers with a reasonable amount of time to challenge the subpoenas. Conclusion For these reasons, Judge Badalamenti grants Scoma's motion for entry of authorization order under the Cable Act. Scoma may immediately serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the third-party phone carriers of all phone numbers of the members in the putative class, as defined in paragraph 22 of the complaint, to determine: (a) the name and address of the subscriber associated with each phone number during the time period set forth in the class definition, and (b) whether the carriers provided online fax services to each subscriber during the time period set forth in the class definition. The phone carriers will have 30 days after being served with the subpoenas to: (a) assert any opposition to the subpoenas, and (b) notify the subscribers that their name and address are being sought by Scoma under the Cable Act. The carriers may provide notice to the subscribers using any reasonable means. For purposes of the Order, opposition includes motions to shift costs of compliance with the subpoenas if such costs prove significant. Each subscriber whose name and address are sought will have 30 days after receiving notice from their carrier to assert any opposition to the subpoenas. Any personally identifiable information that Scoma obtains in response to its subpoenas must be used only for purposes of the case and in a manner that complies with the Court's Agreed Qualified Protective Order of Feb. 12, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8ewbddps from Leagle.com. NETCOLLECTIONS: Cheek Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NetCollections, et al. The case is styled as Laura Cheek, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NetCollections, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-06223-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. NetCollections -- https://netcollections.net/ -- is a technology-based debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. Joseph Karl Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (646) 459-7971 Email: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com NEW YORK PUZZLE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Puzzle Company LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. New York Puzzle Company LLC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09281 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York Puzzle Company -- https://www.newyorkpuzzlecompany.com/ -- is a puzzle manufacturer that focuses in producing the highest quality puzzles, made in the USA respecting the environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal NEW YORK: Ex Inmates File Suit Over Alleged Inhumane Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Rayman at New York Daily News reports that a former Rikers Island inmate compared his hellish experience at the city jail to Guantanamo Bay in a new lawsuit, claiming that he spent eight hours on a filthy, overcrowded bus with no access to the bathroom. Jerelle Dunn, 34, said detainees on the bus had to urinate on the floor of the bus waiting outside of a lockup at the Rikers complex after his September arrest on drug charges. He says he was crammed into an intake cell with as many as 40 others with no masks in dirty conditions and nonfunctioning toilets. They took turns sleeping on the floor. There were few correction officers present. On several occasions, officers randomly sprayed pepper spray into the cells, the lawsuit alleges. The situation quickly evolved into "Lord of the Flies," with some detainees controlling access to food, water and phones, Dunn says. Inmates are supposed to be quickly transferred from intake to jail cells - a process that has been drastically slowed due to staffing woes at Rikers. Dunn says he spent nearly a week in intake, eating cold, rotten food. Dunn through his lawyers said the conditions at Rikers "mimic those that we have read about in Guantánamo Bay," where terror suspects have been held for years without trial. "During my month of incarceration, I was stripped of my constitutional rights and forced to live in the most inhumane conditions," he said. Dunn is joined in the lawsuit seeking class action status by another former detainee, Samuel Semple. The suit seeks compensation for all inmates held at Rikers on or after April 1. Their accounts mirror those of other detainees who were funneled into the system during the same period, which inspired a group of state legislators who toured the jails Sept. 13 to dub Rikers "Horror Island." Dunn says that when he was finally transferred from intake to a dorm, he had no mattress and slept on the floor. He used a bug-infested shower and there were no cleaning supplies. He remained in the same clothes for a month, he claims. When Dunn got sick and saw blood in his stool, staff ignored his pleas to go to the medical clinic, according to the suit. He wasn't seen by a doctor for a week. Meanwhile, violence continued without any staff around to intervene. Dunn wasn't produced for two court dates, delaying his release, he claims. He finally made bail on Oct. 8. Semple, 37, says he had a similar horrific Rikers experience. After his arrest on a weapons charge, Semple, arrived at intake on Sept. 4. He spent eight days crowded in with other detainees and no masks. The toilet flooded the dirty floor. He couldn't shower. Semple was hit indirectly with pepper spray more than once exacerbating his asthma, but he didn't have his inhaler, the lawsuit states. Like Dunn, Semple missed a court date. On Sept. 11, he was moved to a gym and then to several dorms. He was accosted by five detainees there, one with a knife, who wanted his cane. They grabbed the cane, the lawsuit said, and beat him with it. Over a 42-day stay filled with indignities, he never received psychiatric care and was not given medication. He finally made bail Oct. 16. "Rikers should be closed down. It's no place for a human being. Not even animals should be locked in a cage and ignored," Semple said. The lawsuit seeks compensation for Rikers detainees due to civil rights violations and systemic negligence. Lawyers argue that Mayor de Blasio's plan to eventually close Rikers resulted in inadequate oversight of the jail facility. "If we are going to have jails, they must be safe. People are living under horrific conditions on the island. It is unacceptable and they need to be apologized to." lawyer David Rankin said. In the wake of the crisis, the de Blasio administration struck a deal with the state to move some detainees and sentenced inmates to state prisons. Gov. Hochul signed the Less is More Act, which aims to reduce the jail population by sending less people to Rikers for technical parole violations. Those moves in part have reduced the jail population from 6,034 on Sept. 1 to 5,502 as of Tuesday, but that's still a 40% increase from the total population on July 1, 2020 of 3,936. Law enforcement officials have said the increase over that year was driven in part by a spike in violent crime. The Department of Correction and correction union officials have acknowledged that lack of staff is driving the Rikers crisis, but point fingers at each other for what's causing staffing shortage. Factors include an overworked staff demoralized by the pandemic, which is calling in sick in record numbers. Retirements and staff attrition are also reducing the ranks. Correction Department officials and the city Law Department did not have immediate comment. [GN] NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Perry Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North American Credit Services, Inc. The case is styled as Angelique Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. North American Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01868-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. North American Credit Services -- https://www.nacscom.com/ -- is a leading collection agency serving primarily the Southeast and Midwest regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com NVA RE LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NVA RE, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NVA RE, LLC doing business as: Tribeca Soho Animal Hospital, Case No. 1:21-cv-09218 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NVA RE, LLC doing business as Tribeca Soho Animal Hospital -- https://www.tribecavets.com/ -- is one of the largest and most advanced animal hospitals in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Gonzales Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs EDWARD GONZALES, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled BRIAN GARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to take appropriate action against the misconduct of one of its professors despite being repeatedly informed. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted, molested, and harassed by Dr. Richard Strauss, the sports team doctor and assistant professor of the Defendant. As the complaints against Dr. Strauss mounted, the Defendant held hearing on the spring of 1997. However, the Defendant took no legal or disciplinary action against Dr. Strauss after the hearing. Dr. Strauss quietly retired from his position after the hearing. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, directed the Clerk of Court to file the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in Case No. 2:18-cv-692, and the Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 2:18-cv-736 on the public record. In accordance with the Court's Order issued on May 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs in both of the cases filed Amended Complaints on May 27, 2020 under seal. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order, and Judgment, dated September 22, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Garrett, et al. v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 21-3972, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Oct. 22, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EDWARD GONZALES, JOHN ANTOGNOLI, KENT KILGORE, ROGER BEEDON, ADAM PLOUSE, DANIEL RITCHIE, MICHAEL SCHYCK, DOCTOR MARK CHRYSTAL, JOEL DAVIS, and JOHN DOES, 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-33, 35-46, 48, 50-51, 53, 56-59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 75, 77, 85-86, and 88-91 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Richard Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 241-8172 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Simina Vourlis, Esq. 1689 W. Third Avenue Columbus, OH 43212-6710 Telephone: (614) 487-5900 E-mail: svourlis@vourlislaw.com Defendant-Appellee THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Michael Hiram Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND 280 N. High Street, Suite 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-4100 E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com OLIN CORPORATION: Riley Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- MALIKA RILEY and TAKEEYA S. RELIFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00161 (E.D. Mo., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to make decisions to the best interest of the Plan and its participants. Olin Corporation is a manufacturer of chemical products, with its principal place of business located at 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1530, Clayton, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Ste. 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 678-3400 ON24 INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of January 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of ON24, Inc. (NYSE: ONTF) common stock issued in connection with ON24's February 3, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") have until January 3, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Douvia v. ON24, Inc., No. 21-cv-08578 (N.D. Cal.). Commenced on November 3, 2021, the ON24 class action lawsuit charges ON24, certain of ON24's officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of ON24's IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the ON24 class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the ON24 class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 3, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: ON24 offers a cloud-based digital experience platform that enables businesses to convert customer engagement into revenue through interactive webinar experiences, virtual event experiences, and multimedia content experiences. On or about February 3, 2021, ON24 conducted its IPO, offering 8,560,930 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of $50 per share for anticipated proceeds of approximately $428 million. The ON24 class action lawsuit alleges that ON24's offering documents representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the surge in COVID-19 customers ON24 observed in the lead up to the IPO consisted of a significant number that did not fit ON24's traditional customer profile and, as a result, were significantly less likely to renew their contracts. On August 10, 2021, ON24 offered revenue guidance for the remainder of the year of no more than $48.5 million in third quarter 2021 and $204.2 million for fiscal year 2021, missing analyst consensus by $2.7 million and $4.5 million, respectively. During ON24's analyst call held that same day, ON24's President and CEO, defendant Sharat Sharan, admitted that ON24 "experienced higher than expected churn and down-sell from customers [it] signed up in the second quarter of last year during the peak of COVID." He then added, "[t]his higher churn was primarily in the first-time renewal cohort, customers who signed . . . one-year contracts last year and who are up for renewal." On this news, ON24's stock price declined approximately 31%, damaging investors. By the commencement of the ON24 class action lawsuit, ON24 stock traded as low as $18.66 per share, a nearly 63% decline from the $50 per share IPO price. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased ON24 common stock issued in connection with ON24's IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ON24 class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the ON24 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the ON24 class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the ON24 class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] OPTUM INC: Oddei Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nana Serwaah Oddei filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPTUM, INC., a Delaware corporation, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a California corporation, SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03974-SB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action case against Defendants on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts three causes of action. First, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants have violated California Evidence Code Section 1158 by charging members of the public 25 cents per page for copying medical records in violation of California's 10 cents per page cap. Second, Plaintiff alleges that ScanSTAT has violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Civil Code by engaging in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information, which provides for $1,000 in statutory damages per violation. Third, the Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants have violated California Business & Professions Code by virtue of their other alleged violations of California law. On May 11, 2021, Optum removed the matter under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand on June 9, 2021. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Order dated October 15, 2021 wherein the Court granted Defendants Optum, Inc. and HealthCare Partners Medical Group, P.C.'s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in full. In that Order, the Plaintiff's claims against the Optum Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The Court also granted in part and denied in part Defendant ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's first and third claims against ScanSTAT were dismissed with prejudice. ScanSTAT's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second claim was also denied. The appellate case is captioned as Nana Serwaah Oddei v. Optum, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-56172, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei Mediation Questionnaire was due October 29, 2021; -- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei opening brief is due on December 22, 2021; -- Appellees HealthCare Partners Medical Group, P.C., Optum, Inc. and ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC answering brief is due on January 24, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bruce Thomas Murray, Esq. PIMENTEL LAW PC 30 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 210 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 765-6505 E-mail: btm@pimentellaw.com Defendants-Appellees OPTUM, INC., a Delaware corporation; HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a California corporation; and SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, are represented by: Michelle Arra, Esq. Taylor C. Day, Esq. Brian Mahan Jazaeri, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-7271 E-mail: michelle.arra@morganlewis.com - and - Kimberly D. Howatt, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 E-mail: khowatt@grsm.com OTIS WORLDWIDE: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Incentives --------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation continues to face a class action lawsuit related to nonqualified deferred compensation plans. The plaintiffs have recently filed an amended complaint against three company defendants, Otis said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021. On August 12, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Otis, Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier Global Corporation, each of their directors, and various incentive and deferred compensation plans. On September 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the three company defendants only. The named plaintiffs are former employees of United Technologies Corporation and its current and former subsidiaries, including Otis and Carrier. "They seek to recover monetary damages, as well as related declaratory and equitable relief, based on claimed decreases in the value of long-term incentive awards and deferred compensation under nonqualified deferred compensation plans allegedly caused by the formula used to calculate the adjustments to such awards and deferred compensation from Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier, and Otis following the spin-offs of Carrier and Otis and the subsequent combination of UTC and Raytheon Company." the Company said. Otis believes that the claims against the Company are without merit. At this time, Otis is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could result from this action. Otis is an elevator and escalator manufacturing, installation and service company. PAPA MURPHY'S: Appeals Ruling in Brown Securities Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and Weldon Spangler filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled EVAN BROWN, Plaintiff v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05514-BHS-JRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2021, District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for the denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The matter comes before the Court on an order granting permission to appeal on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge, and Defendants Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and Weldon Spangler's objections to the R&R. Plaintiff Evan Brown, a former Papa Murphy's shareholder, initiated this putative class action in June 2019. Following the Court's adoption of Judge Creatura's Report and Recommendation dismissing his complaint, Brown filed a second amended complaint ("SAC"). In the SAC, Brown alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements contained in a Recommendation Statement made in connection with a tender offer to acquire shares of Papa Murphy's. He alleges that the Recommendation Statement was materially false and misleading as to Papa Murphy's financial projections, the value of the company's shares, and the fairness of the tender offer consideration. Specifically, Brown asserts that the Defendants engaged a financial advisor in connection with the merger and that the financial advisor created a downwardly revised set of projections ("Base Case Projections"), which were unreasonably lower than Papa Murphy's management's significantly higher projections ("Management Case Projections"). The Defendants now seek a review of the order entered by Judge Settle adopting Magistrate Judge Creatura's Report and Recommendation for the denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Evan Brown v. Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-35871, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and Weldon Spangler Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 25, 2021; -- Appellants Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and Weldon Spangler opening brief is due on December 20, 2021; -- Appellee Evan Brown answering brief is due on January 20, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS, INC. and WELDON SPANGLER are represented by: Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq. Joseph E. Bringman, Esq. Sean C. Knowles, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-8477 E-mail: rberenstain@perkinscoie.com jbringman@perkinscoie.com sknowles@perkinscoie.com Plaintiff-Respondent EVAN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 - and - Roger Mulford Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com PHYTON TALENT: Klein FLSA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled TZVI KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHYTON TALENT ADVISORS LLC and SOCIETE GENERALE AMERICAS, Case No. 3:21-cv-12171, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-09248-VEC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including unpaid overtime wages, religious discrimination, and wrongful discharge. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a subject matter expert in negative news from June 2017 until the end of 2020. Phyton Talent Advisors, LLC is a talent recruitment agency, with its principal place of business in Manhattan, New York. Societe Generale Americas is a financial services company, headquartered in Manhattan, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 PORT AUTHORITY: Faces ADA Suit Over Railroad Workers' Medical Exams ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-19849-KM-JBC (D.N.J., November 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arises from the Defendant's policy to require railroad workers to submit to medical evaluations and inquiries that were likely to reveal the existence of a disability and were not job-related or consistent with business necessity. The Defendant has threatened railroad workers with administrative and disciplinary action for failing or refusing to undergo its annual medical examination or inquiries. Further, the Defendant has required them to disclose genetic information by requesting family health history. As a result of the Defendant's alleged intrusive medical examinations and inquiries, railroad workers have suffered emotional distress. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne S. Raish, Esq. Kevin J. Kijewski, Esq. Alyse S. Bass, Esq. Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 150 M Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (800) 514-0301 - and – Rachael A. Honig, Esq. Michael E. Campion, Esq. Civil Rights Unit 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 645-3141 E-mail: michael.campion@usdoj.gov PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid for Summary Judgment in Stedman Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOEL STEDMAN and KAREN JOYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C18-1254RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment. The matter comes before the Court on the "Joint Briefing Concerning Meaning of 'Based On' Maximum Medical Improvement as Used by the Washington Supreme Court in its Durant Decision." Plaintiffs Joel Stedman and Karen Joyce purchased personal-injury-protection ("PIP") policies from the Defendant. The policies provide coverage for "medical and hospital benefits," defined as: "The reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person within three years of the date of the accident for health care services provided by persons licensed by law to render such services and for pharmaceuticals, prosthetic devices, eyeglasses, and necessary ambulance, hospital, and professional nursing services." The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit in July 2018 asserting that, despite the policy language, Progressive relied on a determination that its insureds had reached maximum medical improvement ("MMI") or a fixed and stable condition to deny the payment of PIP benefits in violation of the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act ("IFCA") and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), in bad faith, and in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the context of determining that a class should be certified, the Court requested that the parties quickly and efficiently brief the meaning of "based on" as used by the Washington Supreme Court in Durant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 191 Wn.2d 1 (2018), and in light of Progressive's communications with its insureds in order to resolve an ambiguity in the class definition. In Durant, the Washington Supreme Court responded to two certified questions, the first of which asked "does an insurer violate WAC 284-30-395(1)(a) or (b) if that insurer denies, limits, or terminates an insured's medical or hospital benefits claims based on a finding of 'maximum medical improvement' ['MMI']." The court answered the question in the affirmative. It explained that WAC 284-30-395(1) lists the only four permissible bases for denying or limiting PIP benefits and makes unambiguously clear that "an insurer may deny PIP benefits 'only' for the reasons listed; no other reasons are permitted." Use of MMI "as a primary criterion for limiting PIP benefits" violates the insurance regulations. In order to succeed on their class claims, the Plaintiffs must convince the fact finder that Progressive had a policy or practice of denying, limiting, or terminating PIP benefits "based on" its determination that the insured had reached (or was about to reach) MMI. They offer significant evidence of such a policy, including Progressive's template documents and their own experiences. With regards to Mr. Stedman, for example, the medical examiner was asked to opine separately on whether additional treatments would be "medically reasonable, necessary, and related to this accident" and whether Mr. Stedman's condition was at MMI. Following the prompts provided, the medical examiner opined that Mr. Stedman had reached MMI on Aug. 31, 2016, and that any treatment received after that date was not attributable to the motor vehicle accident. Progressive asserts that its coverage decisions were always based on the four permissible criteria provided in WAC 284-30-395(1) and that it simply used MMI as "a factor considered in reaching the ultimate decision" that further treatment was not reasonable, necessary, or related to the accident. It argues that such a use does not run afoul of Durant or WAC 284-30-395(1) for two reasons. The first is that the mere mention of MMI -- or its consideration as a factor in determining whether treatment is reasonable, necessary, or related to the accident -- neither rises rise to the level of a "but for" cause nor satisfies Durant's suggestion that MMI must be "a primary criterion." Second, Progressive argues that a coverage decision cannot be "based on" MMI unless it were the sole justification for the termination of benefits. Based on this presumption, Progressive asserts that, even if it identified the MMI finding in its coverage letters as a reason for the denial of benefits, the Plaintiffs cannot rely on the letters to identify class members or to establish their claims because they still have to show for each insured that Progressive "actually based a denial or reduction of benefits solely upon a finding of MMI" (i.e., that Progressive would not have come to the same coverage determination in the absence of the MMI finding). Progressive next argues that, even if it based its termination decision on an illegitimate criterion, there would be no harm and no foul because -- it implies without actually saying -- it would have made the same determination based on the legitimate criteria of reasonableness, necessity, and/or relation to the accident. In sum, Judge Lasnik finds that if Progressive identified the achievement of MMI (or a fixed and stable condition) as a reason for the denial, termination, or limitation of PIP benefits, the coverage decision was "based on" that determination for purposes of Durant. While the mere utterance of a term like MMI or "fixed and stable" by a medical examiner does not, standing alone, raise an inference that the coverage decision was based on the impermissible criterion, where the insured has incorporated that finding into its coverage determination as justification, in whole or in part, for the termination of benefits, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the insured violated WAC 284-30-395. In light of his finding, Judge Lasnik denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the evidence does not give rise to a reasonable inference "that Progressive ever denied benefits 'based on' a determination that the Plaintiffs had reached MMI." A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wxyjbmp from Leagle.com. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Joshua Cowley filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA COWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-10491-SJM-DRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2021, the lawsuit is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Mr. Cowley was employed by the Defendant as security guard. On June 11, 2021, the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. On July 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from dismissal under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for leave to file first amended complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September 28, 2021, denying his motion for relief from dismissal. The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Cowley v. Prudential Security, Inc., Case No. 21-1635, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant brief is due on November 29, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due on December 29, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHUA COWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. 101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 663-7550 Defendant-Appellee PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC. is represented by: Dominic Nathan Hamden, Esq. 18 W. Main Street Milan, MI 48160 Telephone: (734) 439-8884 - and - Lisa M. Reimbold, Esq. CLARK HILL 1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Brian D. Shekell, Esq. CLARK HILL 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-8803 PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Lewis at thenegotiator.co.uk reports that Purplebricks' week has gone from bad to worse after its share price plummeted by 35% yesterday following the company's latest trading update, which revealed a 23% slump in instructions. Its share price started out at 52p but closed trading at around 33p a share. Although the company blamed the downturn on the ongoing supply problems within the housing market, its own City advisor predicted that revenues over the next six months will fall by 17% to GBP80m along with a 29% drop in gross profit to GBP43 million and a GBP2 million rise in overheads. Published by Zeus Capital, the figures also reveal that bringing its self-employed staff in-house has cost GBP4 million so far. But if that's not enough bad news one day, the legal firm organising a 'class action' lawsuit against Purplebricks, Yopa and the other self-employment model estate agencies says it is only days away from announcing that it will 'pursue litigation against Purplebricks'. 