/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211122.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 227 Headlines 101 NORTHERN LAUNDROMAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huerta Claims 3M COMPANY: Cottrill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams A&W CONCENTRATE: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 13, 2022 A.J. RICHARD & SONS: Harbord Sues Over Unlawful Installations AARP INC: D.C. Court Dismisses Krukas' Amended Class Complaint ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Facing Investor Suits in California ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Restaurant Staff ADVANCED CONCEPTS: Class Certification Bid Due May 30, 2022 AGA SERVICE: Bid to Compel Discovery in Elgindy Suit Partly Granted ALIERA COMPANIES: Washington Residents Win Class Certification ALLAKOS INC: Faces Kim Class Action ALLY BANK: Bid to Remand Van Der Hoek Suit to State Court Denied ALLY FINANCIAL: $787.5MM Settlement Wins Final Court OK ALLY FINANCIAL: Dropped from Securities MDL ALPHA RECOVERY: Neifert Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey AMAZON.COM INC: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Background Checks AMAZON.COM INC: Green PMWA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania AMERICAN CENTURY: Hays Slams Excessive Fund Management Fees AMERICAN CENTURY: Schubert Jonckheer Files Class Action AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Files Mislabeling Suit Over Tuna Product AMERICAN TUNA: Faces Class Action Over "100% American Made" Claim AMINO TRANSPORT: Underpays Account Managers, Hussey et al. Claim AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System Suit Pending AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Value Drug Purported Class Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Reached Tentative Deal w/ New York Hotel Association ANAHEIM DUCKS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Seeks Class Cert. Bid Filing Extension APOLLO GLOBAL: Files Reply to Opposition on Bid to Dismiss Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement Discussion Ongoing in Fongers Suit APPHARVEST INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline APPLE INC: Lepesant Sues Over Unlawful Monopolization of Apps ARGENT TRUST: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Cedeno ERISA Suit ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Faces Suit for Violating CA Employment Laws ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid AUTO CLUB: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss MSP Class Action AVIS BUDGET: NJ Suit in Mediation, January Trial Set in Fla. Suit BACARDI USA: Appeals Court Tosses Bombay Sapphire Gin Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Dec. 6 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought BAUSCH HEALTH: 21 Opt-Out Investor Actions Remain Pending BAUSCH HEALTH: Appeal in Gutierrez Suit Underway BAUSCH HEALTH: Dec. 2 Final Hearing to Approve Settlement BAUSCH HEALTH: Jan. 20 Final Approval Hearing on Glumetza Deal BENEFITFOCUS INC: Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Pittsburgh Fund Suit BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: James et al., Files Amended Complaint BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Cert Bid. Due Dec. 17 BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Ct. Enters Fourth Amended Scheduling Order BLUE DIAMOND: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOFI HOLDING: Lead Plaintiff Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 26 BOSTON, MA: $680K Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Muehe ADA Suit BRIGHT SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hagerman Suit Claims BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Purported Class Action BROWN & GOLD: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRYAN COWDERY: Court Conditionally Certifies Modified Class BT GROUP: CAT Allows Excessive Pricing Class Action to Proceed BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: $35K Attys' Fees Awarded in Lichter FDCPA Suit CAMBER ENERGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline CAMPANIA FELIX: Ortega Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements CANOPY GROWTH: Bid to Junk Third Amended Complaint Pending CAPITAL ONE: Miranda Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Jan. 20, 2022 Class Cert. Hearing Vacated CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington CAVALIERS OPERATING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAVALRY SPV: Hall WVCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suit Over Improper Wireless Service Fees CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez Suit OK'd CHARLES SCHWAB: Defends Robo-Advisor Cash Sweeps Class Action CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Gaul Files Suit in C.D. Illinois CHEERLEADERS PHILADELPHIA: Groff Slams Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credits CIGNA HEALTH: Settles Proposed Suit Over Liposuction Coverage CORECIVIC INC: Settles Investors' Class Action for $56 Million COTY INC: Discovery Ongoing in MA Laborers' Pension Fund Suit COTY INC: Evans Purported Class Suit Concluded CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Hale Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas DANWEI LLC: $27K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Perkins Suit DIAMOND TECHNICAL: Settlement Deal in Gunter Suit Initially OK'd EARGO INC: Faces Chung Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ECKERT COLD: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EHEALTH INC: Faces Patel and Bertrand Class Suits EISAI INC: Gibriano Files Suit in D. New Jersey ELECTRONIC CONTROL: Povarnitson FCRA Suit Goes to S.D. California EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES: Linemen Slam Misclassification, Unpaid OT ENVIROCON: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Estevez Suit Claims EPIC HOME: Arroyo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ERIE COUNTY PRISON: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania EVOLENT HEALTH: Class Cert. Deadlines in PCRS Case Stayed EXEL INC: Huling Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. F. RUGGIERO & SONS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FARFETCH LTD: Pension Funds Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal FASTLY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Class Action FEDERAL BUREAU: Brankle Files Suit in D. Columbia FENIX INTERNET: Faces Biometric Privacy Law Class Action in Ill. FIRST ADVANTAGE: Settlement in Two CA Class Suits Awaits Final OK FIRSTENERGY: Judge Certifies Electricity Surcharge Class Action FOLLETT HIGHER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Wins Arbitration Bid in Straub; Ranums' Claims Tossed FORWARD AIR: Faces Arnold Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach GAOTU TECHEDU: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 20 Deadline GAOTU TECHEDU: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 20 Deadline GARRYMORE RESTAURANT: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations GASEARCH LLC: Werner Sues Over Natural Gas Contract Cancellation GEICO: Approval of Notice to Adjuster Class Sought in Pugliese GENERAL REVENUE: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Santiago Says GLOBAL HOME: Rudneva Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. GOLDMAN SACHS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 20 Deadline GOOGLE LLC: Averts $4.3BB British Class Action Over iPhone Tracking GOOGLE LLC: Hunton Andrews Kurth Discusses UK High Court Ruling GREG WALTERS: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Arbitration Awards HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. New York HERITAGE COMMERCE: PAGA-Related Suit Ongoing HERTZ CORP: Customers Sue Following Stolen Car Accusations HOME DEPOT: Carson TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HOME DEPOT: Didzun Labor Code Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HOSTESS BRANDS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Quinn Suit Removed to C.D. California HYZON MOTORS: Miller Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ICEBOX INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INFINITY DIAGNOSTIC: Settles Class Action Over COVID-19 Testing INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 13 Deadline INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Layoffs INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Frutarom Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit JACOBY & MEYERS: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Legal Clients JAMES COHAN GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodine Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lokietz Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Pay Compensation Claims After Appeal Denied JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens-Related Suit Set for 2022 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zytiga Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing JUUL LABS: Calhoun School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, N.Y. Mills Central Says JUUL LABS: Champaign School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Palmyra-Macedon Claims JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Yazoo Suit Alleges JUUL LABS: Faces Lyncourt Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Faces Volusia Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Gouverneur School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Johannesburg-Lewiston Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Lawton School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Lowville Academy Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in N.Y. JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Copenhagen District Says JUUL LABS: School City Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth JUUL LABS: Sumter Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Florida JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Bainbridge Suit Says JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Whitesboro Claims KAISER FOUNDATION: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KAISER FOUNDATION: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chicas Alleges KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Alleges KKR & CO: Pension Fund Suit Compels Inspection of Books & Records KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawrence Sues Over Defective Ventilators KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: McCarty Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ray Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania KSE MEDIA: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KSF ACQUISITION: Cawley Files Suit in S.D. New York LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LELAND, NC: To Pay $4 to Developers After Ruling Over Illegal Fees LHOIST NORTH: Faces Rogers Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers LIGHT 101: Babakhodjayev Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Court Junks New Jersey Class Suit LOOPTIFY INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOVE WELLNESS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York M.C.T. RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Wages, Marquina et al. Allege MAGIC MONEY: Lawsuit Seeks Refunds of Astrowold Festival Charges MANNA 2ND AVENUE: Herrera Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action MBO PROFESSIONAL: Wade-McNutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 2599: Ct. Initially Certifies Settlement Class in Airbag Suit MEREDITH CORPORATION: Sells Data Info Without Consent, Burke Says META PLATFORMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline META PLATFORMS: Ohio Public Sues Over Breach of Public Trust MIDDLESEX WATER: Municipalities May File PFOA Class Action MINNESOTA WILD HOCKEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MISSISSIPPI: Court Narrows Claims in Alexander v. MDOC & Parchman MOSAIC COMPANY: Florida Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend MOSAIC COMPANY: Settles Minas Gerais Class Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Gill's Claims Over Live-Streaming Break Narrowed NCAA: Davis Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana NEW YORK, NY: Oles Files Suit in S.D. New York NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Jan. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Sues Over Failure to Observe Grace Period NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Suit Over Decline of Stock Price OCULUS ACCOUNTING: Court Tosses Settlement Approval Application OHIO LIVING: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response OMNICARE INC: Settles IC Misclassification Class Action ON24 INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 1, 2022 Deadline ON24 INC: Faces Douvia Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ON24 INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 1, 2022 Deadline ONE40 BEAUTY: COVID-19 Class Action Insurance Coverage Bid Denied OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid Compensations PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL: Adams Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal PARAJUMPERS NORTH AMERICA: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PBF HOLDING: Files Answer to 3rd Amended Complaint in Goldstein PEABODY'S CABARET: Judge Let Dancers Pursue Labor Class Action PEGULA SPORTS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PERFECT BAR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Tate Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania PJ MONTGOMERY: Wilson Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Alabama PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California PRIMARY AIM: Faces ADA Class Action Over Parking Lot Sloping PRIMECARE CONSULTING: Lecuyer et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages PROCTER & GAMBLE: Antiperspirant Contains Benzene, Bryski Alleges PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Faces Walters Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ind. QUALIA COLLECTION: Avina Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Voluntarily Dismisses Suit RESURGENT CAPITAL: Suazo Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RHODE ISLAND: DeBritto Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates RICH INTERNATIONAL: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RIZAL COLEMAN: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Petition to Appeal Denial of Class Cert. Filed RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Action Over RockSolid Deck Products SAFE HOME: Faces Roper Suit Over Fraudulent Home Security Service SALVATION ARMY: Taylor Sues Over Financial Coercion and Abuse SAN JOSE SHARKS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SCRUB DADDY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SESEN BIO: Court Consolidates Three Exchange Act-Related Suits SHOPIFY INC: California Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Reminds of Jan. 4, 2022 Deadline SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Firm Reminds of Jan. 2022 Deadline SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Schall Firm Reminds of Jan. 2022 Deadline SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Holt Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Oklahoma SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SNOOPERMARKET LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Unsafe, Ieyoub Suit Says SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Homeowners' Class Action Over Mine Collapse SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Contract SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Seek to Stay Proceedings in RICO-Related Suit STATE FARM: Jaunich Seek Approval & Dissemination of Notice STEVE HARVEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STG INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 30 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Vacated STRADA SERVICES: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SUNCOAST PROPERTY: Burns Files Suit in Fla. Super. Ct. SURGICARE OF LOS GATOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoza Says SWIFT TECHNICAL: Schnelle Seeks Documents for Third-Party Subpoena T-MOBILE US: D&Os Facing Investor Suit Over SoftBank Transaction T. MARZETTI COMPANY: Simeone Files Suit in S.D. New York TAMKO BUILDING: Joint Bid to Extend Scheduling Order Dates Filed TELUS INT'L: Supplemental Joint Status Report on Meagher Deal Filed TENCENT MUSIC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 27 Deadline TENNESSEE: ADA Suit Filed in M.D. Tennessee TEXAS: Damon James Wilson Seeks to Certify Class Action THIES & TALLE: Dismissal of Most Claims in Vulles Suit Affirmed TMC THE METAL: Tran Sues Over Decline of Securities Market Value TOTAL LIFE: Court Narrows Claims in Santiago's Amended Class Suit TOY TOKYO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TREEHOUSE FOODS: Settlement in PERSM Suit Gets Initial OK TREEHOUSE FOODS: Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit U-HAUL CO: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due UNILEVER: Leyva Sues Over Dangerously High Levels of Benzene UNITED AIRLINES: Anderson's TRO, Prelim. Injunction Bid Partly OK'd UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Faces Beach Suit Over Denied Medical Services UNITED ELECTRICAL: Heeg Seeks Certification of Class Action UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class in Castaneda Suit Tossed UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Brown v. USPS Suit Wins Approval UNITED STATES: Hageman Serves as Co-Counsel in Vaccine Suit UNITED STATES: Navy Seal Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: NCLA & TPPF File COVID Vaccination Class-Action Suit UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Arredondo Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 4, 2022 URS MIDWEST: $100K Class Settlement in Crane Suit Wins Final Nod UTAH JAZZ: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Motion to Pause Class Action VEECO INSTRUMENTS: $15MM Accord Reached in Investor Suit VERISK ANALYTICS: To Appeal Order Denying Arbitration Bid VERIZON CONNECT: Continuance of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes VIACOMCBS INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline VIATRIS INC: Trial on Antitrust Suits Set for Jan. 24, 2022 VIZIO INC: Kavehrad Suit Removed to C.D. California VOLKSWAGEN AG: Swiss Prosecutors to Drop Emissions Criminal Probe VR LEO USA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges W.W. GRAINGER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 28, 2022 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 3, 2022 WALGREEN CO: Judge Grants in Part Motion for Summary Judgment WALGREEN CO: Washtenaw ERS' Partial Bid for Summary Judgment Denied WALT DISNEY: Workers to Appeal OC Judge's Ruling in Labor Suit WASHINGTON FEDERAL: Court Sets Trial, Pre-Trial Dates in Hartnett WASHINGTON: Mandatory Payroll Tax Opponents File Class Action WELLS FARGO: Must Face Immigrant Discrimination Class Action WESTERN RANGE: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended in Castillo WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement in Class Suits to be OK'd by Jan. 2022 WISE MEDICAL: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response WOOD GROUP: Ruiz FLSA Suit Moved From D. Colorado to S.D. Texas XCEL ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to File Reply Brief in Arandell Suit XTO ENERGY: Ct. Enters Amended Case Management Order in Kriley YOSSI MILO GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ZEN333 INC: Lin Files FLSA Suit in D. South Carolina [*] McMillan LLP Attorneys Discuss Federal Court DRAM Case Ruling ********* 101 NORTHERN LAUNDROMAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huerta Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BLANCA HUERTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 101 NORTHERN LAUNDROMAT INC. d/b/a SUSAN LAUNDROMAT; SUSAN LAUNDROMAT, INC. d/b/a SUSAN LAUNDROMAT; NORTHERN 96 LAUNDROMAT, INC. d/b/a SUSAN LAUNDROMAT; NASSAU LAUNDROMAT; INC. d/b/a SUSAN LAUNDROMAT; NEW PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a SUSAN LAUNDROMAT; DAVID YU; and SUSAN XIN GUAN; Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06127-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 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 Huerta was employed by the Defendants as laborer. 101 NORTHERN LAUNDROMAT INC. owns and operates laundromats under the common trade name "Susan Laundromat". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 3M COMPANY: Cottrill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------ Worthy Willard Cottrill Jr., 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-03628-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 3, 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 kidney 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 A&W CONCENTRATE: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 13, 2022 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE DAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. A&W CONCENTRATE COMPANY and DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02732-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting Defendants' consented administrative motion to extend the time for them to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and any rebuttal report to the October 13, 2021, report of J. Michael Dennis, shall be due on January 13, 2022. -- The Plaintiff's reply shall be due on February 3, 2022. The hearing shall be continued to March 10, 2022 A&W Concentrate Company manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages. The Company offers beers, wines, spirits, liquor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ceHz6g at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. Navdeep K. Singh, Esq. CREIGHTON R. MAGID, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com singh.navdeep@dorsey.com magid.chip@dorsey.com A.J. RICHARD & SONS: Harbord Sues Over Unlawful Installations ------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Harbord, Brian Tolkin, Ocelia Claro and Thomas Claro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. A.J. RICHARD & SONS, INC., P.C. RICHARD & SON, INC., and P.C. RICHARD & SON LONG ISLAND CORPORATION, Case No. 529120/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought to recover monetary damages; to require the Defendant to provide inspection of the New York City gas installations by a licensed plumber at no charge and appropriate repair work at no charge where necessary; and injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to stop their unlawful practices. For safety reasons, New York City law requires that installation of gas appliances, such as gas ranges and dryers, must be performed by, or under the "direct and continuing supervision" of, a licensed master plumber. A violation of this law is categorized under New York City law as an "immediately hazardous violation" of the New York City Administrative Code. The Defendant routinely violates this law. Most, if not all, of the Defendant's New York City gas appliance installations are not performed by, or under the direct and continuing supervision of, a licensed master plumber. In addition, the Defendant promotes its installation services in its advertising, online, verbally and on point-of-sale material given to all the Defendant's customers upon purchase: INSTALLATIONS BY OUR CERTIFIED INSTALLERS! However, most, if not all, of the Defendant's gas appliance installers are not "certified" in any manner, let alone as licensed master plumbers. Most of the gas appliance installations are performed by workers with no training at all, usually the drivers who deliver the appliances, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of gas appliances and gas appliance installation services from Defendants. A.J Richard & Sons, Inc.'s business includes the retail sale and installation of gas appliances such gas stoves, ranges, and dryers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rocco G. Avallone, Esq. Christopher F. Bellistri, Esq. AVALLONE & BELLISTRI, LLP 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E7 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (516) 986-2500 Email: ravallone@lawyersab.com cbellistri@lawversah.com - and - Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. GONNELLI, LLC 707 Alexander Road Building 2, Suite 208 Princeton, NJ. 08540 Phone: (917) 541-7110 Email: adam@arglawoffice.com - and - Steven S. Siegel, Esq. STEVEN SCOTT SIEGEL, PC 626 RXR Plaza, Suite 684 West Tower Uniondale, NY 11556 Phone: (516) 665-2800 Email: stevenscottsieaeliqamai1.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH, PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Phone: (541) 359-2827 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com AARP INC: D.C. Court Dismisses Krukas' Amended Class Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HELEN KRUKAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. AARP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1124 (BAH) (D.D.C.), Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case for lack of standing. Background Plaintiffs Helen Krukas and Andrea Kushim have brought the putative class action against Defendants AARP Inc., AARP Services Inc. ("ASI"), and AARP Insurance Plan ("AARP Trust") (collectively referred to as "AARP"), alleging a violation of the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"), D.C. Code Section 28-3901 et seq., as well as common law claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment, based on their purchase of a Medicare supplemental health insurance policy, also known as a "Medigap" policy, offered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. ("United") and administered by AARP. These claims are predicated on the Plaintiffs' allegation that AARP wrongly retained a 4.95% "commission" on the sale of the insurance that AARP was not entitled to receive, and that AARP misled the Plaintiffs into buying their insurance policies by failing to disclose the nature and extent of its financial interest in the sale of AARP Medigap policies. On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff Krukas filed the original complaint, "individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated," challenging the role of Defendants AARP in soliciting, marketing, and administering a supplemental Medicare health insurance program, known as a "Medigap" program. That original complaint raised four claims: Count One alleged that AARP violated the CPPA by misrepresenting material facts about the 4.95% payment and about AARP's lack of license as an insurance broker or agent. Count Two alleged that the Defendants' conversion of her ownership right to the 4.95% payment entitled her to damages in the amount she was wrongfully charged. Count Three alleged unjust enrichment based on defendants' retention of the 4.95% payment from the Plaintiff. Finally, Count Four alleged fraudulent concealment because the Defendants concealed or failed to disclose the 4.95% payment, a material fact that the Defendants should have known should be disclosed or not concealed and that they concealed despite their "duty to speak." The Defendants moved to dismiss this original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint's factual allegations were insufficient to support any of the Plaintiff's claims. Additionally, they challenged the justiciability of the Plaintiff's claims under: (1) the primary jurisdiction doctrine; (2) the filed-rate doctrine; and (3) operation of the applicable statute of limitations. Finally, the Defendants raised choice-of-law issues as to whether Florida, Louisiana, or District of Columbia law applied to the suit. The Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. After the denial of the Defendants' first motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed, with the Defendants' consent, their First Amended Complaint, which added a breach of fiduciary duty claim to the four claims in the initial complaint. The Defendants subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss, challenging Count II of the FAC, alleging fraudulent concealment. This motion was granted because the FAC did not plausibly allege the necessary fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiffs and any Defendant. A scheduling order was entered with the parties' proposed schedule, originally culminating with the filing of any motions for summary judgment on July 10, 2020. The discovery schedule was extended five times on the joint request of the parties, so discovery has now been ongoing for well over a year. The Plaintiffs have four live claims remaining in their amended complaint. In Count I, the Plaintiffs claim that AARP violated the CPPA, D.C. Code Section 28-3901 et seq., by (1) misrepresenting material facts concerning the 4.95% royalty and AARP's stake in the sale of AARP Medigap insurance, and (2) engaging in an unlawful trade practice by collecting a "commission" when it was not a licensed insurance broker or agent in any of the relevant jurisdictions. The Plaintiffs allege financial harm from these unlawful trade practices and being "deprived of truthful information regarding their choice" of Medigap policies, because (1) they "would have sought out and paid less for their Medigap coverage" and (2) they "paid AARP a 4.95% commission that AARP is not legally entitled to as it is not a licensed insurance agent or broker." In Count Three, the Plaintiffs claim the Defendants' conversion of their "ownership right to the 4.95% of their payments that was wrongfully charged and illegally diverted to AARP as a commission," resulted in damages in the amount of the premium for which they were wrongfully charged. In Count Four, the Plaintiffs allege unjust enrichment, based on their conferral of a benefit to the Defendants "in the form of the hidden 4.95% charge on top of their monthly premium payments that were unlawfully and deceptively charged and illegally diverted to AARP as a commission." The Defendants allegedly "voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit," which was collected "without proper disclosure" and "amounted to a commission in violation of" District of Columbia law, such that the Defendants' retention of this benefit without paying its value to the Plaintiffs would be "inequitable." Finally, in Count Five, the Plaintiffs allege fraudulent concealment stemming from AARP's "concealing or failing to disclose the material fact" that AARP was collecting a 4.95% commission, hat AARP "knew or should have known that this material fact should be disclosed or not concealed," that it concealed the fact "in bad faith," in spite of its "duty to speak," and that it thereby "induced the Plaintiffs to act by purchasing an AARP-endorsed Medigap plan." The Plaintiffs claim to have suffered damages as a result of this fraudulent concealment. As relief, the Plaintiffs' amended complaint seeks an order: (1) "requiring AARP to restore all money or other property" taken by means of unlawful acts or practices; (2) "requiring the disgorgement of all sums taken from consumers by means of deceptive practices, together with all proceeds, interest, income, and accessions"; (3) certifying a proposed class of "all persons in the United States who purchased or renewed an AARP Medigap Policy" between 2011 and the present, with the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel; and (4) awarding court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief barring defendants from engaging in the "wrongful acts and practices" alleged. On Jan. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of "all persons in the United States who purchased or renewed an AARP Medigap Policy between Jan. 1, 2011, and the present," with limited exceptions. With that motion pending, the Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment on July 22, 2021. Consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was stayed pending resolution of the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which motion is now ripe for resolution. Discussion The Defendants move for summary judgment on three grounds, arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims; (2) the filed-rate doctrine bars the Plaintiffs' claims; and (3) they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of the Plaintiffs' claims. Only the first ground need be addressed. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish the threshold requirement of Article III standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and thus the Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be granted. Now, with a more fully developed record and the heightened burden at summary judgment, Judge Howell opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any concrete injury stemming from the Defendants' conduct. They do not argue that their AARP Medigap insurance would have been less expensive were AARP to retain a lower payment or adopt a more limited role in the sale of AARP Medigap insurance, nor do they present any evidence of a lower-priced comparable Medigap insurance policy that they could have purchased had the payment been disclosed and prompted them to look elsewhere for comparable coverage. Accordingly, Judge Howell now joins numerous others that have rejected similar claims brought by AARP Medigap policyholders against AARP. Conclusion Judge Howell concludes the Plaintiffs have failed to show that they suffered concrete and particularized injuries. Hence, the Defendants' motion is granted, and the case is dismissed for lack of standing. Since the case is being dismissed, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot. An order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/zcm8nu7r from Leagle.com. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Facing Investor Suits in California -------------------------------------------------------- Activision Blizzard, Inc. is facing a shareholder class action and three shareholder derivative actions in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021. On August 3, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Gary Cheng v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06240-PA-JEM. Plaintiff purports to represent a class of Activision shareholders who purchased stock between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and three current or former officers. Beginning on August 6, 2021, three putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and those cases have now been consolidated in an action entitled York County on Behalf of County of York Retirement Fund v. Robert A. Kotick, et al., Case No. 21STCV28949. "The actions assert claims on the Company's behalf against eleven current or former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based on allegations similar to those in the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") Complaint and in the securities class action," the Company said. The DFEH filed a complaint on July 20, 2021, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Activision Blizzard, Blizzard Entertainment and Activision Publishing alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Equal Pay Act. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the derivative cases. Activision Blizzard, Inc. is an American video game holding company based in Santa Monica, California. The company was founded in July 2008 through the merger of Activision, Inc. and Vivendi Games. ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HALL, on behalf of herself, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. ADELPHIA THREE CORP. d/b/a/ PHILY DINER, PETRO KONTOS, and WILLIAM BALIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01106-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of the following Fair Labor Standards Act collective: "All current and former individuals who worked as servers and/or bartenders at Defendant Adelphia Three Corp.'s restaurant facilities operating under the trade name of Phily Diner, located at 31 S. Black Horse Pike, Runnemede, New Jersey 08078 any time between three years and 249 days prior to the entry of the Order granting conditional certification and the present." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dpc45B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Matthew A. Luber, Esq. McOMBER, McOMBER, & LUBER P.C. 39 E. Main Street Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 Facsimile: (732) 530-8545 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com mal@njlegal.com ADVANCED CONCEPTS: Class Certification Bid Due May 30, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER POWELL, v. ADVANCED CONCEPTS, INC., doing business as Stadium Liquor, doing business as Fast Stop, Case No. 21-00660-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification Motion due by: May 30, 2022 -- Discovery due by: Sept. 15, 2022 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Oct. 14, 2022 -- Teleconference set for: Feb. 13, 2023 -- Pretrial Conference set for: Feb. 24, 2023 -- Jury Trial set for: March 6, 2023 Advance Concepts is an audiovisual production company specializing in all aspects of AV for medical & corporate conferences. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nj7IXL at no extra charge.