'CLASS ACTION' "The response from former and current Local Property Experts and Territory Owners has been nothing short of phenomenal and to the extent that we have had to recruit more staff to deal with the inbound enquiries," says a spokesperson from Contractors for Justice. "The number of Purplebricks agents that have signed up with us now is well into the hundreds and we will be providing a more detailed update in the coming weeks at which point it will be clearer as to when the action itself will formally commence." In response to the launch of the class action group last month, Purplebricks said: "All Territory Operators entered into a commercial licence agreement and this was clearly set out in their contract with Purplebricks. "We have always taken legal advice in regard to our licensing model - and the advice is very clear that these individuals were operating as limited companies, running their own business and with full control over their own staff. [GN] REAL CLIQUE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Martin Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ANASTASIA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REAL CLIQUE CREDIT REP AIR CORP., Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-019789 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 1, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. REAL CLIQUE CREDIT REP AIR CORP. offers clients all over the United States credit restoration services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Zullo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM ZULLO, DAVID PEREZ, THOMAS BARRETTI, and THOMAS RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-06253 (E.D.N.Y., November 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of New York General Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personal Identifying Information (PII) of its customers, including the Plaintiffs, from unauthorized access. The Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect PII. As a result, an alleged data breach occurred on the Defendant's customer support systems which compromised the confidential information of its customers. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip M. Hines, Esq. HELD & HINES, LLP 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 531-9700 E-mail: phines@heldhines.com ROMAN HEALTH: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Costa TCPA Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SERGIO COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAN HEALTH VENTURES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-05180 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Background Plaintiff Costa commenced the putative class action against the Defendant on June 10, 2021. He brings a single claim for relief alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. ("TCPA"), and its implementing regulations, predicated upon allegedly unsolicited marketing text messages sent by the Defendant to him. The Defendant is a telehealth company that provides telehealth services via its websites and subdomains. On July 30, 2020, the Plaintiff signed up for an account with a subdomain of the Defendant's main website. To set up his account, the Plaintiff had to complete a process which included indicating his agreement to the website's Terms and Conditions of Use. The Terms applicable to the Plaintiff's account contain a section concerning dispute resolution. By motion filed on Aug. 6, 2021, the Defendant seeks to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claim on an individual basis under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The Plaintiff filed his opposition on Aug. 20, 2021, and the motion was fully briefed with the submission of the Defendant's reply memorandum of law on Aug. 24, 2021. Discussion The Plaintiff does not dispute that the Terms contain an Arbitration Agreement, nor does he dispute that he entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate. The Plaintiff opposes arbitration on the ground that the Arbitration Agreement does not encompass his claims in the action. It is not for the Court to decide, however, the scope of the Arbitration Agreement, Judge Halpern opines. He says, the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed that the question of arbitrability is for the arbitrator to decide. The parties' arbitration clause explicitly refers to the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), which in turn gives the arbitrator the power to rule on any objections with respect to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim. The Second Circuit has held that when, as here, parties explicitly incorporate rules that empower an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, the incorporation serves as clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent to delegate such issues to an arbitrator, citing Klein, 2014 WL 3013294, at *10 (quoting Contec Corp. v. Remote Sol., Co., Ltd., 398 F.3d 205, 208 (2d Cir. 2005)). The Plaintiff states that he "agrees that the issue of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator" and "acknowledges this Court's precedent regarding the delegation of arbitrability when the subject agreement incorporates by reference the AAA Rules." Accordingly, Judge Halpern enforces the parties' clear and unmistakable intent to have the question of arbitrability decided by the arbitrator. The Defendant's motion also seeks to compel arbitration on an individual, rather than class-wide, basis. The Plaintiff suggests in his opposition that should he arbitrate, he would do so on a class-wide basis. The Defendant fully briefed in its moving papers its argument that the Plaintiff agreed to individual arbitration in the Arbitration Agreement and waived a class action. Even though the Plaintiff, in opposition, failed to respond to this argument thereby conceding it, Judge Halpern opines that this issue too is better left for the arbitrator to decide. The Plaintiff's argument that the Court should allow his "claims for injunctive relief" to proceed is based upon a faulty, result-oriented interpretation of the contractual language at issue as well as the claim and relief sought in the action. The Arbitration Agreement encompasses the option to "seek temporary and preliminary specific performance and injunctive relief" in the Court. In other words, it contains an equitable relief provision that "simply confirms an already extant, independent legal right," "to make injunctive relief in judicial courts of proper jurisdiction available to the parties in aid of arbitration." It does not "transform arbitrable claims into nonarbitrable ones depending on the form of relief prayed for." Nothing precludes the arbitrator from deciding the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as prayed for in his Complaint; and thePlaintiff has not made any application for temporary and/or preliminary injunctive relief in the Court. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, Judge Halpern granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. He denied the Defendant's request for oral argument as unnecessary. Because all of the disputes raised in the case (by the Plaintiff and any purported class members) are subject to arbitration and no purpose will be served by imposing a stay, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respects fully directed to terminate the motion, enter Judgment, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56tvv76a from Leagle.com. S.C. JOHNSON: Court Stays Windex Non-Toxic Suit Through Dec. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Actions, Case No. 20-cv-03184-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to stay the action pending final approval of the class settlement in Clark v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Case No. RG20067897, in Alameda Superior Court. Background Plaintiffs Michelle Moran and Monica Waddell filed these consolidated actions against the Defendant, alleging that it uses false and misleading labels representing that certain of its Windex products have a "non-toxic formula." The Plaintiffs allege that despite being labeled as "non-toxic," these products contain ingredients that are toxic to humans, animals, and/or the environment. Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action under California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq.; and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.; as well as claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a nationwide class and a class of California consumers, defined as: "All residents of the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the Products (Nationwide Class)"; and "All residents of California who, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, purchase the products (California Subclass)." On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Howard Clark filed a complaint in the Clark case in Alameda Superior Court. The Clark complaint alleges that the Defendant fraudulently advertised the same products as "Non-Toxic" in breach of the same warranties and in violation of the same California statutes alleged in this action. The Clark action also covers the same nationwide class and California subclass as the instant action. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the similarities, and describe the Clark action as a "copycat complaint." Following mediation, the parties in Clark entered into a settlement agreement on Nov. 24, 2020. The proposed settlement includes a $1.3 million settlement fund. The Defendant has also agreed that it will "manufacture Products without unqualified 'non-toxic' claims on labels for Products having the current formulations, and will abide by all regulatory labeling standards, where applicable." The parties in Clark filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Plaintiffs in the instant case estimate that the class members will only receive approximately $.38 per product under the Clark settlement, and describe the settlement as "woefully deficient," "horrible," and "absurdly bad." They state that they believe the nationwide class of consumers in these cases "have suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses." The Plaintiffs further contend that the Clark settlement constitutes a "reverse auction," which Judge Posner has described as a "practice whereby the defendant in a series of class actions picks the most ineffectual class lawyers to negotiate a settlement with in the hope that the district court will approve a weak settlement that will preclude other claims against the defendant." Thus, after learning of the settlement, Plaintiff Moran moved to intervene in the Clark case and filed an opposition to the motion for preliminary approval. Despite Plaintiff Moran's concerns and over her objection, the Clark court granted the motion for preliminary approval. The matter is scheduled for final settlement approval on Dec. 7, 2021. The Defendant filed the instant motion to stay pending the Clark court's ruling on the motion for final approval. Discussion In its motion to stay these proceedings, the Defendant argues that if the Clark court grants the motion for final approval, that settlement will resolve the action for all class members who do not opt out. A stay, the Defendant urges, would therefore preserve resources and avoid inconsistent rulings. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Plaintiffs' argument appears to be twofold: The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has acted in bad faith to engineer a reverse auction settlement in Clark and that the Clark settlement is fundamentally unfair. They further suggest that because of these deficiencies, the settlement in Clark "is unlikely to receive final approval." Judge Gilliam senses the Plaintiffs' frustration that they have devoted significant time to the case and that the Clark settlement may undermine their efforts. However, he says, the Court has no authority to decide whether to approve the Clark settlement. Plaintiff Moran has raised -- and may continue to raise -- her concerns before the Clark court. As the Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Clark court "specifically invited Moran to vet those concerns." The Plaintiffs also suggest that they will be prejudiced by a stay because of the passage of time and the potential loss of evidence. But Judge Gilliam is not persuaded by these conclusory and unsupported concerns. He finds such arguments particularly unpersuasive in light of the limited nature of the stay. There is simply no showing that a stay of approximately six weeks will unduly prejudice or strategically disadvantage the Plaintiffs in the action. In contrast, Judge Gilliam finds that there are considerable efficiencies to be gained by staying the action pending final approval of the Clark settlement. If the Clark settlement is approved, then the scope of the case may decrease significantly as the class claims may be resolved (though the Court need not and does not here decide the not-yet-ripe question of exactly what impact approval in Clark would have on this case). Plaintiffs Moran and Waddell may of course opt out of the settlement and pursue their individual claims in the case, but there will be no need to budget time or resources for class-wide discovery or class certification briefing. A stay therefore likely will conserve both the parties' and judicial resources. If the Clark settlement is denied, then the Court will set a further case management conference to ensure the efficient adjudication of this case. Judge Gilliam, therefore, exercises discretion to stay the action pending final approval of the Clark settlement (or denial of approval). Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants the motion to stay the case in its entirety through Dec. 10, 2021. He further directs the parties to file a status report within 48 hours of the grant or denial of the final approval motion in Clark. In addition to informing the Court about the outcome of the Clark case, the parties should identify any remaining issues for adjudication in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhd33av8 from Leagle.com. SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Asset Recovery Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Interested Party ASSET RECOVERY, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11887, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 24, 2021, Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Emergency Motions to Lift the Stay, to Enter a Show Cause Order, and for Expedited Consideration. On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fox filed this complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against numerous Michigan counties and county treasurers. He claims that the Defendants have seized and disposed of property and retained the surplus equity pursuant to Michigan's General Property Tax Act ("GPTA"), Mich. Comp. Laws Section 211.1, et seq. Before recent amendments, the GPTA allowed the statutorily defined "foreclosing governmental unit" to retain the surplus proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale without any procedure for compensating the owner. The Plaintiff's original complaint alleged a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts I, II), inverse condemnation under Michigan law (Count III), violation of Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution (Count IV), and an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count V). On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming additional counties and treasurers as the Defendants and adding three counts: procedural due process (Count VI), substantive due process (Count VII), and unjust enrichment (Count VIII). On Jan. 10, 2020, the case was stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's decision in Freed v. Thomas, No. 18-2312 (6th Cir. 2020), which presented nearly identical facts, substantive arguments, and jurisdictional questions. On Oct. 16, 2020, shortly after the Sixth Circuit's decision in Freed, the stay was lifted and the following class was certified: "All persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw. On Jan. 13, 2021, the Court decided several motions to dismiss filed by the Fox Defendants. Among the various defenses raised there was the assertion that the County Defendants were immune from suit because the GPTA specified how the "foreclosing governmental unit" was to handle the proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale. Accordingly, the County Defendants argued that in retaining surplus proceeds under the GPTA, they were acting as an "arm of the State." On Feb. 1, 2021, the County Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal from this Court's denial of sovereign immunity. That appeal remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Shortly after the County Defendants' notice of appeal was filed, the Plaintiff filed a preemptive motion to continue the proceedings during the appeal. The County Defendants responded with a motion to stay. Both motions were fully briefed by the parties. Given the "serious questions" surrounding the sovereign immunity defense, the County Defendants' Motion to Stay was granted on March 9, 2021. The case remains stayed pending the disposition of the County Defendants' appeal. Asset Recovery now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2021, directing it to account for solicitations, enjoining them from further communications with Class, and directing Plaintiff and Defendants to submit joint proposed curative notice. The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Fox v. Saginaw County, MI, Case No. 21-1653, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2021.[BN] Interested Party-Appellant ASSET RECOVERY, INC. is represented by: Todd Rhys Mendel, Esq. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER 333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1200 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-9725 Plaintiff-Appellee THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher D. Kaye, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: cdk@millerlawpc.com SEER INC: Kehoe Law Investigates Potential Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential class action securities claims on behalf of investors of Seer, Inc. ("Seer" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SEER) to determine whether Seer engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On November 4, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that "Seer Inc. . . . dropped 7% after a new short call from The Bear Cave." Seeking Alpha reported that "[t]he Bear Cave claims that the company appears to be a 'promotional and misleading' biotech company." On this news, shares of Seer stock dropped, thereby injuring investors. SEER INVESTORS WHO HAVE SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT EITHER JOHN KEHOE, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 801, JKEHOE@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, OR MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS. Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of institutional and individual investors. This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN] SOCLEAN INC: Faces Borland Suit Over Defective Ventilators ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BORLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01794 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2021) is an action to recover damages from the Defendant's sale and marketing of its SoClean 3 CPAP sanitizing machine, SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine and/or their predecessor devices ("SoClean device"). According to the complaint, SoClean manufactures and sells medical devices that clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines. The SoClean device is marketed as being compatible with many types of these machines. When a cleaning cycle starts, the SoClean device begins generating a large quantity of ozone gas that travels through the hose into the CPAP's tank. From the CPAP tank, ozone travels to the face mask and accumulates inside the SoClean's device chamber. During a cleaning cycle, the SoClean device consistently generates prohibited amounts of ozone by volume of air circulating through the device and the CPAP machine. Ozone levels remain within the CPAP mask, hose and tank after cleaning by the SoClean device, causing damage to the component parts of the CPAP machine owned by Plaintiff and other consumers, says the suit. Packaging for the SoClean device allegedly does not disclose that the SoClean device generates ozone or the levels of ozone generated. SOCLEAN, INC. manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Rader, Esq. Edward "Kip" Roberston, Esq. Edward "Chip" Roberston, Esq. James P. Frickleton, Esq. BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, P.C. 4000 W. 114th St., Suite 310 Leawood, KS 66211-2298 Telephone: (913) 266-2300 Facsimile: (913) 266-2366 Email: mrader@bflawfirm.com krobertson@bflawfirm.com crobertson@bflawfirm.com jimf@bflawfirm.com -and- Brett Votava, Esq. Andrew Nantz, Esq. Todd Johnson, Esq. VOTAVA, NANTZ & JOHNSON, LLC 9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 895-8800 Facsimile: (816) 895-8801 Email: bvotava@vnjlaw.com andrew@vnjlaw.com tjohnson@vnjlaw.com STATE FARM: Baker Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rashad Baker, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled RASHAD BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Rashad Baker and Zelma Stovall were both insureds under State Farm vehicle insurance policies. The form vehicle insurance policy under which Plaintiffs were insured provides that State Farm "will pay for loss caused by collision to a covered vehicle." In their civil suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, the Plaintiffs argue that the formula used to determine diminished value in their cases is flawed, and resulted in a too-small settlement. Arguing that every one of the thousands of other claimants like them was also a victim of the same flawed formula, they asked Judge Clay D. Land to certify their case as a class action lawsuit, and to include "All persons issued a Georgia vehicle insurance policy by State Farm who -- based on loss dates between December 7, 2017, and the date of certification [of class action status] -- made physical damage claims under their policies . . .." On Sept. 2, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification holding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure were met. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration which the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land denied saying, "Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that even if the Court does not reconsider its conclusions on commonality and predominance, the Court should allow Plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification with a narrowed class definition. The Court acknowledged in the Denial Order that "it may be possible in some cases to determine with common evidence which class members are injured and thus have standing." But this is not such a case. The Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to suggest that there is a common way to figure out which 17(c) assessments breached State Farm's policy and which did not. The Plaintiffs presented no evidence of a manageable way to ascertain which class members were injured and which ones were not. Rather, as the Court pointed out, "the only recognized method in the present record for proving injury and damages is a comparison of the 17(c) assessment to a highly individualized vehicle appraisal." Nothing in Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration changes this conclusion." The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the denied motion for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as Rashad Baker, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 21-90029, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on Oct. 27, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners RASHAD BAKER, RACHAEL LEONARD and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange SE Ste 480 Atlanta, GA 30339-2049 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com Defendant-Respondent STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Thomas W. Curvin, Esq. Valerie S. Sanders, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree St NE Ste 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 853-8314 E-mail: tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com STATE FARM: Fox Appeals Insurance Coverage Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Fox filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled KEVIN FOX, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-18131-BRM-ESK, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. At all times relevant to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff was the owner of real property located at 16 Falcon Run, Kinnelon, New Jersey 07405. The Property was insured under a policy issued by State Farm. On April 13, 2020, the Property suffered damage from a covered event under the Policy. The Plaintiff reported the occurrence to State Farm, which opened a claim file, but he was not satisfied with State Farm's handling of the claim and hired North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. to adjust the claim on his behalf. On May 6, 2020, North Jersey emailed a construction cost estimate to State Farm with a replacement cost of $145,816.88. On July 8, 2020, State Farm responded to the estimate and stated the Plaintiff's estimate from North Jersey included items that exceeded the scope of repairs pertaining to the loss, but did not specify which items were considered beyond the scope of repairs. In its response, State Farm included its own estimate, which indicated a replacement cost for the Property of $28,536.76. The Plaintiff claims State Farm's estimate used "a format and methodology that significantly differed from the North Jersey estimate, such that it was, as a practical matter, virtually impossible for the Plaintiff or his adjuster to determine how and to what extent State Farm was claiming a difference in the 'scope' of the necessary repairs." On July 17, 2020, North Jersey sent State Farm an email with an Agreement for Submission to Appraisers attached. On July 20, 2020, State Farm sent North Jersey a letter refusing to submit to an appraisal of the claim. On July 21, 2020, North Jersey sent State Farm estimates from Plaintiff's contractor, American Eagle Ext. LLC, totaling about $88,000. The American Eagle invoices represented the Property's repair using construction methods inferior to what the Plaintiff was entitled "in an effort to compromise his demand" and resolve the dispute over the amount of loss. On July 29, 2020, North Jersey sent State Farm an email attempting to comply with State Farm's demand for a detailed itemization, even though, according to the Plaintiff, State Farm had no basis for making such a demand which placed unauthorized preconditions on Plaintiff's right to appraisal. On Aug. 7, 2020, State Farm again refused to submit to appraisal because appraisal "does not apply to disputes as to the extent of damage, the scope of work required, the cause of damage, or other coverage questions." That is, State Farm refused to comply with the Plaintiff's demand for appraisal because his contractor proposed to fix the Property's damaged roof by replacing all of it, whereas State Farm's contractor would fix the roof by only replacing the damaged portions. The Plaintiff and State Farm agreed the Property's roof had been damaged, was in need of repair, the occurrence resulting in the damaged roof was a covered event, and the repair of the roof was a covered item under the Policy. They disagreed over what method to use to repair the roof, which resulted in a failure to agree on the cost of the job. The Plaintiff further asserts State Farm mischaracterized the dispute as relating to the extent of coverage and scope of work required to repair the damage to the Property and contends the actual dispute stems from a failure to agree on the value of the loss. As a result, the Plaintiff alleges State Farm "has deviated from the statutory appraisal requirement." Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges State Farm has engaged in the above conduct "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice," which violates N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 17:29-4. On Nov. 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County. State Farm received notice of the Plaintiff's Complaint on Nov. 4, 2020 and removed the action to the Court on Dec. 4, 2020. On Dec. 28, 2020, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Feb. 11, 2021, the Court administratively terminated State Farm's initial Motion to Dismiss and directed the Plaintiff to address the deficiencies noted in State Farm's Motion and Reply in an amended complaint. On March 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint currently before the Court alleging Declaratory Judgment/Reformation (Count One), Breach of Contract (Count Two), Breach of Covenants (Count Three), and Consumer Fraud (Count Four) against State Farm. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also asserts class action allegations for Declaratory Judgment/Reformation on behalf of Class A1 (Count Five), Breach of Contract on behalf of Subclass A-12 (Count Six), Breach of Contract on behalf of Subclass A-2 (Count Seven), Breach of Covenants on behalf of Subclass A-2 (Count Eight), and Consumer Fraud on behalf of Subclass A-2 (Count Nine). On April 2, 2021, State Farm filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On April 5, 2021, the Plaintiff opposed the Motion, and on April 26, 2021, State Farm replied. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 7, 2021, Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted State Farm's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Fox's Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of that order. The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Fox v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 21-2918, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Oct. 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KEVIN FOX, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by; Jeffrey A. Bronster, Esq. 17 Wendell Place Fairview, NJ 07022 Telephone: (201) 945-2566 E-mail: jbronster@bronsterlaw.com Defendant-Appellee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO. is represented by: Sandra L. Musumeci, Esq. Brian J. Neff, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA 136 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 660-1001 - and - David F. Swerdlow, Esq. WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF 120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Telephone: (732) 846-7600 E-mail: dswerdlow@windelsmarx.com TARGET CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cinnamon Mills' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Target Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CINNAMON MILLS, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01460-JGB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 22, 2020. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to pay vested vacation; failure to timely pay final wages; and unfair and unlawful competition in violation of the California Labor Code. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. determining that a class action is proper as to the first through third causes of action in the operative Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that: (1) the class is sufficiently numerous, (2) common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, (3) the class representative's claims are typical of the class, (4) the class representative will adequately represent the interests of the class, and (5) class treatment is superior. 2. certifying a class defined as follows: "All former non-exempt 14 employees that were employed by the Defendants in the State of California that, from June 10, 2016 to the present, (a) received shift differential pay during the last workweek worked, (b) had vested vacation owed upon separation of employment, and (c) upon separation of employment, were paid for vested vacation at a rate that did not include the shift differential pay;" 3. Finding the Plaintiff Cinnamon Mills to be an adequate representative and certifying her as the Class representative; and 4. finding the Plaintiff's counsel and their firms, namely Brian J. Mankin and Peter J. Carlson of Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP and Deepak Gupta and Neil Sawhney of Gupta Wessler PLLC, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. On July 14, 2021, Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted a Joint Stipulated Request to Continue Hearing on Defendant Target Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff Cinnamon Mills's Motion for Class Certification. On July 29, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant seeks a review of the order entered by Judge Bernal in an appellate case captioned Cinnamon Mills v. Target Corporation, Case No. 21-80111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2021.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner TARGET CORPORATION is represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com Plaintiff-Respondent CINNAMON MILLS, individually on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peter J. Carlson, Esq. Brian J. Mankin, Esq. FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320-1444 E-mail: pjc@fernandezlauby.com bjm@fernandezlauby.com - and - Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC 2001 K Street, NW Suite 850 N Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 - and - Neil Sawhney, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 UNITED STATES: $160M Class Settlement in Mercier Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, STEPHANIE MERCIER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 12-920C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims: (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the class counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to Class Representative. Background The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are 3,207 Advanced Practice Registered Nurses ("APRNs") and Physicians Assistants ("PAs") currently or formerly employed by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). They claim that the VA violated Title 38 of the United States Code and the VA's own policies and handbooks when it failed to pay them overtime for work they were induced to perform outside of their regular tours of duty in the VA's Computerized Patient Record System ("CPRS"). The Plaintiffs filed the suit on Dec. 28, 2012. The government filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2013, which the Court granted on Feb. 27, 2014. It held that overtime is available under 38 U.S.C. Section 7453(e)(1) only when it is "officially ordered or approved," and that this meant that an employee must be "expressly directed to perform specified hours of overtime outside of their regular shifts." Because the Plaintiffs "had not alleged that they were expressly directed to work specific overtime hours for which they were not compensated," the Court concluded that they had failed to state a claim, and it granted the government's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs timely appealed the Court's decision, and on May 15, 2015, the Federal Circuit reversed. Citing Anderson v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 365 (1956), it held that overtime may be considered "officially ordered or approved" under Title 38 where it is "induced" and not expressly directed. It therefore remanded the case to allow the Court to apply the Anderson standard to the Plaintiffs' claims. On remand, the parties engaged in extensive discovery, and the case was certified as a class action on June 7, 2018. Merits discovery closed in December 2020, and the Court scheduled the trial to begin on Feb. 22, 2021. On Dec. 14, 2020, at the parties' request, the Court transferred the case to Senior Judge Marian Horn for purposes of settlement discussions, in accordance with Appendix H of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). On Jan. 6, 2021, just six weeks before trial was to begin, the parties notified the Court that, following mediation on Jan. 4, 2021, they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The Court therefore canceled the trial. On July 8, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement resolving the unpaid overtime claims, which the Court preliminarily approved on July 16, 2021, Op. and Order ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Settlement Agreement provides that the government will pay $160 million to resolve the Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime, interest, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The Gross Settlement Fund is comprised of $124,331,428.18 in gross back pay and $35,668,571.82 in interest. Subject to the Court's approval, the Settlement Agreement designates $48,463,544.33 from the Gross Settlement Fund for attorneys' fees and expenses, $265,000 for costs to be incurred by the Settlement Administrator to administer the settlement, and $120,000 for case contribution awards to the six class representatives. The amount that remains after deducting attorneys' fees and expenses, the Administrator's costs, and case contribution awards consists of class members' back pay and interest, from which the government will withhold federal taxes. The Settlement Agreement provides that the amount of any reduction in attorneys' fees and expenses that this Court orders will be added to the Net Settlement Amount. The Settlement Agreement further states that funds will be paid to individual plaintiffs from the Net Settlement Amount based on each plaintiff's proportionate share calculated from the number of hours each worked in excess of forty hours per week during the class period multiplied by his or her overtime rate of pay. The Gross Settlement Fund of $160 million, according to the Plaintiffs' damages expert, represents slightly more than 65% of the maximum amount the Plaintiffs could have recovered if they had prevailed at trial. Under the Settlement Agreement, each plaintiff will receive his or her proportionate share of the Net Settlement Amount to compensate for unpaid overtime based on an analysis of his or her work records, subject to the agreement of the parties that the minimum payment would be $250. Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, as well as the class counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to Class Representatives. Discussion Judge Kaplan finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate. She also finds that the recommended incentive awards of $20,000 each are reasonable, especially given the size of the settlement. Judge Kaplan approves an award of $32 million and not $48 million for attorneys' fees. In her view as fiduciary for the class, an award of attorneys' fees that is equal to 20% rather than 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $32 million, not only protects the interests of the class members but also provides ample compensation to counsel for their excellent work in the case. Further, the award is large enough to encourage other counsel to take on the representation of plaintiffs in similar cases. However, Judge Kaplan grants the Plaintiffs' request for an award of non-taxable costs and expenses in full. In the case, the class counsel seeks reimbursement of $463,544.33 in litigation expenses. Most of these expenses were for hiring expert witnesses, deposition costs, travel-related expenses, and the opt-in notice. As detailed in the class counsel's declarations in support of their motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, each expense was actually incurred, and was both reasonable and necessary to prosecute the action. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, Judge Kaplan finds that the parties' proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement is granted. Further, the class counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and for case contribution awards is granted in part and denied in part. Judge Kaplan orders that the following amounts be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund, in accordance with her Order and the Settlement Agreement: $32 million in attorneys' fees, $463,544.33 in expenses, $265,000 in administrative costs, and $120,000 in case contribution awards. Consistent with paragraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement, "upon satisfaction of the terms set forth in paragraph 11," the Plaintiffs and the United States will file a stipulation of dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Within 45 days of the Order, unless a stipulation of dismissal has already been filed, the parties will file a joint status report advising the Court regarding the status of the government's compliance with paragraph 11. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ke8jrxch from Leagle.com. Michael Hamilton, Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP, in Nashville, Tennessee, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, in Hartford, Connecticut, Guy Fisher, Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Beaumont, TX, Robert H. Stropp, Jr. -- rstropp@mooneygreen.com -- Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C., in Washington, D.C., Bennett P. Allen --ChuckandJoy66@att.net -- Cook, Allen & Logothetis, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, and E. Douglas Richards, E. Douglas Richards, PSC, in Lexington, Kentucky, for the Plaintiffs. P. Davis Oliver, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., with whom were Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, and Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the Defendant. UNITED STATES: Appeals on Social Security Survivors Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Yurcaba, writing for NBC News, reports that Social Security survivors benefits will now be available to same-sex spouses and partners who had been denied access due to previous bans on gay marriage. The Department of Justice and the Social Security Administration on Nov. 1 announced that they dismissed appeals filed by the then-Trump administration in two class-action lawsuits related to Social Security survivors benefits for same-sex partners and spouses. In 2018, Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights nonprofit group, filed two class-action lawsuits against the Social Security Administration: one on behalf of surviving same-sex partners who had been prevented from legally marrying their loved ones by bans on same-sex marriage, and another on behalf of those who were able to marry, but were prevented from being married for at least nine months -- the minimum set by the Social Security Administration -- due to bans on same-sex marriage. Lambda Legal filed one of the suits on behalf of Helen Thornton, 66, whose partner of 27 years, Marge Brown, died of cancer in 2006. The two were unable to get married before Brown died because Washington didn't allow gay and lesbian couples to marry until December 2012. (It also didn't recognize domestic partnerships until 2007.) As a result, the Social Security Administration denied Thornton's application for survivors benefits when she initially applied in 2015, shortly before her 60th birthday, according to court documents. After three years of appeals, Lambda Legal filed the suit on her behalf. In the second suit, Michael Ely, 68, could not marry his partner, James "Spider" Taylor, for most of their 43-year relationship because Arizona excluded same-sex couples from marriage until October 2014. Ely and Taylor married as quickly as they could — in November 2014 — but Taylor died of cancer seven months later. When Ely applied for survivors benefits in 2015, shortly after his 62nd birthday, the Social Security Administration denied his application on the grounds that he was not married to Taylor for at least nine months, even though that wasn't possible due to Arizona's law preventing same-sex marriage, according to court documents. Last year, federal district courts in Arizona and Washington ruled that excluding Thornton, Taylor and other members of their suits from benefits is unconstitutional. The then-Trump administration appealed in both decisions, and when President Joe Biden took office, his administration didn't immediately drop the lawsuits. As of Nov. 1 though, the Justice Department has dropped them both. "We commend the Biden administration for respecting the constitutional rights of same-sex couples and choosing the right side of history," Lambda Legal counsel Peter Renn said." No one should continue to pay the price for past discrimination. The development ensures that the door stays open for seniors who were wrongly locked out from critical benefits because of discriminatory laws." He added that survivors benefits are now equally available to everyone, "including potentially thousands of same-sex partners who could not marry their loved ones and may have thought it was futile to apply." Ely said in a statement that he feels "like a huge weight has been lifted off my chest." "One of Spider's final hopes was that I would be able to access these benefits," he said. "I can finally breathe a sigh of relief that these benefits are now finally secure, not only for me but for everyone else who found themselves in the same boat." [GN] UNITED STATES: Calapristi Appeals Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff FRANK CALAPRISTI filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Frank Calapristi and other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00612-SGB, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Plaintiff, Frank Calapristi, sues for breach of an implied-in-fact contract that he claims existed between the United States and government contractor employees who worked on a United States Department of Energy nuclear site. Mr. Calapristi alleges this is a breach of an implied-in-fact contract that existed between the government and Enterprise Company employees, the would be subcontractors to eventual prime contractor Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., and he now seeks relief for the alleged breach. The case presents nearly identical facts and claims as those in Turping v. United States, a directly related case. In Turping, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim because the plaintiffs had not established mutuality of intent to contract. The government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Because Mr. Calapristi's complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish the government's intent to contract, the same defect in Turping, the government's motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the dismissal order. The appellate case is captioned as FRANK CALAPRISTI, and other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on Oct. 21, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK CALAPRISTI, and other similarly situated persons, is represented by: Douglas Edward McKinley, Jr., Esq. DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1030 North Center Parkway Kennewick, WA 99336 Telephone: (509) 628-0809 Facsimile: (509) 628-2307 E-mail: doug@mckinleylaw.com Defendant-Appellee United States is represented by: Albert Salvatore Iarossi, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL DIVISION (G) Post Office Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-3755 Facsimile: (202) 514-8624 E-mail: albert.s.iarossi@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Settlement in VA Nurses' Overtime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has granted final approval of a $160 million settlement of overtime claims on behalf of nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The lawsuit, which was filed on December 28, 2012, alleged that 3,200 class members were induced to work overtime to update patients' electronic health records and monitor and respond to patient-related notifications in the VA's Computerized Patient Record System for which they were not paid. The settlement, which is one of the largest ever reached in an overtime case involving federal employees, provides an average recovery of $50,000 to class members. Noting that the litigation was complex, and the risk of non-recovery substantial, the court found that plaintiffs' counsel "vigorously prosecuted this case over a span of almost nine years and have achieved an excellent result for the class in the face of an equally vigorous defense mounted by the Department of Justice." "We are gratified that the court has approved the settlement and that we have finally brought justice to these dedicated medical providers who care for our nation's veterans," said plaintiffs' lead counsel, Michael Hamilton of Beaumont-based Provost Umphrey Law Firm. Class counsel includes Mr. Hamilton and Guy Fisher of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP; Douglas Richards of E. Douglas Richards, PSC; Robert Stropp, Jr. of Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C.; William H. Narwold of Motley Rice LLC; and Bennett Allen of Cook, Allen & Logothetis, LLC. The case is Stephanie Mercier, et al., Plaintiffs v. The United States of America, No. 1:12-cv-00920 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For over 50 years, our firm's mission has remained to seek justice for those who have suffered a personal injury or death due to the wrongful conduct of others. Our attorneys fight for our clients nationwide with offices in Beaumont, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee. We continue to be one of the most successful trial law firms in the nation by remaining "Hard-Working Lawyers for Hard-Working People." To learn more, visit https://www.provostumphrey.com. [GN] UNITED STATES: Schulz Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Robert L. Schulz, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Robert Schulz, et al. v. Congress of the United States, Case No. 1:21-cv-00448-DLF, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Robert Schulz and Anthony Futia, Jr., individuals representing themselves pro se, bring this action against the "Congress of the United States, each member of the Senate and House of Representatives," for allegations related to the certification of Electoral College votes in the 2020 presidential election. They allege that "the manner in which the Presidential Electors were chosen in 31 States violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America in that Executive and Judicial officials in those States usurped their legislatures' authority and unconstitutionally revised their State's election laws." They claim that these violations necessitate the nullification of 401 of the available 538 electoral votes, leaving no candidate with the requisite majority needed to win the presidency. Schulz and Futia delivered to each member of Congress a copy of a petition outlining the alleged violations of these states, to which Congress has not responded. They claim that "Congress had a duty to respond to the Petition," and by not doing so, Congress has admitted that the "electors from 31 states were unconstitutionally chosen." Schulz and Futia requested that the Court "declar[e] the 2020 electoral college to have been unconstitutionally formed," and direct Congress to "choose immediately, by ballot, the President and Vice President of the United States, in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution." On June 16, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for default judgment. In an order dated October 1, 2021, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of that ruling in an appellate case captioned Robert Schulz, et al. v. Congress of the United States, Case No. 21-5232, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 25, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert L. Schulz and Anthony Futia, Jr. appear pro se. Defendant-Appellee Congress of the United States, Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives, is represented by: R. Craig Lawrence, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2500 UNITED STATES: SEC's Complaint on False Claims Reached $40M ----------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that it's no easy feat to rook securities settlement administrators, whose job, after all, is to make sure that money from settlement funds gets paid out only to investors with legitimate claims. But according to a newly unsealed indictment and simultaneous U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission complaint in federal court in Philadelphia, three alleged fraudsters managed to extract no less than $40 million over the last seven years by filing false claims on behalf of three fake institutional investors. The defendants - Joseph Cammarata, Erik Cohen and David Punturieri, as well as their purported claims aggregation firm Alpha Plus Recovery LLC - allegedly went to extraordinary trouble to perpetrate their long-running and lucrative fraud. According to the SEC's complaint and an accompanying declaration in support of a restraining order to freeze the defendants' assets, their elaborate scheme involved not just sham institutional investors and falsified brokerage records but also fake client agreements and even aliases that allowed the defendants to hide their identities when they talked to claims administrators. A caveat: I was not able to reach any of the defendants for comment. I obtained phone numbers for Cammarata and Punturieri but repeated calls did not go through. I couldn't find a phone number for Cohen. The civil and criminal dockets do not list defense lawyers for any of the defendants, and the SEC email announcing that it had won a freeze order said that defense counsel are unknown. So keep in mind that we only know the government's side of the story. But it's one hell of a tale, including an eye-catching allegation about how the defendants spent their allegedly ill-gotten millions: "purchasing items like jewelry, cars, home renovations, watercraft, vacation homes and other real estate, including upkeep on Cammarata's personal Caribbean island." (The island appears, based on trademark records mentioning Cammarata, to be Sandy Cay in the Bahamas.) The defendants allegedly used a head-spinning array of shell companies to execute the scheme, but I'll try to simplify the SEC's account. The fraud allegedly began in 2014 with claims filed on behalf of a Bahamian entity called Quartis Trade & Investment, which purported to be a hedge fund. Quartis, according to the SEC, was in fact controlled by Cammarata and Cohen. In 2015, the defendants diversified and began also filing claims on behalf of Nimello Holdings, a purported private trading fund established in Gibraltar. The SEC alleges that the defendants controlled Nimello as well, along with a third company, Inversiones Invergasa of Bogota, Colombia, for which they began filing securities fund claims in 2019. All told, the SEC asserts, the defendants made about 400 fraudulent claims with administrators of securities settlement funds - and not just funds from private securities class actions. In at least two instances, the allegedly sham claims were from settlement funds resolving SEC enforcement actions against AgFeed Industries Inc and BP Plc. (I think we can all agree that it takes a special kind of chutzpah to commit fraud against settlement funds established by the SEC.) The defendants allegedly relied on Cammarata's ties to registered broker-dealers - until 2018, for example, he was the CEO of a broker called SpeedRoute LLC - to generate false trading records and other documents for Quartis, Nimello and Invergasa. The SEC's complaint asserts that Punturieri and Cohen "adopted phony aliases" in phone calls and emails with settlement fund administrators, but that when Cammarata communicated with fund officials, he presented himself as an independent broker, allegedly hiding his control of Alpha Plus and the sham investment funds. "Cammarata provided false documents and information to distribution fund administrators or otherwise verified false documents and information provided to distribution fund administrators in support of fake claims submitted by AlphaPlus on behalf of the sham clients," the SEC declaration alleged. The SEC complaint and declaration detail five cases in which the defendants allegedly submitted fake claims on behalf of Quartis, Nimello and Invergasa. Four claims administrators were involved. Three of them ended up paying out on allegedly fake claims by the defendants: Epiq Systems Inc in the SEC's AgFeed case and a private class action against Penn West Petroleum Ltd; RBC Fund Services LLC in the BP case; and Gilardi & Co LLC in a private class action against American Apparel Inc. (In the fifth case, a class action settlement from EndoChoice Holdings Inc, the claims administrator KCC Class Action Services LLC rejected the defendants' claims after a probing audit of fake trading and brokerage records for Invergasa.) I contacted Epiq, RBC and Gilardi parent Computershare Ltd to ask about their dealings with the defendants. I heard back only from Computershare, which declined to comment. The SEC's filings actually portray all of the claims administrators as rigorous fact checkers who ended up being tricked only because the defendants allegedly took such extraordinary pains to fabricate records. Even the defendants, at least in the early years of the alleged scheme, were surprised and concerned about claims administrators' diligence. In March 2015, for instance, Cammarata allegedly emailed Punturieri because he was distressed by Punturieri's slow response to questions from a fund administrator. Cammarata allegedly wrote back: "I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about JAIL, because we waited a week to hear anything from the admin." Later that year, after Nimello filed a claim for recovery from the AgFeed fund, Epiq emailed a series of detailed questions about Nimello and its purported broker relationships to a Punturieri alias email account. Punturieri allegedly forwarded Epiq's questions to Cohen and Cammarata. Cammarata allegedly replied, "This is going to be tougher than I thought." If the DOJ and SEC allegations are true - and U.S. District Judge Chad Kenney of Philadelphia found the SEC's claims to be credible enough to order a freeze on defendants' assets - Cammarata, Cohen and Punturieri must have mastered those early fears, since the scheme supposedly continued for years after Cammarata allegedly told Punturieri that he woke up thinking about jail. And now, according to the Justice Department's press release, they each face a maximum of 20 years in prison if they're convicted. Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. [GN] VASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Buckley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF MICHIGAN, PC, JOHN ILJAS and MAZEN BAZZI, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-12539-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich., October 28, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid Medical Assistant from May 2008 until September 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees regular worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants paid them an improper overtime rate because the Defendants failed to include the value of the nondiscretionary bonuses, that the Defendants provided to them, in determining their regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rate, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover all unpaid back wages owed to him and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and all litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Vascular Associates of Michigan, PC is a medical company that specializes in vascular surgery. John Iljas and Mazen Bazzi are co-owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com VIACOMCBS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against of ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VIAC) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased ViacomCBS common stock between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that GoldmanSachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of ViacomCBS shares during the Class Period while in possession of material non-public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion undermanagement) and its need to fully liquidate its position in ViacomCBS because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants in the case, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses combined. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ViacomCBS during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 28, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] VIATRIS INC: Dvorak Sues Over Overpriced Epinephrine Injectables ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Dvorak, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Viatris Inc. (Successor-in-Interest to Mylan N.V.), Mylan Specialty L.P., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Heather Bresch, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02813, (E.D. Va., November 1, 2021), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Defendants' overcharging of epinephrine-injecting devices in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act and various Virginia antitrust statutes. Defendants sell the EpiPen, a self-injecting device that delivers epinephrine, a synthetic form of adrenaline used to relax muscles around airways and tightening blood vessels to maintain respiratory and cardiovascular function during allergies. Pfizer, through its wholly owned subsidiaries King and Meridian, is the exclusive supplier of EpiPens to Mylan. King manufacturers the epinephrine for the EpiPen, and Meridian (who holds the EpiPen auto-injector patents) manufactures the EpiPen injector device itself. Defendants allegedly engage in anticompetitive and illegal exclusionary conspiracy to maintain monopoly over said product by misclassifying the EpiPen under Medicaid's Medical Drug Rebate Program to save hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates, utilizing their Medicaid savings to offer aggressive rebates and incentives to Pharmacy Benefit Managers, conditioned on excluding competitors from the market, using Mylan's Access to Schools program to hook consumers on its product, meanwhile conditioning the provision of free EpiPens to schools on the exclusion of competitor products; engaging in deceptive marketing programs to restrain and prevent competition; asserting and prosecuting invalid patents to dissuade competitors from entering the market for epinephrine auto-injectors; intervening in regulatory proceedings to delay competitors' entry in the market; entering into unlawful pay-for-delay settlement agreements with competitors to maintain their monopoly; and convincing regulators and the public that a medical need justified Mylan' decision to sell EpiPens solely in 2-packs, thereby exercising monopoly power to double consumer and third-party payor expenses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: etripodi@zlk.