[CC] AGA SERVICE: Bid to Compel Discovery in Elgindy Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAM ELGINDY, et al., Plaintiffs v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06304-JST (RMI) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel certain discovery. Background The Plaintiffs' class action complaint presents three causes of action under California law: (1) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices; (2) false advertising; and (3) common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation. The gist of the allegations underlying these claims is that the Plaintiffs, and others like them, were unfairly charged additional fees, in addition to the calculated premium, by the insurer Defendants, when the Plaintiffs purchased insurance for event tickets and travel arrangements on certain vendors' websites. The Defendants allegedly justify these additional fees as representing the cost of certain assistance services that would allow customers to contact their customer service representatives to ask about things such as where one might refill prescriptions as well as information about child-care equipment, pet-care services, business services, gift deliveries, passport replacement, legal referrals, translation services, driving directions, and weather reports. While the Plaintiffs content that the process by which they were sold "ticket insurance" did provide them with a hyperlink for "plan details and disclosures," they maintain that those disclosures did not provide them with sufficient notice "that they are being charged for supposed non-insurance services on top of the premium for the insurance product." The Plaintiffs also allege that "there is no significant demand in the market for the assistance benefits offered" by the Defendants, and that the pricing sheets of the non-insurance services with which consumers are being saddled are difficult to find, "requiting access through multiple hyperlinks." Indeed, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants hide the agency fee and assistance service from consumers at the point of purchase; that they use a formula that increases the fee according to the purchase and risk at issue; that they do not actually invest in providing a convenient informational assistance service; that they send contradictory messages -- telling consumers during the solicitation that there is just a single insurance premium, while telling regulators that the fee-for-assistance service is distinct from the insurance premium. In short, the Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendants collect more from consumers than they should and if Defendants disclosed the fees to consumers prior to purchase, consumers would not pay the fees." The Plaintiffs' Complaint presents an example of this by showing a screenshot from an airline reservation webpage indicating that "a single total price is identified for the `trip insurance' prior to purchase." After making such a purchase, customers are sent a confirmation email that contains a policy number and a hyperlink to policy documents -- the policy documents include a cover letter which, for the first time, identifies a separate charge for these concierge type services. While providing certain exemplars, the Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants pricing sheets are even sometimes inconsistent with the fees the Defendants actually charge customers. The exemplars include one Plaintiff's experience on the website of Ticketmaster.com, involving the purchase of event insurance for a concert by Rammstein, a German musical ensemble -- and another Plaintiff's experience while purchasing roundtrip air tickets from San Francisco to Honolulu on the website of Hawaiian Airlines, as well as a a one-way ticket from Newark to San Francisco on the United Airlines website. Through their class-allegations, the Plaintiffs identify two classes: The event ticket insurance class and the trip insurance class -- both of which are concerned with purchases from Sept. 4, 2016 to the present. In this regard, the Plaintiffs posit that the questions of law and fact that are common to the classes include: Whether the fees the Defendants charges for their assistance services constitute unlawful agents' fees; whether the Defendants have conspired to circumvent regulatory scrutiny while charging unlawful and excessive agents' fees and/or premium charges, thus charging consumers more than they are legally permitted to charge; whether the premium rates and the assistance fee rates at issue were approved for use in California; and, inter alia, whether the class members are entitled to restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief, and whether the class members are entitled to the payment of actual, incidental, consequential, exemplary, and/or statutory damages and interest. Discussion Now pending before the Court is a jointly filed letter brief through which the Plaintiffs seek to compel certain discovery. The currently pending letter brief presents a dispute regarding a number of the Plaintiff's requests for production ("RFP") and a single interrogatory. As to the interrogatory, on May 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs served an interrogatory asking the Defendants to identify annual sales revenues for each insurance product sold in California during the class period. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants have still not responded to this interrogatory, "despite representing to the Court in a joint filing that they would produce such information by August 28." Judge Illman finds that a review of the Parties' Fourth Joint Case Management Statement does indeed reflect a statement to the effect that the "Defendants agreed to produce, on Aug. 28, 2021, a list of all products sold in California during the class period, with annual sales identified for each product and that the Defendants are willing to thereafter produce the policy forms for any product(s) the Plaintiffs request." The Defendants' portion of the letter brief does not address this matter. Accordingly, as to this interrogatory, the Defendants are ordered to provide the Plaintiffs with this information forthwith. As to the RFPs, Judge Illman finds that the Plaintiffs' motion to compel addresses 4 individual RFPs -- specifically, RFP Nos. 9, 10, 24, and 34. Further, he notes that the Plaintiffs' portion of the letter brief is dominated by generalized legal statements, rather than clear and concise statements that individually establish relevance and proportionality for each RFP that the Plaintiffs seek to compel. The Defendants contend that "the lack of connection between the requests and the legal theory proves that the Plaintiffs' continued demand for the overbroad 'all communications' with third parties who receive the marketing funds (Requests 24 and 34) is nothing more than simply seeking to bury the Defendants in never-ending document production that is wholly unrelated to the facts the Plaintiffs purportedly seek to establish." According to the Defendants, the "Plaintiffs' counsel stated during the meet and confer session that they were interested in this large tranche of documents with the Defendants' largest marketing partners in case there were 'other things' that they were not aware of that could give rise to liability unrelated to their current claims." Because the Plaintiffs' portion of the brief fails to establish relevancy or proportionality, Judge Illman denied the Plaintiffs' request to compel the production of materials responsive to RFP No. 9. RFP No. 10 is a differently worded version of substantially the same request, and for the same reasons, the Plaintiff's request to compel production pursuant to RFP No. 10 is similarly denied. The introduction section of the letter brief describes RFP No. 24 as seeking "communications with third-party retailers through whom the insurance is sold, regarding pricing and compensation." First, Judge Illman holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish relevancy for this request to any of their claims or any of the Defendants' defenses; second, the phrasing of the actual RFP is far broader than its characterization in the letter brief and the Plaintiffs have failed to even approach establishing the proportionality of this request. Hence, the Plaintiffs' request to compel the materials described in RFP No. 24 is denied. In RFP No. 34, the Plaintiffs seek "all agreements and/or contract (including all modifications or revisions thereof) regarding any marketing of any ticket/trip insurance and/or assistance/concierge services that were available during the class period." Once again, for the reasons stated, Judge Illman holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a logical link between this request and any claim or defense involved in the case. Further, even if one were able to overlook the Plaintiffs' failure to establish relevancy, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the request is proportional to the needs of the case as it is totally unclear what information they want from these contracts and why they believe they should have it. Thus, the Plaintiffs' request to compel the material encompassed in RFP No. 34 is likewise denied. Since the Plaintiffs have mentioned propounding further discovery in the recent past, and an interest in doing so again in the near future, the Plaintiffs would be well served to take a greater account of the relevancy and proportionality requirements described when formulating their discovery requests. Conclusion In short, even putting aside the Plaintiffs' failure to establish a clear logical link between these RFPs and any claim or defense in the case, it is abundantly clear to the court that the cost of gathering and producing these materials grossly outweighs their supposed importance in resolving the case -- thus, the burden and expense of the proposed discovery grossly outweighs its likely benefit. Accordingly, denial of the Plaintiffs' RFPs is necessary in order to protect the Defendants from shouldering undue burdens and unnecessary costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/aau8pu6c from Leagle.com. ALIERA COMPANIES: Washington Residents Win Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON, DEAN MELLOM, JON PERRIN AND JULIE PERRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order: 1. certifying the following class: "All Washington residents who acquired plans from or through The Aliera Companies, Inc., Aliera Healthcare, Inc. and Trinity Healthshare, Inc. or any of those entities’ subsidiaries that purported to be "health care sharing ministry" plans at any time from June 27, 2018 to July 8, 2021;" and 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Gerald and Roslyn Jackson, Dean Mellom, and Jon and Julie Perrin, as class representative and Richard E. Spoonemore, Eleanor Hamburger of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, Michael David Myers and Samantha Lin of Myers & Company, PLLC, and Cyrus Mehri and Jay Angoff of Mehri & Skalet PLLC as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FlZKDF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay Angoff, Esq. Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 E-mail: jangoff@findjustice.com cmehri@findjustice.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com ehamburger@sylaw.com - and - Michael David Myers, Esq. Samantha Lin, Esq. MYERS & COMPANY, PLLC 1530 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 Telephone: (206) 398-1188 Facsimile: (206) 400-1115 E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com slin@myers-company.com ALLAKOS INC: Faces Kim Class Action ----------------------------------- Allakos Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company is facing a class action complaint captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) On March 10, 2020, the putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo Redmond. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical trials of lirentelimab. The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive. On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants Adam Tomasi, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, and Henrik Rasmussen, the Company's former Chief Medical Officer. "Given the early stage of this litigation matter, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a range of potential future losses, if any, and has not recorded a contingent liability accrual as of September 30, 2021," the Company said. Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in Redwood City, California. ALLY BANK: Bid to Remand Van Der Hoek Suit to State Court Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRITS VAN DER HOEK, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY BANK and BETTER MORTGAGE CORP, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00320-DBB (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Background The Plaintiff brings the action against the Defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). He is seeking restitution and damages for a portion of management fees for appraisals paid in connection with the online mortgage application process. On May 24, 2021, Defendant Better Mortgage removed the case from the Third District Court for the State of Utah. On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that Better Mortgage failed to meet the $5 million amount in controversy threshold required under CAFA. In its notice of removal detailing the amount in controversy, Better Mortgage relied in part on calculations for management fees that would continue to be charged during the course of the litigation. In his motion, the Plaintiff argues Better Mortgage has not met the removal burden because it cannot show that the $5 million requirement was met at the time of removal and improperly relies on prospective damages. On Aug. 18, 2021, the Court ordered supplemental briefing. Better Mortgage submitted a supplemental declaration providing testimony as to its business practices, the probable amount of the disputed fees, and the number of customers likely to be subject to the fees. The Plaintiff submitted an attorney declaration providing his own calculations and cited several news articles. Discussion I. Plaintiff Has Put at Issue Damages Occurring Throughout the Course of the Litigation For purposes of his Motion, the Plaintiff has not challenged Better Mortgage's Supplemental Declaration about the likely amount in controversy for potential past damages. According to Better Mortgage, the amount of fees disputed from the beginning of its relationship with Ally Bank (April 2019) to the filing of the Plaintiff's Complaint (April 2021) was $2,510,607. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that no prospective fees which consumers may incur after April 2021 and during the pendency of the litigation may be considered for jurisdictional purposes because the fees were not charged prior to the removal of this case to federal court. The Complaint proposes the following class: "All consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations, paid an 'Appraiser Fee' to Ally Bank and/or Better Mortgage in the process of applying for a mortgage loan from Ally Bank." This class definition includes all consumers, nationwide, who have paid or later will pay an appraiser fee to Better Mortgage over the course of the litigation. In other words, the Complaint itself puts into controversy amounts which consumers will pay in the future during the case's pendency. The question then becomes whether the Court should consider for jurisdictional purposes all the damages sought by the Plaintiff's Complaint or only those already incurred at the time of removal. II. The Amount in Controversy Includes Damages Incurred During the Litigation The Plaintiff notes that "the propriety of removal is judged on the complaint as it stands at the time of removal." The Complaint seeks damages for fees already imposed and those that will be imposed throughout the course of the litigation. And the Tenth Circuit has made clear that in analyzing jurisdiction at the time of removal, "The amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will recover. Rather, it is an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation." In other words, the appropriate question at the motion to remand stage "isn't what damages the plaintiff will likely prove but what a factfinder might conceivably lawfully award." Judge Barlow holds that the Plaintiff clearly is pursuing damages and fees for class members who have not yet been injured. Neither binding precedent (which instructs the Court to consider "what a factfinder might conceivably lawfully award") nor fundamental fairness permit the Plaintiff to seek damages yet to be incurred and then turnabout and argue that the damages the Complaint currently seeks are somehow irrelevant to jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has also produced no evidence nor made any arguments that he and the other members of the class he seeks would not be entitled to recover over $5 million. Therefore, Judge Barlow considers evidence regarding damages, including management fees, that "will be put at issue in the course of litigation" because the Plaintiff's class definition includes such damages. III. Better Mortgage Has Shown by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million The Court asked the parties for additional evidence and briefing to determine the amount that would be put at issue in the course of litigation. Better Mortgage provided a supplemental declaration from Juliet Leibon to respond to the court's additional questions. Leibon is the Director of Collateral Procurement for Better Mortgage. She is "primarily responsible for third-party vendor management, including management of the several appraisal management companies with whom Better Mortgage contracts to provide property appraisal services for loan applicants." As part of her job duties, Leibon "communicate(s) regularly with representatives of the several appraisal management companies on a variety of issues, including appraisal costs." As the movant, Better Mortgage bears the burden of showing "what a factfinder might conceivably lawfully award" by a preponderance of the evidence. Judge Barlow holds that it has met its burden. The preponderance of the evidence shows that more than $5 million "will be put at issue in the course of the litigation." Because Better Mortgage has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and because the Plaintiff has not shown -- indeed, not even argued -- that it is legally impossible for the class to recover this amount, the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. In short, Judge Barlow rules that the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint seeking damages not only for past actions, but also for those that would occur during the pendency of the litigation. This approach was a matter entirely within his own control. He could have sought a smaller class. He might have limited the class temporally or geographically. He could have disavowed that he was seeking any damages beyond those that accrued prior to the filing of his complaint or the removal. He did none of these things, preferring to seek a larger recovery for both past damages and those that would occur during the pendency of the case. As a result, he pled himself into federal jurisdiction. Order For the reasons stated in his Memorandum Decision and order, Judge Barlow denied the Plaintiff's