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com VIVID SEATS: $7.5M COVID Refund Class Action Settlement Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivid Seats' (NASDAQ: SEAT) proposed settlement of class action claims regarding its failure to issue refunds for tickets related to events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic was approved Monday, paving the way for the disbursement of $7.5 million in funds to those impacted. The settlement was initially agreed to between Vivid Seats and the principal plaintiffs in March, and was approved over the opposition of "a handful of objectors" according to Bloomberg. "While the relief does not quite make every claimant entirely whole, it comes close," Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. said. "Only in a rare case, where liability is overwhelming, will class plaintiffs obtain a full and complete recovery." The final approved settlement will pay out $2.25 million in attorney's fees, with the remaining funds spread out among "many thousands" of class members in the U.S. and Canada who purchased tickets through Vivid Seats for events that were later cancelled, postponed, or rescheduled. Those who qualify are able to submit a claim for a cash payment from the settlement fund equal to the purchase price of the tickets to the impacted events. The lead plaintiffs in the case will also receive a $2,500 incentive payment for their efforts. TicketSmarter Logo California consumers will also have the ability to access "additional relief" from Vivid Seats outside of the settlement fund, due to "concerns raised by government officials in California under California Business and Professions Code section 22500", which includes penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. Vivid Seats was one of several companies to rapidly shift their refund policies in early 2020 when COVID put a near-immediate stop on all large scale events in March. Lawsuits were filed over the changes, which included a shift from cash refunds to consumers when events were cancelled (rather than rescheduled) to vouchers good towards future purchases on the marketplace. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a $4.4 million settlement over similar issues in New York, where several Vivid Seats "white label" clients had failed to pay out refunds due to consumers in the state. Vivid Seats is still in its first month of being a public company, having merged with Horizon Acquisitions Corp. in mid-October. It is trading on the NASDAQ as SEAT, and is hovering around $13 per share after reaching as high as $14.35 in its initial rush out of the gate. [GN] WAKEMED: Elrod Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Peggy Elrod, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit PEGGY ELROD; YVONNE BERTOLO; JANINE PALMER; JUSTIN PALMER; and ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS WITHIN THE PROPOSED CLASS, Plaintiffs v. WAKEMED; WAKEMED SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS, LLC D/B/A WAKEMED PHYSICIAN PRACTICES; WAKEMED SPECIALISTS GROUP, LLC D/B/A WAKEMED PHYSICIAN PRACTICES; ARGOS HEALTH, INC.; ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-CV-413-FL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. The Plaintiffs commenced the action in Wake County Superior Court on July 2, 2020, asserting common law claims seeking to set aside agreements for assignment of insurance benefits they executed at a hospital emergency room operated by Defendants WakeMed, WakeMed Specialty Physicians, LLC, and WakeMed Specialists Group, LLC (collectively, "Defendant WakeMed"). WakeMed filed a notice of removal in this court on July 28, 2020, on the basis that the complaint raises a substantial question as to the proper interpretation of federal law, including, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd, as well as statutes and regulations governing Medicare, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395 et seq. The Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2020, asserting the following claims: 1) declaratory judgment against all the Defendants; 2) breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant WakeMed; and 3) fraud, conversion, and unfair and deceptive trade practices against Defendants Argos Health, Inc. and WakeMed. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 5, 2021, Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of that order in an appellate case captioned Peggy Elrod v. WakeMed, Case No. 21-2203, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Oct. 25, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PEGGY ELROD, YVONNE BERTOLO, JANINE PALMER, JUSTIN PALMER and all similarly situated persons within the proposed class, are represented by: Kendra Renee Alleyne, Esq. Arlene Labarias Velasquez-Colon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COLON & ASSOCIATES 833 Durham Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 Telephone: (919) 556-7446 E-mail: kendra@colonlaw1.com Defendants-Appellees WAKEMED SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS, LLC, d/b/a WakeMed Physician Practices; WAKEMED SPECIALISTS GROUP, LLC, d/b/a WakeMed Physician Practices; and ARGOS HEALTH, INC. are represented by: Matthew Nis Leerberg, Esq. Troy Dean Shelton, Esq. Jeffrey Ryan Whitley, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 434 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 755-8759 E-mail: mleerberg@foxrothschild.com - and - R. Robert Imad El-Jaouhari, Esq. James Carlton Thornton, Esq. CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP P. O. Box 27808 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 863-8718 E-mail: rjaouhari@cshlaw.com WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Adequate Notice, Vazquez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ELBA VAZQUEZ and GILBERTO VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WALMART STORES, INC. ASSOCIATES' HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00848 (M.D. Fla., November 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975 (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. According to the complaint, the Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the WalMart Stores, Inc. Associates' Health and Welfare Plan with adequate notice of their right to continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of a qualifying event as defined by the statute. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. Daniel E. Kalter, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com dkalter@wfclaw.com WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Underpays CSRs, Walker Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC d/b/a AllianceRX Walgreens Prime, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05780 (N.D. Ill., October 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a remote customer service representative from about February 2021 to September 2021. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated customer service representatives regularly worked 40 or more hours per week. They were required by the Defendant to perform work that the Defendant failed to compensate, that include starting and logging into the Defendant's computer systems, numerous software applications, and call system. This unpaid work is an integral and indispensable part of their other principal activities. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not properly pay their 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 Defendant also failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees when not clocked in, alleges the Plaintiff. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC operates call centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and – Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Police Dept.'s Unlawful Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- Today two protestors and three volunteer medics filed a lawsuit against the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department for its unconstitutional retention of their cell phones and other personal property for months after they were seized during police reform and racial justice demonstrations two summers ago, even though no charges were filed against any of the individuals. More than a year after the protest, MPD continues to hold the phones of three of the plaintiffs along with those of over 30 other individuals whom the plaintiffs seek to represent in a class action. The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Law Office of Jeffrey L. Light, and pro bono counsel Tara Reinhart, Julia York, Daniel Blauser, Joe Sandman, and Annamaria Kimball, represent protestors Destiny Robinson and Alexander Cameron, who were protesting the night of August 13, 2020, in Adams Morgan, and Benjamin Tan, Jonah Angeles, and Jake Oster, who were volunteering as standby medics that night. Around 10:45 PM, D.C. police officers charged towards demonstrators, then kettled them near the intersection of 18th and Willard Streets. All were arrested, and their cell phones were confiscated. Less than 24 hours later, everyone from that kettle was released and no charges were filed. However, their cell phones were not returned. Robinson, Cameron, Tan, Angeles, and Oster all tried for months to get their property back. Cameron's phone was returned 285 days after it was seized; Tan's was returned 312 days after it was seized. MPD still has possession of Robinson, Oster, and Angeles' phones. "The way MPD treated me was invasive and uncomfortable" said Alexander Cameron, a protester and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "On top of that I had to tell my friends and family that, even though I was not charged with a crime, all of our personal messages and photos were probably available to and being viewed by the police." The lawsuit asserts MPD's practice of keeping cell phones has been ongoing for years. The complaint details how individuals' phones that were seized and never returned after protesting the 2017 inauguration of Donald Trump, and how photojournalist and ACLU-DC client Oyoma Asinor's phone and camera were seized during a civil rights protest last summer and held for nearly a year. (The ACLU-DC represents Mr. Asinor in a separate lawsuit.) The lawsuit also seeks class certification to represent dozens of others who were kettled and arrested at 18th and Williard Streets the night of August 13 or early morning August 14, and whose phones were confiscated and held for an extended period. "D.C.'s unconstitutional phone-retention practice applies to individuals arrested in all kinds of circumstances," said Jacqueline Kutnik-Bauder, Deputy Legal Director, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. "On top of the significant expense of replacing their phones, people can lose work if they rely on their phone for business and they can lose critical personal or professional data." "For years, MPD has been seizing cell phones from people arrested, especially at protests, and refusing to give them back for months or years after the government's interest in holding the property has ended," said Scott Michelman, Legal Director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. "People shouldn't have to risk losing their personal property just to exercise their First Amendment rights." "The government's delays in returning phones are inexplicable," said attorney Jeffrey Light. "If the government gets a warrant - which D.C. policy says is supposed to happen within 48 hours - the police have the technology to search phones and download information within an hour. If the government doesn't seek a warrant or its application is denied, then the phone should be returned quickly to the owner." "The Fourth Amendment prohibits not just seizures that are unjustified from the start but also seizures that are unreasonably prolonged," said pro bono counsel Tara Reinhart. "When the government's reason for holding a phone no longer applies, the government needs to give it back, and due process means that owner needs to have a usable process to get that phone back." Today's lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and seeks a court order that the government must return still-retained phones to plaintiffs and class members and cease its unlawful practices. The lawsuit also seeks damages for the class in an amount to be determined by a jury. The lawsuit charges that MPD violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures, Fifth Amendment due process rights, and D.C. common law. More information about the case, Cameron v. District of Columbia, can be found here. [GN] WASHINGTON: Pacific Bells Sues Over ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Pacific Bells, LLC, BrunswikSt., LLC, and WOW Distributing, Inc., on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employers, and Melissa Johnston, Lena Madden, Judi Chapman, Katherine Solan, John Edmundson, and Mike Lindbo, individuals on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. JAY INSLEE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Washington; CAMI FEEK, in her capacity as the Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of the Washington Employment Security Department; DONALD CLINTSMAN, in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Washington Department of Social and Health Services; and THE LONG TERM SERVICES AND SUPPORTS TRUST FUND, an employee benefit plan, Case No. 2:21-cv-0151 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 9, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Beginning January 1, 2022, Washington State workers will pay $0.58 per $100 (.58%) of earnings to the Long-Term Services and Support Trust Fund pursuant to the Long-Term Services and Support Trust Program, referred to as "WA Cares" or the "Act" and codified at RCW 50B.04, et seq. This action challenges the Act and requests a declaratory judgment that the Act is unenforceable as it violates ERISA and federal and state laws governing employee benefit plans and multiple employer welfare arrangements ("MEWAs"). The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for declaratory relief that (1) WA Cares is preempted by ERISA; (2) WA Cares and its Trust constitute a MEWA as defined by ERISA, subject to both ERISA and state insurance law; (3) as a MEWA, the forfeiture provisions of WA Cares are impermissible and violate ERISA, state insurance law and the requirements of I.R.C. Section 7702B, which have been adopted by WA Cares; (4) employers are not required to withhold and remit a premium equal to .58% (0.0058) of wages paid to individuals in "employment" with an "employer," as defined by RCW 50B.04.010, to the Employment Security Department of the State of Washington ("ESD") or report any related information thereto; (5) WA Cares violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (6) WA Cares Act violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act; (7) all provisions of RCW 50B.04, et seq., are void and unenforceable because the offending provisions are not severable; and (8) the enforcement of employee benefit plan provisions that violate ERISA or other federal and state statutes constitutes a breach of Defendants' fiduciary duty under ERISA and at common law, says the complaint. Pacific Bells, LLC is headquartered in Vancouver, WA; WOW Distributing, Inc. is headquartered in Mukilteo, WA; and BrunswikSt., LLC is headquartered in Seattle, WA. The Defendant Jay Inslee is the Governor of the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Birmingham, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: richardbirmingham@dwt.com - and - Christine Hawkins, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004-4786 Phone: 425.646.6100 Fax: 425.646.6199 Email: christinehawkins@dwt.com WELLS FARGO: McCoy Appeals RESPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs DONALD E. MCCOY III, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Donald McCoy, III, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-00176-CL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Medford. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 10, 2020, the lawsuit asserts claims for relief for breach of duties owed, remedies including actual damages, costs, statutory damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Wells Fargo is a mortgage servicer of Plaintiffs' mortgages on real property. Wells Fargo allegedly failed to comply with RESPA regulations by failing to provide a written response acknowledging receipt of Plaintiffs' qualified written request. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated September 28, 2021, dismissing the case. The appellate case is captioned as Donald McCoy, III, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 21-35892, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Donald E. McCoy III and Maximilliano Olivera Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 1, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 1, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 29, 2021; -- Appellants Donald E. McCoy III and Maximilliano Olivera opening brief is due on January 25, 2022; -- Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. answering brief is due on February 25, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DONALD E. MCCOY III and MAXIMILLIANO OLIVERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey A. Long, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY A. LONG 4248 Galewood Street, Suite 18 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 374-9777 E-mail: jefflonglawyer@gmail.com - and - Tom Zimmerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. is represented by: Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. David C. Powell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 9411 Telephone: (415) 844-1970 E-mail: abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com - and - James Phillip Laurick, Esq. KILMER, VOORHEES & LAURICK 2701 NW Vaughn Street, Suite 780 Portland, OR 97210 Telephone: (503) 224-0055 E-mail: jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com WYOMING: Senate Takes Up Bill to Facilitate Vax Mandate Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan LaChance, writing for Oil City News, reports that the Wyoming Senate took up consideration of House Bill 1002 on Nov. 1, legislation that would prohibit public entities such as counties, municipalities and school districts from enforcing federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Prior to passing the bill on first reading, the Senate adopted an amendment to the bill proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which heard testimony in regard to the legislation throughout much of Nov. 1. In terms of prohibiting enforcement of federal mandates, the bill would apply to public entities but not to private employers. The Senate amendment, on the other hand, would allow private employers to join in lawsuits filed by the state against the federal government over vaccine mandates. The Senate amendment included adding a $10 million appropriation out of the state's General Fund to help ensure funding is available to facilitate class action lawsuits against the federal government. In terms of prohibiting public entities from enforcing federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates, the bill would not enact this prohibition so long as the federal mandate is legally in effect. Under the bill as amended by the Senate, public entities would also be allowed to follow the federal rules while results of a legal challenge to the federal mandates are pending. Under the version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives on a third reading vote of 41-14, public entities would have been prohibited under state law from enforcing federal vaccine mandates while the results of legal challenges were pending. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Drew Perkins (Natrona County) explained that the committee had tried to find a balance between putting the state in good position to challenge federal mandates and avoiding putting public entities at risk of losing federal funding. Perkins said that trying to find a solution to opposing federal vaccine mandates has been instructive in terms of "how far the federal tentacles have gone into the state." He said he hopes that Wyoming and other states see the situation as a wake-up call to be more cautious about looking at federal legislation and about accepting federal money. Sen. Dave Kinskey (Sheridan, Johnson) said that the Appropriations Committee amendment opts not to enforce the prohibitions against vaccine mandates until lawsuits are resolved because the committee was "trying to strike a balance between having a case to make in court but not chewing up all the innocent on the way." He said that the intention was to avoid making public entities in Wyoming into collateral damage in the state's battle with the federal government since a variety of the public entities that may be subject to federal vaccine mandates may rely on substantial federal funding. It is for such reasons that the bill would allow public entities to follow federal vaccine mandates so long as those haven't been shot down in courts. "Can you imagine shutting down the Medicaid and Medicare programs in the state of Wyoming?" Kinskeyt said. "I mean, it just can't happen." Kinskey added that the intention with the structure of the bill was to set up a "legal assault" on federal vaccine mandates that are enforced through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rules. In addition, allowing private entities to join in state lawsuits against the federal government could allow private contractors to challenge the federal government's inclusion of vaccine mandates in the terms of agreement of grants and contracts. Later in the Senate's discussion, Kinskey cautioned that the bill as amended may still contain problems that have yet to be worked out. "This really is a bill that should not be done in a special session in just a few days," he said. "This is a bill that should be worked and reworked and worked and reworked by a committee and have some of the smartest minds in the state look at it and see if we are missing something." Kinskey added that the Appropriations Committee had heard sentiment from the business community that the legislature shouldn't be passing legislation along the lines of what House Bill 1002 proposes and that if legislators move forward, they do so in a way that is careful to ensure that the approach will actually work. Should House Bill 1002 pass through the Senate on three readings, the House would need to concur with changes the Senate has added to the bill before it could land on the governor's desk. [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: Drivers Set to Receive $30M Class-Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Los Angeles, California, USA: Drivers are set to receive nearly $30m to settle class-action lawsuits involving hundreds of drivers in California who accused XPO Logistics of labor violations related to their delivery of goods from Los Angeles-area ports. XPO Logistics has agreed to pay after a federal judge approved the settlements on a preliminary basis in answer to allegations that XPO subsidiaries perpetrated misconduct that included misclassifying workers as contractors, failure to pay minimum wages and wages for missed meals and rest periods and failure to reimburse workers for business expenses. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, which has been trying to organise XPO workers for years, lauded the settlements - which they said would benefit nearly 800 current and former port drivers. The union has vowed to keep fighting for the rights of XPO workers, including those based in Connecticut. "Misclassification of workers is all too common in the ports of Los Angeles and its surrounding areas, and while XPO is notorious for doing this, there are far too many employers still cheating workers out of the pay and the rights they deserve," Ron Herrera, director of the Teamsters' port division and vice president of its western region, said in a statement. XPO officials denied all liability and said the company does not have to classify the port drivers as employees. They said many independent contractors have told the company in recent years that they appreciate the flexible work arrangements provided by being designated independent contractors, and that independent contractors who want to work as full-time employees can always apply for truckdriver openings. [GN] [*] U.S. Asset Recovery Opportunities Up 50% in 2020, Report Shows ------------------------------------------------------------------ Funds Europe reports that class action lawsuits are no longer just a US phenomenon. Steve Cirami, of Broadridge Financial Solutions, explains that they are a global legal trend enabling institutional investors to recover losses and maximise returns worldwide. The term class action conjures thoughts of the US legal system - and rightfully so, as the origin of mass litigation. However, over the past several years many other countries have either expanded existing class action laws, or adopted their own mechanisms for collective redress. The result is expanded opportunities for asset managers, hedge funds and other institutional investors to recoup losses from alleged wrongdoing. In many cases, the settlements are substantial and represent an opportunity to recover losses sustained from alleged securities fraud, including ESG violations , according to Steve Cirami, Head of Corporate Actions and Class Actions at global fintech firm Broadridge Financial Solutions. Figures from Broadridge's Global Class Action Annual Report show that asset recovery opportunities rose a significant 50% from $4 billion in 2019, to $6 billion in 2020. Moreover, the average settlement amount (excluding ongoing litigation) doubled compared to 2019. The ten most complex cases in 2020 accounted for $3.4 billion - or over half of the final tally. While the financial industry ratcheted the most settlements last year, the most notable was Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, now Bausch Health Companies, at $1.21 billion. Looking ahead, Cirami notes there is no shortage of funds to be recovered. He says Broadridge identified more than 450 newly filed class or collective actions worldwide related to investments in publicly traded securities. "This brings the total of active cases that have not been settled to over 1,000, a substantial number when compared to the 140 new settlements that comprised the $6 billion in total recoveries," Cirami says. The VW turning point He believes that one reason for the brimming pipeline is changes in the worldwide legislative landscape. There has been a cultural shift in the UK and European Union which has long lagged behind the US in class action lawsuits. He points to the Volkswagen emissions ('Diesel-gate') scandal as a key turning point in Europe. As of last year, Volkswagen and fellow German carmaker Daimler have paid more than EUR30 billion in fines and compensation around the world since it was revealed in 2015. Cirami notes that the VW incident spurred the European Commission to introduce the Collective Redress Directive. It started pushing for the initiative in 2018 to create a standardised framework for collective redress across all EU countries. Formally adopted by the EU parliament in December 2020, the new law requires all 27 member states, by June 25, 2023, to translate the directive into national law by enacting representative action mechanisms to address mass harms. Cirami notes that while the EU directive differs from the US approach to collective redress in several ways, it nevertheless signals significant change and paves the way for institutional investors to recover more money than ever before. For example, one difference that will impact institutional investors is that in some countries, they will need to "opt-in" to the litigation in order to recover funds. Practically speaking, this means a potentially more active role in the process then merely filing a claim with a claims administrator. However, the rules and requirements will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Currently, only Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden offer what the European Consumer Organisation considers to be a full collective redress system. Individual countries are also reviewing their laws. Cirami cites the Netherlands as a pioneer in developing a legal platform for collective redress in the EU, and has already seen several Billion Dollar settlements. On the rise Although some of the regulation is still working its way through the system, the number of class action suits in Europe is on the rise. The CMS European Class Actions Report 2021 showed they surged by over 120% between 2018 and 2020. The UK has also seen a growth in class actions in recent years most notably in the area of competition law. All eyes next year will be on the £10 billion Mastercard lawsuit on behalf of 46 million consumers in what is Britain's biggest class action-style lawsuit. "Keeping track of this fast paced and evolving legal and regulatory landscape is difficult but it is particularly challenging in the financial services industry with the increasing complexities of financial instruments and high volume of cases," says Cirami. "Methods to identify settlements are complicated, processing requirements are arduous and often bespoke, and the seemingly endless wave of new legal theories, laws and jurisdictions can be difficult to monitor." As a result, even when opportunities are identified and claims are timely filed, says Cirami, "they often fail because of poor planning or errors in the claim filing process." "This means that large amounts of money are potentially left on the table when they should have been recouped. This is particularly important for investors such as hedge funds whose portfolios often have significant holdings in any one position." The solution is to have a robust, end-to-end portfolio monitoring and asset recovery process with no jurisdictional or financial product limits. "There are two ways to do this. Have an experienced, internal team with bespoke technology enabling them, or employ a firm that has both the legal expertise and technology," says Cirami. Increasing Complexities In addition to the increased volumes, cases are becoming increasingly complex. This is true because of the multiple jurisdictions, the financial instruments in play, or both. For example, Broadridge's last Annual Class Action report notes that Valeant Pharmaceuticals International faced class action suits in both the US and Canada. This complicated matters and involved review and quality assurance processes to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the claims administrator's findings and to ensure an accurate recovery. Also, between the two cases, there were more than a dozen types of eligible Valeant securities which had to be identified through a standard portfolio. Additional work was then required to ensure all data was populated into the required filing format prior to submission. The inability to do so would have led to a failure to file, a reduced distribution, or a rejected claim. Given the many moving parts of the recovery process, firms need not only be able to track and monitor the cases but also house, scrub and prepare the data so that the right information is on hand to prove a claim. Navigating the complexities in jurisdictional, judicial and/or filing requirements as well as the multiple deadlines is also no easy feat. It is also key to keep abreast of the competing litigations brought by different law firms and funder groups. "There is no 'one size fits all' solution because each case is different with its own set of idiosyncrasies and issues," says Cirami. Broadridge Global Class Action Services identify, file claims for, and recover the money to which you, your clients and investors are entitled. They streamline and automate asset recovery -- from data management and opportunity monitoring to claims filing and distribution -- so you can focus on your core business objectives [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***