Motion and the Plaintiff's request for fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9dzt2dy5 from Leagle.com. ALLY FINANCIAL: $787.5MM Settlement Wins Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------- Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a Missouri court has entered an amended final order approving a class-action settlement agreement and release. The deal requires Ally to pay $87.5 million in cash and waive off $700 million in charged-off deficiency balances. In March 2016, Ally filed an action against two buyers of a motor vehicle -- Ally Financial Inc. v. Alberta Haskins and David Duncan, Case No. 16JE-AC01713-01, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri -- for the purpose of collecting the deficiency that remained due under the retail installment sales contract after the buyers had defaulted and the vehicle had been repossessed and disposed of. In March 2017, the buyers filed a second amended answer and counterclaim on behalf of nationwide and Missouri classes, arguing that Ally's pre- and post-disposition notices had violated Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in each State and other applicable jurisdiction. The request for relief included an indeterminate amount of actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as fees, costs, interest, and other remedies. In May 2018, the circuit court certified the nationwide and Missouri classes and denied Ally's motion for partial summary judgment. In September 2018, the case was reassigned to a different circuit-court judge, and in February 2019, Ally filed a motion to decertify the nationwide and Missouri classes. In November 2019, the circuit court denied Ally's motion to decertify. In December 2019, Ally filed a petition with the Missouri Court of Appeals and then with the Missouri Supreme Court for a writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking further action other than vacating the order denying decertification, but each of those petitions was denied. In June 2020, the buyers on behalf of the certified nationwide and Missouri classes filed a motion for partial summary judgment on liability and damages, including statutory damages, the waiver of amounts due, and prejudgment interest. These damages, if awarded by the court, could be significant. "In August 2020, Ally filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court—Ally Financial Inc. v. Alberta Haskins et al., No. 20-177—requesting review of the Missouri Supreme Court's order denying Ally's petition for a writ of prohibition," the Company said. In December 2020, Ally -- while maintaining its denial of any liability or wrongdoing and its other positions in the case -- entered into a binding memorandum of understanding with the buyers, on behalf of the nationwide and Missouri classes, to fully settle the case. In January 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted a joint motion to defer consideration of Ally's petition for a writ of certiorari. In March 2021, the parties executed and filed with the circuit court a class-action settlement agreement and release that includes provisions for a cash payment of $87.5 million by Ally, a waiver of $700 million in charged-off deficiency balances by Ally, a request by Ally that identified consumer reporting agencies delete specified trade lines, and a release by the nationwide and Missouri classes of related claims against Ally. The class-action settlement agreement and release was preliminarily approved by the circuit court in March 2021, and specified notices have been delivered to class members. In September 2021, the circuit court entered an amended final order approving the class-action settlement agreement and release. During the year ended December 31, 2020, Ally established an accrual of $87.5 million related to this matter. Ally Financial is a bank holding company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The company provides financial services including car finance, online banking via a direct bank, corporate lending, vehicle insurance, mortgage loans, and an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets. ALLY FINANCIAL: Dropped from Securities MDL ------------------------------------------- Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Ally from a multidistrict litigation proceeding, without prejudice. In February 2021, a purported class action -- Cheng et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00781). The complaint alleges that Ally and other defendants conspired to prevent or restrict retail investors from purchasing or otherwise acquiring long positions in specified equity securities and to force them instead to sell their positions in those securities at artificially lower prices. The claims include alleged violations of antitrust and unfair-competition laws, misleading public statements, breach of fiduciary duty and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and constructive fraud. The request for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, costs, and interest, injunctive relief, and other remedies. Also in February 2021, three other purported class actions were filed -- Clapp et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00896), Dechirico et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-00677), and Ross et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:21-cv-00292). In March 2021, a fifth purported class action -- Fox et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 0:21-cv-00689). In April 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all five of these cases into a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida with the caption In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Case No. 1:21-md-02989). Also in April 2021, a sixth purported class action -- D'Agostino et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 1:21-cv-21458), and in July 2021, this case was consolidated into the multidistrict litigation proceeding as well. The allegations and requested relief in the Clapp, Dechirico, Ross, Fox, and D'Agostino complaints are substantially similar to those included in the Cheng complaint. "In August 2021, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Ally from the multidistrict litigation proceeding, without prejudice to their right to refile the purported class action against Ally in the future," the Company said. Ally Financial is a bank holding company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The company provides financial services including car finance, online banking via a direct bank, corporate lending, vehicle insurance, mortgage loans, and an electronic trading platform to trade financial assets. ALPHA RECOVERY: Neifert Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp., et al. The case is styled as William Neifert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-20008 (D.N.J., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alpha Recovery Corporation -- https://www.alpharecoverycorp.com/ -- is based in Colorado and operates nationwide as a third-party debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq. THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C. 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 974-9400 Fax: (516) 345-1635 Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges prospective Amazon Flex delivery drivers were not provided with certain statutory disclosures before Amazon obtained their background checks as part of the hiring process. According to the lawsuit, a job applicant must be given a standalone disclosure form, stating that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a law designed to ensure that consumers are properly informed of and authorize any background checks of which they are the subject. The case claims defendants Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services, Inc; and Amazon Logistics, Inc. have either failed to provide job applicants with an FCRA-compliant disclosure form prior to conducting a background check or provided a form that contained "extraneous and irrelevant information" in violation of the federal law's mandate that the form be presented in a standalone document. "For these reasons, among others, Defendants' failure to provide a disclosure form or, alternatively, the disclosure form provided by Defendants violated the law," the complaint alleges. The plaintiff in the case claims to have been hired as an Amazon Flex driver in October 2019. It wasn't until August 2020, however, that the plaintiff allegedly discovered Amazon had violated his privacy rights by obtaining his background report without proper authorization to do so. According to the suit, the plaintiff obtained a copy of the report and related documents from Amazon's third-party background check provider, Accurate Background, and found that no statutory disclosure form bearing his signature was included. The suit alleges that the disclosure form provided to prospective Amazon Flex delivery drivers contained "extraneous information" and/or was not reasonably understandable to applicants. Per the case, the form included various information specific to applicants in individual states without explaining that applicants outside of those states may be entitled to the same rights. Moreover, the form allegedly contained an "evergreen consent" provision purporting to grant the defendants with authorization to obtain an investigative report on the individual at any time, which the suit says "directly contravene[s]" a California state law requirement that such reports may be procured for only "a permissible purpose." The lawsuit goes on to claim that Amazon's disclosure form violated California law by, among other apparent omissions, failing to inform applicants of the specific basis for the use of their background report and its source, as well as include a check box allowing the applicant to indicate that they would like to receive a copy of the report. Moreover, Amazon allegedly failed to provide applicants within three days of requesting their consumer reports a disclosure informing them of their right to request additional disclosures, as specified in the FCRA, and a summary of their FCRA rights. Initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in September 2021, the lawsuit was removed to California's Central District Court on November 4. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Green PMWA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SIWANA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 210701753, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-05007 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to properly compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees at Amazon fulfillment centers in Pennsylvania in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-7814 Telephone: (609) 919-6600 Facsimile: (609) 919-6701 AMERICAN CENTURY: Hays Slams Excessive Fund Management Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Vera A. Hays, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Century Capital Portfolios, Inc., American Century Investment Services, Inc., American Century Investment Management, Inc., Patrick Bannigan, Jonathan Thomas, R. Wes Campbell, Chris H. Cheesman, Rajesh K. Gupta, C. Jean Wade, Thomas W. Bunn, Barry Fink, Andrea C. Hall, Jan M. Lewis, Lynn Jenkins, M. Jeannine Strandjord, John R. Whitten and Stephen E. Yates, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08625 (N.D. Cal., November 5, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of sales of shares of American Century Value Fund pursuant to publicly filed registration statements and prospectuses that misrepresent its principal investment strategy. Defendants actively manage the American Century Value Fund, an open-end mutual fund that invests primarily in domestic and foreign securities, by researching and selecting investments and charge fees for this management. They employ an investment strategy designed to closely track the performance of the fund's stated benchmark index, the Russell 1000 Value index. Hays purchased shares of Investor Class TWVLX shares sold by Defendants. She claims that the fund has no real prospect of outperforming the benchmark over time, after accounting for fees and expenses associated with allegedly active investment strategy. Hays claims that said indexing merely mimics the performance of their designated benchmark index, even while charging excessive fees for purportedly active management. Hays claims that the fund has consistently failed to meet or outperform its benchmark index, yet charges management fees that are astronomically higher than passive index funds designed to generate benchmark returns. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law nschubert@sjk.law - and - John Archibald, Esq. INVESTIGATION COUNSEL P.C. 350 Bay Street, Suite 1100 Toronto ON M5H 2S6 Canada Telephone: (416) 637-3152 Email: jarchibald@investigationcounsel.com - and - Paul Bates, Esq. 481 Plane Tree Drive London ON N6G 5LS Canada Telephone: (416) 869-9898 Email: pbates@batesbarristers.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr. Gerald L. Rutledge LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Email: yateslaw@aol.com AMERICAN CENTURY: Schubert Jonckheer Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit against American Century Capital Portfolios, Inc., American Century Investment Services, Inc., American Century Investment Management, Inc., and certain individual defendants for damaging investors by overcharging management fees. The firm urges TWVLX, AVLIX, AVUYX, TWADX, ACLCX, AVURX, AVUGX, and AVUDX investors to contact us now or call our attorneys at (415) 788-4220. Class Period: November 5, 2018 - Present Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 10, 2022 Visit: https://www.classactionlawyers.com/americancentury Contact: (415) 788-4220 If you purchased American Century shares, contact Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe for a free legal consultation. The American Century Value Fund is an open-end mutual fund. The class action lawsuit alleges that Defendants misrepresent the fund's principal investment strategy in its publicly filed registration statements and prospectuses by employing a "closet indexing" strategy yet charging excessive fees for purportedly active management. The class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and captioned Hays v. American Century Capital Portfolios, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-08625-CRB, is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired TWVLX, AVLIX, AVUYX, TWADX, ACLCX, AVURX, AVUGX, and AVUDX during the Class Period—between November 5, 2018 and the present. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. If you purchased TWVLX, AVLIX, AVUYX, TWADX, ACLCX, AVURX, AVUGX, or AVUDX shares during the Class Period, you have until January 10, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained here. Click here to discuss your legal rights with the Schubert Firm. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe represents shareholders, employees, and consumers in class actions against corporate defendants, as well as shareholders in derivative actions against their officers and directors. The firm is based in San Francisco, and with the help of co-counsel, litigates cases nationwide. Contact Robert C. Schubert Willem F. Jonckheer Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law Tel: (415) 788-4220 http://schubertlawfirm.com[GN] AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Files Mislabeling Suit Over Tuna Product ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Craig, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Tuna, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09125 (S.D. N.Y., November 4, 2021), seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as applicable, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief as pleaded, an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and costs incurred in bringing this lawsuit and any other relief under New York business laws. American Tuna is engaged in advertising, marketing, distributing, and selling its products to hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide, including New York. Its products are sold throughout the United States in major retail stores and through online retailers. Craig disputes American Tuna's claim in its label of being "American Made." He asserts that the tuna fish is sourced outside the US. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 10 Byron Place, #402 Larchmont, NY 10538 Tel: (646) 342-2019 Fax: (646) 661-1317 Email: robert@kraselnik.com AMERICAN TUNA: Faces Class Action Over "100% American Made" Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Sapin, writing for IntraFish, reports that a New Jersey consumer is taking on California-based American Tuna over the veracity of its claim that its canned products are "100 percent American made." On Nov. 4, Jeffrey Craig filed a class action complaint with a US district court in New York, alleging the canned tuna supplier is misleading the public by marketing its tuna as being canned in the United States when actually much of the product is canned in Thailand, Costa Rica, Vietnam and other countries. "Standing in the supermarket aisle and considering a can of 'American Tuna,' with its large American flag and 'Caught and Canned in America' label, a reasonable consumer would understand this tuna to be caught and canned in America," the complaint reads. "There would be no reason to suspect this tuna is caught and canned anywhere else other than America." Craig told the court the company is deceiving customers who are willing to pay a higher premium for tuna that is 100-percent caught and processed in the United States. "The overwhelming impression created by American Tuna is that all of its tuna is caught and processed here," Craig said. "This false impression enables American Tuna to charge significantly more than other companies that label and market their tuna products properly." According to the complaint, the value of that deception amounts to $5 million (€4.3 million), and Craig is demanding a jury trial for harm he alleges has been caused to himself and other consumers who purchased the product. American Tuna products are sold throughout the United States in major retail stores such as Whole Foods, Walmart and Stop & Shop, and through online retailers, including Amazon. Craig said he purchased the product over the last several years from various supermarkets throughout New York State. The company currently says on its website its tuna is caught in the Marine Stewardship Council-certified American Albacore Fishing Association (AAFA) fishery in the North Pacific Ocean. The company states its product is packed by hand in Oregon and Washington State, and that its cans are manufactured in America. American Tuna was formed by a group of pole and line fishing families in San Diego in 2005. The company did not respond to requests for comment by IntraFish [GN] AMINO TRANSPORT: Underpays Account Managers, Hussey et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN HUSSEY & KIMBERLY GENTRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMINO TRANSPOPRT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01064 (W.D. Tex., October 29, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendant as account managers, claim that the Defendant misclassified them and other similarly situated account managers as exempt from overtime compensation. Although the Defendant's Human Resources Manager Allie Rivera has informed all account managers on December 2, 206 that they will be reclassified from exempt to non-exempt, the Defendant did not allow them to record all the hours they worked in order to minimize overtime payments. By forcing them not to report all time worked, the Defendant failed to properly pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly introduced a new Commission Policy for account managers on August 24, 2018 in which they would earn based on their monthly gross profit and the monthly percentage of gross profit. However, the Defendant breached their agreement with the Plaintiffs because it refused to pay them under the Commission Plan for work already performed and commissions already earned. Amino Transport, Inc. is a transportation logistics company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. Allison S. Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132 San Antonio, TX 78201 Tel: (210) 225-0821 Fax: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com ahartry@themoralesfirm.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021l that the Company's motion to dismiss the Cambridge Retirement System putative class action complaint is pending. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is also pending. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018 amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. "Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2020 and in April 2021 filed a second amended complaint including similar allegations with regard to a November 2017 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/ Impax business combination," the Company said. The Company's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion for class certification are currently pending. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Value Drug Purported Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company has not yet responded to the allegations in the purported class action lawsuit filed by Value Drug Company. On August 5, 2021, Value Drug Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda's Colcrys (colchicine), including Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. The Company has not yet responded to the allegations. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Reached Tentative Deal w/ New York Hotel Association ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund case for $33 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. On April 17, 2017, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Impax and four former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG). Plaintiff alleges that Impax (1) concealed collusion with a competitor to fix the price of the generic drug digoxin; (2) concealed anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac; and (3) overstated the value of the generic drug budesonide. In August 2019, the Court granted Impax's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's subsequent second amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on January 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's decision. Impax subsequently filed a motion for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, and Plaintiff filed a motion to intervene seeking to add Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Fund of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada ("Sheet Metal Workers") as an additional named Plaintiff The Ninth Circuit denied the motions, and on April 1, 2021, the case was remanded to the District Court. On April 19, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims and an opposition to Sheet Metal Workers' renewed motion to intervene. "In June 2021, the Company reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the case for $33 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is covered in full by insurance (refer to Note 17. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets)," the Company said. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. ANAHEIM DUCKS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09447 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC -- https://www.nhl.com/ducks -- manages ice hockey team. The Company focuses on promoting professional and semi-professional athletic clubs and events.[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 ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Seeks Class Cert. Bid Filing Extension -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., a Delaware corporation; IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware Corporation; ANGI HOMESERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:19-cv-08704-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting at least another 60 days within which to file its motion for class certification, without prejudice to further requests. Pro Water offers services for the removal and rebedding of hard-piped activated carbon system. Angie's List provides Internet information and content. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ds5awc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 19360 Rinaldi Street, Box 647 Porter Ranch, CA 91326 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 Facsimile: (866) 794-5741 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph Duffy, Esq. Megan A. Suehiro, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com APOLLO GLOBAL: Files Reply to Opposition on Bid to Dismiss Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Apollo Defendants' filed their reply on Sept. 13, to the plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint filed in Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. All of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC (these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants"). The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo). The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 21, 2021, and they filed a further amended complaint on March 25, 2021. On May 24, 2021, the Apollo Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs opposed this motion on July 23, 2021. The Apollo Defendants' filed their reply on September 13, 2021. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. "Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time," the company said. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement Discussion Ongoing in Fongers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties will update the Court by Nov. 4, about the status of the settlement discussion and the need, if any, to continue the stay of the putative class action filed by Benjamin Fongers. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan. Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.'s agent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to remand. On January 11, 2021, the District Court ordered the Clerk of Court to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to recover attorneys' fees of approximately $35,000 for the remand briefing. Defendants filed their opposition on March 31, 2021, and Plaintiff replied on April 14, 2021. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County on June 11, which were fully briefed on August 13, 2021. CareerBuilder has also filed a Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Discovery pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, which was fully briefed on July 26, 2021. Under the Court's August 5, 2021 stipulated order, those motions have been continued, and the case stayed in its entirety, pending the parties' October 21, 2021 mediation. "The parties will update the Court by November 4, 2021 about the status of settlement discussion and the need, if any, to continue the stay," the Company said. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APPHARVEST INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Nov. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased AppHarvest, Inc. ("AppHarvest") (NASDAQ: APPH) between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 2021. If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/appharvest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21049&wire=5 Cannot view this image? Visit: https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/7094/102970_155433_logo.jpg Allegations against APPH include that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its recently expanded labor force; (2) as a result, the Company could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in AppHarvest you have until November 23, 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. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] APPLE INC: Lepesant Sues Over Unlawful Monopolization of Apps ------------------------------------------------------------- Madeleine Lepesant and Marianne Boyles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-08819 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and California's Unfair Competition Law as a result of Apple's unlawful monopolization of the iOS applications. Unbeknownst to iOS Device consumers, from the time it launched the iPhone through the present date, Apple has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the aftermarket for iOS applications (including purchases made within applications, such as payment for additional application features, full versions of games, and subscriptions for renewable access to content and memberships (e.g., Hulu and Spotify) ("in-app purchases")) in order to control and derive supracompetitive profits from the distribution of iOS apps worldwide As a result of its scheme, Apple has, from introduction of the iPhone 2G in 2007, when the only apps available were those that came with the iPhone, through the present, cornered 100% of the worldwide distribution market for iOS applications. Apple has succeeded in totally eliminating any and all competition in that multi-billion dollar market. Apple's App Store is the only store in the entire world--online or off-line--where the tens of millions of U.S.-based iOS Device owners (and the many tens of millions of iOS Device owners worldwide) can buy an iOS app, and Apple's unlawful monopolization of the apps market has enabled Apple to charge and collect a supracompetitive 30% fee from iOS Device consumers for each and every one of the billions of iOS apps they have bought since the iPhone's launch thirteen years ago. Consequently, iOS Device consumers nationwide have paid hundreds of millions of dollars more for iOS apps than they would have paid in a competitive market. In addition to exerting anticompetitive control through the direct purchase of apps on the App Store, Apple also controls and receives supracompetitive profits on in-app purchases, including but not limited to subscriptions. Apple's contracts with all developers offering content for iOS devices provide that Apple obtains 30% of the amount consumers pay for virtually all types of in-app purchases and subscriptions. Apple's establishment of a 30% commission rate has remained static since the onset. Apple chose the 30% commission without regard to or analysis of the costs to run the App Store. Apple's motive for its anticompetitive conduct was simple: Apple did not want its iOS Device-related revenue stream to end when a consumer bought an iOS Device, like it generally does when consumers purchase iMac and MacBook computers. So Apple concocted and maintained a plan to continue generating additional revenues over the entire useful life of every iOS Device it sold by cornering the distribution market for iOS applications and charging consumers an extra 30% for every app. Through this scheme Apple would profit not only from the sales of tens of millions of iOS Devices, it would also profit from each and every one of the billions of future apps sales made to Apple's iOS Devices customers. Apple's anticompetitive scheme has generated enormous supracompetitive profits for Apple. Apple now offers more than 2.22 million apps in the App Store, and iOS Device consumers worldwide have downloaded apps more than 200 billion times since July 2008. Apple's unlawful monopolization of the iOS applications aftermarket from July 2007 through the present is a direct reflection of Apple's goal of "eliminating all retail price competition" and its culture of disdaining antitrust compliance in order to increase the prices its customers pay. Through its actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition by erecting impenetrable barriers to entry to would-be distributors of iOS apps, reduced consumer choice in what would otherwise be a robust and competitive iOS software applications marketplace, and artificially increased prices for iOS software applications to supracompetitive levels. Apple's illegal iOS apps monopoly should be enjoined and dismantled, and Plaintiffs and the tens of millions of nationwide iOS Devices consumers they seek to represent should be reimbursed by Apple for the billions of dollars they have been overcharged, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs paid Apple for iOS apps, in-app purchases and/or subscriptions during the Class Period. Apple manufactures, markets, and sells iOS Devices, including the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch, among other electronic devices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 Email: manifold@whafh.com byrd@whafh.com - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/545-4600 Facsimile: 212/545-4653 Email: rifkin@whafh.com burt@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com ARGENT TRUST: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Cedeno ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAMON DEJESUS CEDENO, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-9987 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration and to stay the case. Background Plaintiff Cedeno brought the putative class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., ("ERISA") by the following Defendants: Argent Trust Co, Ryan Sasson, Daniel Blumkin, Ian Behar, Duke Enterprises LLC, Twist Financial LC, Blaise Investments LLC, and Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC. The Plaintiff sought to represent a class of the participants in his retirement plan. The Plaintiff is an employee of Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC. He is a participant in its strategic employee stock ownership plan, a type of retirement plan covered by ERISA. The Plan is a defined contribution plan which means that participants have individual accounts within the Plan from which their retirement benefits will be paid. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, thereby causing the Plan to suffer losses. The complaint alleges that the Defendant Argent Trust Co caused the Plan to buy shares of Strategic Family, Inc. for more than fair market value, thereby damaging the Plan and its participants, including the plaintiff. The complaint seeks to order each Defendant to make good to the Plan the losses resulting from the breaches of ERISA and restore to the Plan any profits that the Defendants made through use of the assets of the Plan. The complaint also seeks certain declaratory relief. The Defendants now move to compel arbitration pursuant to section 17.10. In response, the Plaintiff argues that section 17.10(g) is void, and that because it is not severable from section 17.10, the entire Arbitration Procedure must fail, and the motion to compel arbitration must be denied. The Defendants do not dispute that section 17.10(h) renders section 17.10(g) inseverable from the arbitration requirement in the Plan, and indeed that is the best reading of that provision. The parties also appear to agree that the Court, not the arbitrator, should decide the issue of the "applicability and enforceability" of section 17.10(g). The Plan Document expressly provides that the applicability and enforceability of section 17.10(g) is beyond the scope of the arbitration, Plan Document section 17.10(h). Thus, the Plan Document requires the Court to decide the enforceability of the clauses. Discussion I. The Defendants argue that a participant in a defined contribution plan does not have the statutory right to seek plan-wide relief and is limited to relief for that participant's individual account. Judge Koeltl opines that that argument is contrary to the text of ERISA as well as to well-established precedent. ERISA Section 409(a) provides that a fiduciary who breaches fiduciary duties "shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary." In other words, ERISA provides for restitution of the entire loss (or disgorgement of the entire gain) to the plan. ERISA Section 502(a)(2) in turn provides that "a civil action may be brought by the Secretary, or by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary for appropriate relief under Section 409." The "appropriate relief under Section 409" includes restitution of the entirety of the loss to the plan. Thus, under the plain text of ERISA, a participant has the right to bring a civil action to obtain restitution of the entire loss to the plan. In short, the Defendants' contention that ERISA does not confer a right to a plan-wide remedy for a participant in a defined contribution plan who claims that fiduciaries breached their duties to the plan is without merit. II. Despite the ERISA-conferred right to a plan-wide remedy, section 17.10(g) provides that the plaintiff cannot recover losses to the entire Plan. Section 17.10(g) purports to limit the available remedies that ERISA explicitly provides. This provision is invalid and unenforceable because it purports to limit the available remedies that ERISA explicitly provides. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explicitly held that a plaintiff's right to a plan-wide remedy under ERISA Sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) cannot be prospectively waived. That decision is persuasive. Therefore, the provision in section 17.10(g) of the Plan that precludes an individual participant from seeking Plan-wide relief is invalid because it seeks to waive prospectively the statutory remedies in ERISA Section 409(a) that a Plan participant is entitled to seek under ERISA Section 502(a)(2). III. There is nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1 et seq., ("FAA") that suggests a different result. In the case, Judge Koeltl finds that there is in fact a clear statutory right for a participant to seek Plan-wide relief under Sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2), and there is no conflict with the FAA because there is no provision of the FAA that prevents a participant from seeking such remedies. The FAA does not protect the remedies sought in arbitration. In addition, section 17.10(g) cannot be severed from the rest of the arbitration procedure, because the parties so agreed in section 17.10(h). And section 17.10(g) is clearly contrary to law, because it attempts to limit remedies that ERISA expressly provides. As such, a general principle of contract law invalidates the arbitration provision, and the FAA authorizes the Court to refuse to enforce it. IV. While specific clauses of an arbitration agreement are sometimes excised to allow an arbitration to proceed, the parties in the case specifically provided that if the Court found that the elimination of a Plan-wide remedy was unlawful, then the entire arbitration provision should be stricken. Neither party contends that the provision is severable. Such an agreement must be honored. Therefore, the arbitration provision must be stricken and the request to compel arbitration must be denied. Conclusion Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. Judge Koeltl concludes that the Plaintiff has the right under Sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) to recover for the Plan as a whole. That right is not waivable. Section 17.10(g), which purports to waive that right, is therefore invalid. Under section 17.10(h), section 17.10(g) is inseverable from the Arbitration Procedure. Therefore, voiding section 17.10(g) voids the entire Arbitration Procedure. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 59, 67, and 69. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3htrbn54 from Leagle.com. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Faces Suit for Violating CA Employment Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company is facing a class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. On December 20, 2016, the class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the Company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the Company manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the Company's manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. While the Company believe it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment laws, the Company does not believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable at this time. "As of September 30, 2021, no amounts have been accrued," the Company said. Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels, the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed in part, and modified in part, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the case captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.). On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr., Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, Commercial Division. On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a defendant. The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly rather than distributing them to employees. In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department. The Second Department heard oral arguments in this matter on April 20, 2021, and on July 14, 2021, affirmed in part, and modified in part, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the Second Department's holding, all information produced during discovery, and the continuing cost and risk, to both sides, of further appeals related to this matter, the Company is analyzing whether to continue to appeal and vigorously defend this matter or to pursue an out-of-court settlement. The Company believes it is probable that it will ultimately incur a loss from this litigation. "As a result, the Company has recorded an accrual of approximately $4.2 million as of September 30, 2021," the Company said. The final outcome could result in a loss of up to approximately $8 million in excess of the amount accrued, plus additional interest and attorneys' fees. Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels, the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. AUTO CLUB: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss MSP Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES 44, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION and AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-11606-GCS-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike class allegations; 2. directing teh Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint that includes only allegations and claims related to the Defendants in this removed action. The Second Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before November 23, 2021; and 3. directing the Defendants to file answer within 21 days after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. The Court said, "Defendants submit that for each claim to which Plaintiffs seek damages in this case, individualized issues predominate, making class litigation improper. While the Court might ultimately agree with Defendants' assessment, it will not strike the class allegations before Plaintiffs have the opportunity to engage in discovery and before class certification has been requested." This case is brought under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act (the "MSP Act"). The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons against defendants Auto Club Insurance Association and Auto Club Group Insurance Company. The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement from Defendants under the MSP Act for conditional payments for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents that were paid by Medicare Advantage Plans ("MA Plans"). The Plaintiffs initiated this case on December 1, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting claims against five Defendant insurance companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cq6b6G at no extra charge.[CC] AVIS BUDGET: NJ Suit in Mediation, January Trial Set in Fla. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avis Budget Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties in a class action in New Jersey are currently in mediation while trial on class damages has been set for January 2022 in a class action lawsuit in Florida. New Jersey Suit In November 2011, Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al. was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff seeks to represent a purported nationwide class and two sub-classes of certain renters of vehicles from the Company's Avis and Budget subsidiaries from April 2007 through December 2015. The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with claims relating to the Company's electronic toll service, including that administrative fees and toll charges were not properly disclosed to customers and/or were excessive. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was approved by the Court in November 2017. The parties are currently engaged in mediation. Florida Suit The Company has been named as a defendant in other purported consumer class action lawsuits, including a class action filed against the Company in Florida seeking damages in connection with a breach of contract claim and a purported class action filed against the Company in New Jersey related to fines and fees charged to car renters by the Company for violations incurred during the course of their rental. A trial on class damages is set for the Florida lawsuit in January 2022. Avis Budget Group, Inc. is the American parent company of Avis Car Rental, Budget Car Rental, Budget Truck Rental, and Zipcar, consisting of its global brands. BACARDI USA: Appeals Court Tosses Bombay Sapphire Gin Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that those who enjoy a cocktail may have little idea that Bombay Sapphire Gin is flavored with something known as "grains of paradise," a peppery African spice with notes of cardamom and ginger. When a South Florida man named Uri Marrache discovered the fact, he apparently decided to file a class-action lawsuit in 2019 against Bacardi USA and Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, where he had purchased a bottle. Marrache and his attorneys argued that a long-ignored 1868 Florida law forbids the use of the spice, and that Bacardi and Winn-Dixie had engaged in illegal, deceptive trade practices and had enjoyed unjust enrichment from Florida gin drinkers. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that Marrache was all wet. The court affirmed the Miami district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, noting that federal law gives safe harbor to food additives that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Marrache also failed to state a plausible claim for actual damages and had not shown that he suffered an injury from the grains of paradise, U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Logoa wrote in the opinion. A little beverage history is in order. A blog by attorneys with the Patterson Belknap firm explained that the 1868 Florida law may have been drafted to prevent deception by makers of spirits, and that grains of paradise and other flavorings were once added to booze to make it taste stronger than it really was. England had passed a similar law forbidding such flavorings 50 years earlier. But England's law was later repealed, while Florida's never has been. Marrache, a Miami-area businessman, saw an opportunity and claimed that adding the spice to the gin was a deceptive trade practice. But Bacardi's attorneys pointed out that there was no deception: Grains of paradise are listed on the bottle, etched right into the glass, as one of the botanical ingredients that gives Bombay Sapphire its distinctive flavor. Marrache also claimed that he and other class members had purchased an illegal product that is worthless. The appeals court didn't buy that argument, either. "Even if the sale of Bombay containing grains of paradise is illegal under Florida law, Bombay certainly is not 'worthless' in other states, as it is permitted to be sold under federal law and is thus not valueless. . ." Judge Logoa wrote. The case gained attention from around the country, with some observers calling it another example of a frivolous lawsuit that would benefit no one except attorneys who may collect fees. Miami attorney Roniel Rodriguez filed the suit on behalf of Marrache. On appeal, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean and Healthy New York, filed an amicus curiae brief in the case. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Dec. 6 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, MEAGAN HICKS, BRITTANY COVELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CARDTRONICS, INC., FCTI, INC., CASH DEPOT, LTD., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. CAl.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a reply in further support of their motion for class certification from November 29, 2021, to December 6, 2021. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nm4rqK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 Scott G. Braden (CA Bar No. 305051) E-mail: todd@lcllp.com ekim@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com BAUSCH HEALTH: 21 Opt-Out Investor Actions Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that 21 of 37 opt-out investor actions remain pending in the District of New Jersey. Thirty-seven groups of individual investors in the Company's stock and debt securities have chosen to opt out of a consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Sixteen of the 37 opt-out actions have been dismissed; and the total number of remaining opt-out actions pending in the District of New Jersey is 21 actions. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Certain of these individual actions assert additional claims, including claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and claims under the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims are based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss have been filed and in most cases decided in many of these individual actions. To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) opt-out action, closing the case. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Bahaa Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Aly") (Case No. 18-cv-17393) opt-out action. On October 9, 2019, the Aly Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On June 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' appeal in the Aly action. This action has been remanded to the District Court. On June 19, 2020, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the Catalyst, Mississippi, Connecticut, and Delaware actions. On July 13, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the NYCERS action. On December 30, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the BlueMountain action. On February 18, 2021, and March 10, 2021, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the T. Rowe, BloombergSen, Principal Funds, Pentwater, Lord Abbett, Equity Trustees, and UC Regents actions. On April 30, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Florida SBA action. On July 20, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Janus action. Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Quebec, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Appeal in Gutierrez Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------ Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that an appeal in the California class action, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., is underway and the parties have filed briefs. On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief; Appellees' response briefs were filed on October 8, 2021. Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Quebec, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Dec. 2 Final Hearing to Approve Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a hearing has been scheduled for December 2, 2021, to consider final approval of a stipulation of settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit in New Jersey. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company-branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. "The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription," the Company said. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. On August 4, 2021, the Company executed a stipulation of settlement for this action and, on August 17, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2021. Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Quebec, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Jan. 20 Final Approval Hearing on Glumetza Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, a final settlement approval hearing has been scheduled for January 20, 2022. Between August 2019 and July 2020, eight putative antitrust class actions and four non-class complaints naming the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc., among other defendants, were filed or transferred to the Northern District of California. Three of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of direct purchasers filed a consolidated first amended complaint and a motion for class certification in April 2020. The court certified a direct purchaser class in August 2020. The putative class action complaints filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily dismissed. Three of the non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers. The fourth non-class complaint, asserting claims based on both direct and indirect purchases, was filed by an insurer plaintiff in July 2020 and subsequently amended in September 2020. In December 2020, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as to the insurer plaintiff's direct claims but dismissed the insurer plaintiff's indirect claims. On February 2, 2021, the insurer plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint was denied. These actions were consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (the "In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation"). The lawsuits alleged that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints alleged that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. Both the class and non-class plaintiffs sought damages under federal antitrust laws for claims based on direct purchases. On February 8, 2021, the insurer plaintiff filed an action asserting its indirect (state law) claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California against the Company and others (the "State Court Action"). Defendants' demurrer in the State Court Action was heard on September 22, 2021. On July 26, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle and, thereafter, on September 14, 2021, executed a final settlement agreement to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims for $300 million, subject to court approval. On August 1, 2021, the Company also reached an agreement in principle to resolve the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims, for additional consideration. A final settlement agreement with the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs was executed on August 6, 2021. As part of the settlements, the Company admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. On September 20, 2021, the insurer plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims in the consolidated federal action. By stipulation, the insurer plaintiff has asserted its direct opt-out claims in the State Court Action, resulting in the consolidation of all of its opt-out claims in the State Court Action. On September 22, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement and vacated the October 2021 trial date and all other pre-trial deadlines in the consolidated actions. "A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for January 20, 2022. Subject to final approval of the class settlement, the settlements will resolve and discharge all asserted class and direct purchaser non-class claims against the Company in the In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation," the Company said. * * * The Court has preliminarily approved proposed settlements between the Class and each of the Defendants. The Settlements will provide for the payment of: $300.00 million to resolve the Class claims against Bausch; $3.85 million to resolve the Class claims against Assertio; and $150.00 million to resolve the Class claims against Lupin. Additional information is available at: https://www.glumetzaantitrustlitigation.com/ Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Quebec, Canada. BENEFITFOCUS INC: Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Pittsburgh Fund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CITY OF PITTSBURGH COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BENEFITFOCUS, INC., et al., Case No. 651425/2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 25, 2021, the lawsuit asserts strict liability and negligence claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Benefitfocus's secondary public offering which commenced on March 1, 2019 of 6,560,472 shares of common stock, including an executed underwriters' overallotment of 855,714 shares, at a price of $48.25 per share (the "SPO" or the "Offering"). The securities class action was brought on behalf of a Class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Benefitfocus common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the SPO, and who were damaged thereby. Defendant Benefitfocus describes itself as a "leading cloud-based benefits management platform" that "simplifies how organizations and individuals transact benefits." The Company's broker customers use its platform to manage employer portfolios; employer customers use the platform to streamline benefit processes, control costs, and keep up with regulatory requirements; and insurance carrier and supplier customers use the platform to market offerings to consumers, simplify billing, and improve the enrollment process. Benefitfocus conducted its SPO on March 1, 2019, and the Selling Stockholder Defendants -- including Mercer LLC, an entity related to Mercer Health -- raised more than $316 million in gross proceeds, while the banks that underwrote the Offering collected over $9.4 million in fees. In other words, the SPO was a great success for Defendants; however, the SPO was disastrous for investors. Just prior to and in connection with the SPO, Benefitfocus disclosed it had amended the Mercer Health Agreement to, among other things, take advantage of increased opportunities in the broker channel. Benefitfocus claimed that any reduction in revenue associated with the amended Mercer Health Agreement would be limited to 2019 and would have no material impact on the Company's financial condition and results, the suit says. However, within months of the SPO, Benefitfocus disclosed materially adverse and previously existing but undisclosed conditions, trends, uncertainties, and risks at the Company that pre-dated the SPO, including the complete runoff of significant, recurring, high-margin Mercer Health revenues, significant losses and earnings misses, and the inability to replace lost Mercer Health revenues with new broker channel revenues. As a result of these undisclosed adverse facts that existed at the time of the Offering, Benefitfocus's common stock plummeted, falling from its SPO price of $48.25 per share to close at $14.90 per share on March 2, 2020, the date this Action was filed, the suit added. Defendants-Appellants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Capital Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., and GS Capital Partners VI GMBH & Co. KG now seek a review of the Court's Order entered October 6, 2021, that granted in part and denied in part their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed in the case. The appeal is taken from only the portion of the Order that denied their Motion to Dismiss the Section 12(a)(2) claim on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the Goldman Funds Defendants are "statutory sellers" under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The appellate case is captioned as City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund v. Benefitfocus, Inc. et al., Case No. 2021-04021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, filed on October 29, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Appellants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Capital Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., and GS Capital Partners VI GMBH & Co. KG are represented by: Douglas H. Flaum, Esq. Charles A. Brown, Esq. Marco Y. Wong, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 813-8800 Facsimile: (212) 355-3333 E-mail: dflaum@goodwinlaw.com cbrown@goodwinlaw.com marcowong@goodwinlaw.com BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: James et al., Files Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in the case captioned Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al., Case No. 20cv33885, filed an amended complaint to limit the class to include Oregon citizens. On September 30, 2020, the putative class action complaint against PacifiCorp was filed captioned Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al., Case No. 20cv33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon. The complaint was filed by Oregon residents and businesses who seek to represent a class of all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or personal property was harmed beginning on September 7, 2020, by wildfires in Oregon allegedly caused by PacifiCorp. On November 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by the Echo Mountain, South Obenchain, Two Four Two and Santiam Canyon (also known as Beachie Creek) fires, as well as to add claims for noneconomic damages. The amended complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed to the Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and that PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things. The amended complaint seeks the following damages for the plaintiffs and the putative class: (i) noneconomic damages, including mental suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience and interference with normal and usual activities, in excess of $1 billion; (ii) damages for real and personal property and other economic losses of not less than $600 million; (iii) double the amount of property and economic damages; (iv) treble damages for specific costs associated with loss of timber, trees and shrubbery; (v) double the damages for the costs of litigation and reforestation; (vi) prejudgment interest; and (vii) reasonable attorney fees, investigation costs and expert witness fees. "The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right to further amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive damages," the Company said. Berkshire Hathaway Energy is a holding company that is 90% owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire has owned a controlling stake since 1999. The company also controls power distribution companies in the United Kingdom and Canada. BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as styled as in Jasmine Williams, Khalil White, Their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a Class of All Persons similarly situated v. City of Beverly Hills, a public entity; Captain Scott Dowling, Sergeant Dale Drummond, Officer Jon Ilusorio, Officer Jonathan De La Cruz, individually as official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV31949, was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 3, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FLA-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights the Civil Rights Act. Beverly Hills -- https://www.beverlyhills.org/ -- is a city in California's Los Angeles County. Home to many Hollywood stars, it features the upscale shopping street of Rodeo Drive.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley C Gage, Esq. Milad Sadr, Esq. Terry Michael Goldberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GOLDBERG AND GAGE 23002 Victory Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 340-9252 Fax: (818) 340-9088 Email: bgage@goldbergandgage.com msadr@goldbergandgage.com tgoldberg@goldbergandgage.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel K Spradlin, Esq. Jeanne L Tollison, Esq. Roberta A Kraus, Esq. WOODRUFF SPRADLIN AND SMART APC 555 Anton Boulevard Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Phone: (714) 558-7000 Fax: (714) 835-7787 Email: dspradlin@wss-law.com jtollison@wss-law.com bkraus@wss-law.com BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Cert Bid. Due Dec. 17 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Annette S. McFARLAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bill Lee Kelly, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply. The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion to certify class is now due Dec. 17, 2021, says Bruce. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Ct. Enters Fourth Amended Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gary Nestler, Viewed Student Female 200, Viewed Student Male 300, on behalf of themselves and all others situated, v. The Bishop of Charleston, a Corporation Sole, Bishop England High School, Tortfeasors 1-10, The Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston, in his official capacity, and Robert Guglielmone, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-00613-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order that the deadline to complete Class Certification Discovery shall be extended to December 3, 2021 and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification shall be extended to December 13, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3niQJoy at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE DIAMOND: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Diamond Growers, et al. The case is styled as Brad Smith, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Blue Diamond Growers, Blue Diamond Growers Services, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00310576-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Blue Diamond Growers -- https://www.bluediamond.com/ -- is a California agricultural cooperative and marketing organization that specializes in almonds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: 310-496-5818 Fax: 310-510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com BOFI HOLDING: Lead Plaintiff Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAR MANDALEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BOFI HOLDING, INC., GREGORY GARRABRANTS, ANDREW J. MICHELETTI, ESHEL BAR-ADON and PAUL J. GRINBERG, Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting joint motion to continue lead plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification and to revise the briefing schedule as follows: 1. Lead Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification on or before November 26, 2021; 2. Defendants' response in opposition shall be filed on or before January 13, 2022 3. Lead Plaintiff's reply in further support of the motion shall be filed on or before February 3, 2022. 4. A hearing on the motion will be held on April 1, 2022 at 1:30 PM. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kKRFQO at no extra charge.[CC] BOSTON, MA: $680K Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Muehe ADA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MUEHE, ELAINE HAMILTON, CRYSTAL EVANS, and COLLEEN FLANAGAN v. CITY OF BOSTON, Civil Action No. 21-11080-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, but reduced the award to $674,487.38 in attorney's fees and $5,533.18 in costs and expenses. Introduction Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in negotiating a settlement agreement with Defendant City of Boston mandating the citywide installation or remediation of ADA compliant curbs on an ambitious schedule with the goal of achieving compliant curb ramps on every sidewalk accessible to pedestrians both with and without disabilities. The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of $741,794.38 in attorney's fees and $5,533.18 in costs and expenses. Although the City acknowledges the Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorney's fees and costs, it challenges the total amount sought as excessive. Background In 2017, the Plaintiffs initiated a public records request seeking documentation regarding the City's street resurfacing and curb ramp maintenance program. The following year, after comparing the public records they received with images on Google Street View and the City's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan, the Plaintiffs presented a demand letter to the City claiming violations of the ADA. The Plaintiffs proposed, and the City eventually agreed, that the parties undertake a collaborative approach to achieving a solution rather than engaging in protracted litigation. The parties conducted structured negotiations over the next three years and reached a comprehensive settlement agreement on June 30, 2021. The same day, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint in the Court. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 12, 2021, and final approval on Oct. 19, 2021. Pursuant to the settlement, the City must "install or remediate an average of 1,630 curb ramps per year until a compliant curb ramp exists at every corner of the pedestrian right of way. Based on the parties' best estimates, this will likely occur by the end of 2030." The Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party in the case, now seek attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing about the settlement. Discussion The parties agree that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in the matter and, as such, that the Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. However, that is where the agreement ends. The City challenges the fees sought by the Plaintiffs on multiple fronts, claiming that they are excessive. (1) Complexity of the Matter The City contends that the number of hours expended on the case by the Plaintiffs' attorneys and paralegals (approximately 1,570 in total) is unreasonable because of the relatively noncomplex nature of the case and the fact that resolution was reached through structured negotiations rather than formal litigation. In support, the City points to agreements the Plaintiffs' counsel have secured with other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, which resulted in consent decrees that are similar to the one at issue. In response, the Plaintiffs aver that the protracted negotiations with the City were complex and that the excellent results achieved by the Plaintiffs' counsel support the conclusion that the hours expended were reasonable. Judge Stearns agrees with the Plaintiffs that there was a substantial degree of complexity in resolving the matter. On its face, there are complications inherent in bringing a major city into conformity with federal law when it has been chronically noncompliant for over four decades. This is reflected in the prolonged three-year negotiations between the parties. The City's contention that the negotiations were noncomplex because the Plaintiffs' counsel had negotiated similar agreements with other cities is not persuasive. As the Plaintiffs note in their reply, the root causes of accessibility issues plaguing a city's residents are unique to each city. To properly address the root causes in the City of Boston, the Plaintiffs' counsel needed to "compile evidence of violations in the City's pedestrian right of way, and gain a sufficient understanding of the City's internal systems in order to devise a workable plan for achieving compliance with the ADA within the fastest realistic timeframe." The "intensive negotiations" over the individual provisions of the agreement lend additional credence to the notion that the matter was indeed complex. (2) Overstaffing The City next argues that the Plaintiffs overstaffed telephone conferences in which Attorney Dardarian was the lead negotiator and maintains that the hours that Attorneys Wendell, Fox, Murphy, and Eichner spent on those calls should be discounted. The Plaintiffs aver that the participation of the other members of the Plaintiffs' counsel was necessary to address certain topics, jointly determine negotiation strategy, and to take notes. Judge Stearns finds that although other members of the Plaintiffs' counsel may have addressed discrete issues during the settlement negotiations, there is clear agreement between the parties that Attorney Dardarian was the lead Plaintiffs' counsel in these meetings. As the head negotiator, Attorney Dardarian was fully capable of handling those discrete issues without assistance. Accordingly, Judge Stearns deducts the hours that Attorneys Wendell, Fox, Murphy, and Eichner spent on those calls -- specifically, 28.1 hours from Wendell ($13,909.50), 39.6 hours from Fox ($28,710), 37.3 hours from Murphy ($18,650), and 10.5 hours from Eichner ($6,037.50). (3) Core v. Non-Core Work In its opposition, the City argued that the Plaintiffs erred in their initial request for attorney's fees by not "filtering out the 'non-core' (i.e., less lawyerly) work from the 'core' (i.e., more lawyerly) work and compensate the 'non-core' work at two-thirds the reasonable hourly rate for 'core' work." In response, the Plaintiffs conceded that, although the court is not required to use the core versus non-core distinction in calculating attorney's fees, many of their entries qualified as "non-core work." The Plaintiffs revised their billed hours chart accordingly and applied a discounted rate to 504 "non-core" entries, resulting in a deduction in plaintiffs' overall fee request of over $50,000. Upon careful review of the City's objections and the Plaintiffs' revised chart, Judge Stearns is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' amended fees request reflects an accurate division of counsel's core versus non-core work. (4) Insufficient Descriptions and Block Billing The City challenges many of the Plaintiffs' entries on the grounds that they either contain an insufficient description of the work performed or are presented in "block billing" form. The Plaintiffs argue that their entries contain sufficient descriptions and minimal block billing. Judge Stearns concurs with the Plaintiffs. First, upon careful review of the entries flagged by the City as having an insufficient description, he concludes that virtually all entries detail the who, the what, and the why necessary for the Court to determine their reasonableness. Second, to the extent that there is block billing in the Plaintiffs' chart, it is too minor and infrequent to pose a challenge to the Court's ability to decipher the entries' reasonableness. (5) Reasonableness of Attorney Rates Finally, the City challenges the reasonableness of the Plaintiffs' counsels' proposed hourly rates, claiming that they are excessive. The Plaintiffs contend that their rates are reasonable and do not exceed those of attorneys with commensurate skill, experience, and reputation in the Boston market. Judge Stearns agrees with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated the reasonableness of their counsel's rates. Further, the rates adequately reflect the unique expertise and experience that the Plaintiffs' counsel have in the specialized legal field of disability access. Finally, these rates appropriately incentivize the "bringing of meritorious civil rights claims" such as this one. The attorney's fees award is sufficient to galvanize that necessary risk-taking. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, but reduced the award to $674,487.38 in attorney's fees and $5,533.18 in costs and expenses. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vkr6r574 from Leagle.com. BRIGHT SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hagerman Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HAGERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01830 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC manufactures and distributes solar energy equipment. The Company offers solar panels, pumping systems, inverters, and modules. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Purported Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the purported class action filed by the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company. Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of universal life insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. "Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021," the Company said. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. BROWN & GOLD: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown & Gold. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brown & Gold, Case No. 1:21-cv-09448-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brown & Gold -- https://brownandgold.com/ -- offers Wyoming Cowboys apparel, hats, and accessories for women, men, and kids.[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 BRYAN COWDERY: Court Conditionally Certifies Modified Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA MCELWEE, et al., v. BRYAN COWDERY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order: 1. granting Defendants' motion for reconsideration; and 2. conditionally certifying the following modified class: "All current and former Delivery Drivers who, at any time since October 29, 2018, drove a vehicle weighing less than 10,000 pounds during any workweek;" A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DF85Sc at no extra charge.[CC] BT GROUP: CAT Allows Excessive Pricing Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Davis, Esq., of Pinsent Masons, in an article for ICLG.com, reports that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has given the go-ahead to the UK's first 'excessive pricing' abuse of dominance claim, which could involve up to 2.3 million customers and damages of up to £469 million, plus interest. The CAT certified the abuse of dominance claim against telecoms giant BT under a collective proceedings order (CPO). The claim is the first standalone case and the first excessive pricing collective proceeding to receive a CPO. The claim is only the second competition case to receive CPO certification, after the follow-on action brought by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks against Mastercard over credit card interchange fees. Ruling both on the application for a CPO, and BT's strike-out application, the CAT said there was sufficient merit in the case for it to go ahead as an opt-out class action. It rejected BT's argument that the CPO should be brought on an 'opt-in' basis, agreeing with the proposed class representative that many of the 2.3 million customers who would fall in scope of the action would not be sufficiently proactive to opt into the case. The claim was brought on behalf of the proposed class of claimants by former Ofcom employee Justin Le Patourel, in relation to the provision of landline telephone services to residential addresses. The case concerns customers both with voice-only contracts, and those taking out a bundle involving both phone and broadband. It follows a 2017 review by regulator Ofcom that found BT had overcharged landline customers. Le Patourel, on behalf of the proposed class, alleged that BT had never reimbursed these customers. BT said the Ofcom review did not reach final determinations about its pricing, and did not support a case of abuse. However, the CAT said the review was "plainly focused on the excessive pricing of BT as a direct result of its market power" and the claimants were right to rely on it as a piece of evidence. Competition law expert Alan Davis of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, said the CAT was not supposed to conduct a 'mini trial' at CPO application stage, for example ruling in more detail on the Ofcom review findings. "The threshold for CPO certification -- or resisting BT's strike-out application -- is lower than what the class representative will face at trial when making substantive legal arguments. As noted by the CAT, to avoid strike-out or summary dismissal at CPO stage, the claim must have a real prospect of success, and must not be merely 'fanciful'," Davis said. "The CPO is a preliminary, albeit critical, procedural step in an opt-out collective proceeding. Excessive pricing cases are rare because, even when brought by a competition authority, they can be notoriously complex, lengthy, and resource-intensive to pursue," Davis said. Competition law expert Tadeusz Gielas of Pinsent Masons said: "In addition to the Merricks and Le Patourel cases that have already received CPO certification, another 11 opt-out collective proceedings are currently before the CAT. We can expect to see further important developments in the coming months that will shape how UK's antitrust collective proceedings regime is utilised by claimants". Litigation expert Chris Dryland of Pinsent Masons said: "It's interesting to see that Le Patourel argued that the CPO should be 'opt-out' because there would be too few customers to make the claim attractive to litigation funders if the CPO was 'opt-in'. Although the CAT thought that an opt-in CPO would still see a large number of customers opting in, it demonstrates that a critical mass of claimants needs to be achieved to get the claim 'off the ground' from a third-party funding perspective". [GN] BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: $35K Attys' Fees Awarded in Lichter FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSEPH LICHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS CONTROL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 04476 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for statutory damages and attorney's fees and costs. Background On May 16, 2019, Lichter commenced the action against Bureau of Accounts Control, Inc. ("BAC"), a debt collection agency, alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). Following discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Statements contained in BAC's own business records, which it originally introduced as part of its cross motion, established that Lichter did not owe a debt to Bergen Urological and thus that BAC's actions in attempting to collect such a debt were in violation of the FDCPA. After introducing the business records, BAC then argued for the first time in its reply brief that while the business records themselves were admissible, the statements contained within the records were inadmissible as hearsay. Because BAC waived any objections to admissibility of the business records by offering them itself, the statements therein were considered and found to support a finding of liability under the FDCPA. On March 17, 2021, the Court granted Lichter's motion for summary judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established that he did not owe a debt to Bergen Urological, and thus concluding that BAC violated the FDCPA when it mailed him a letter seeking to collect the alleged debt. On April 16, 2021 the Court held a status conference at which it addressed BAC's anticipated motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment opinion. On July 8, 2021, the Court entered an Order holding that for reasons stated on the record at the April 16, 2021 conference, BAC's motion for reconsideration was deemed made and was denied. At that conference, the parties also agreed to meet and confer to discuss a potential agreement regarding damages and attorneys' fees. The Court instructed the parties to file a status report regarding damages and attorneys' fees by July 22, 2021. On July 22, 2021, Lichter filed a status report. The report explained that Lichter had communicated a demand to BAC but had not yet received a substantive response, and requested an extension of time, which was granted by the Court. On July 30, 2021, the parties submitted a joint status report, which explained that they had not yet been able to resolve the issues of statutory damages and attorney's fees. The parties again requested an extension of time, which was granted by the Court. They were ultimately unable to resolve the issues of statutory damages and attorney's fees. On Aug. 6, 2021, Lichter submitted a status report explaining that he had still not received a substantive response to his demand. Lichter's status report included a proposed briefing schedule which was adopted by the Court. On Aug. 20, 2021, Lichter moved for an order setting the amount of the statutory damages to be awarded and for attorneys' fees and costs. Analysis a. Statutory Damages Lichter seeks an award of $1,000 in statutory damages, the maximum allowed under the statute. Courts in this circuit have found statutory damages of $500 appropriate in cases where there are only one or a few instances of violation of the FDCPA, the ommunications are not threatening nor abusive in tone, and where there is no evidence that the violations were intentional. Courts have similarly awarded $550 per plaintiff where a dispute existed as to whether the violation of the statute was intentional. In the present case, BAC allegedly sent two letters and made one phone call to Lichter's wife in violation of the FDCPA. Judge Ramos opines that there is no evidence that BAC's violations were intentional nor that they were threatening or abusive in tone. However, as the Court found, BAC's own records should have put it on notice that its letter to Lichter was inaccurate. Despite this, it brought the collection action against Lichter and litigated this case aggressively, even moving for reconsideration when the Court denied its motion for summary judgment. Under these circumstances, an award of $750 comports with statutory damages awarded in this circuit. Accordingly, Lichter is awarded $750 in statutory damages. b. Attorneys' Fees Judge Ramos notes that a debt collector found to be in violation of the FDCPA is liable "for the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court." A prevailing plaintiff should be awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees in amounts to be determined by discretion of the court, whether or not they are entitled to an award of actual or statutory damages. In determining the appropriate value of an attorney's services in arriving at a reasonable fee, the court should consider, inter alia, the difficulty of the question involved, the skill required to handle the problem, and the amount of time expended on the case." After considering these issues, "the determination of a reasonable attorney's fee is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, which is often in the best position to determine those factors integral to the fixing of a reasonable fee." In the case, Judge Ramos finds that (i) Lichter has met his initial burden by submitting time and cost reports detailing the work performed and the costs incurred; (ii) Lichter was fully successful on summary judgment for his claim for violation of the FDCPA; (iii) BAC could have made an offer of judgment to Lichter alone pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 68, as he never moved for class certification and no class was certified; (iv) BAC does not point to any evidence to support its contention that the records provided by Lichter were not made contemporaneously; (v) the Plaintiff has provided a declaration of Craig B. Sanders as to the work performed by attorneys Sanders, Barshay, Carajaval, Abreu, and Dudani; (vi) a reasonable hourly rate in the case is $450 for partners, $325 for associate Cader, $300 for associate Carvajal, $225 for associates Dudani and Abreu, and $100 for paralegal time; and (vii) he award Lichter's counsel fees for the 101.7 billable hours requested, at the rates determined. c. Costs Under the FDCPA, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to the costs incurred in the action. The Plaintiff seeks to recover $530 in costs, broken down as follows: (1) $400 for the filing fee; and (2) $75 for service of process with Lightning Process Service; and (3) $55 in parking costs at the Southern District of New York courthouse. The Plaintiff is granted $530 in costs. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth, Judge Ramos granted in part and denied in part Lichter's motion for attorney's fees. Specifically, he finds that Lichter is entitled to $750 in statutory damages, and $530 in costs. He finds that Lichter is further entitled to attorney's fees for the hours billed at the rates of $450 for partners Barshay and Sanders, $325 for associate Cader, $300 for associate Carvajal, $225 for associates Dudani and Abreu, and $100 for paralegal time, and at 50% of such rates for hours billed for travel time. Lichter has provided documentation supporting 32.8 hours billed between partners Sanders and Barshay, 58 hours billed by associate Cader, 3.3 hours billed by associate Carvajal, 2.7 of which are for travel time, 3.5 hours billed between associates Dudani and Abreu, and 4.1 hours of paralegal time. Accordingly, the total attorney's fees to be awarded is $35,392.50. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to issue judgment in accordance with the terms of Judge Ramos' Opinion. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 56, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Amended Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mchs68j8 from Leagle.com. CAMBER ENERGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Camber Energy, Inc. ("Camber" or the "Company") (NYSE: CEI) on behalf of purchasers of Camber securities between February 18, 2021 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/cei. 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) Camber overstated the financial and business prospects of Viking as well as the combined company post-Merger; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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/cei 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 Camber 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. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] CAMPANIA FELIX: Ortega Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Marcelino Mendoza Ortega, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Campania Felix LLC, Fabio Casella and Ciro Casella, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09123, (S.D. N.Y., November 4, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, compensatory and/or punitive damages for retaliatory conduct and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant "San Matteo Pizzeria E Cucina" located in New York where Ortega worked as a cook. He claims to generally work over 40 hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium and without the proper wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Tel. (212) 209-3933 Fax. (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com CANOPY GROWTH: Bid to Junk Third Amended Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court, is pending. As previously disclosed in the Annual Report, in November 2019, the Corporation and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in three purported class action claims filed in the U.S. District Court; two of these complaints have since been dismissed. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts, regarding Canopy Growth's receivables, business, operations and prospects relating to, among other things, the demand for its softgel and oil products. In addition, as previously disclosed, in November 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint and on May 6, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge McNulty granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a third amended complaint with the Court within 30 days. On June 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 16, 2021. "The motion will not be fully briefed until at least November 24, 2021," the Company said. Canopy Growth Corporation is a leading cannabis company with operations in countries throughout the world. The company produces, distributes and sells a diverse range of cannabis and hemp-based products for both recreational and medical purposes under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada pursuant to the Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c 16, and globally pursuant to applicable international and Canadian legislation, regulations and permits. CAPITAL ONE: Miranda Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Roney Miranda, Alain Michael, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., Capital One N.A., Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-08580 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Nov. 15, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01259-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Michael Berger, Esq. Eric H Gibbs, Esq. Jeffrey B. Kosbie, Esq. Tayler L Walters, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: davidberger@classlawgroup.com ehg@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com tlw@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Blaschke, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 318-1212 Fax: (415) 318-1300 Email: mblaschke@kslaw.com - and - Jennifer Rebecca Virostko, Esq. Sidney Stewart Haskins, II, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5100 Email: jvirostko@kslaw.com shaskins@kslaw.com CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Jan. 20, 2022 Class Cert. Hearing Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BPP v. CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK, and WELLTOK, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00126-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Matthew T. Schelp entered an order that the January 20, 2022 class certification hearing is vacated and any pending motions are denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHRI3L at no extra charge.[CC] CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Strategic Properties, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gregory Akselrod, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Castle Strategic Properties, LLC, Zachary Alexandre, Case No. 2:21-cv-01529 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Castle Strategic -- https://www.castlestrategicpartners.com/home -- is a real estate company specializing in all Intellectual Property matters, from the seed of an idea to the final product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 WILLIAMSON ST., STE 201 MADISON, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 CAVALIERS OPERATING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavaliers Operating Company, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavaliers Operating Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09438 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cavaliers Operating Company, LLC -- www.theqarena.com -- provides sports equipment and apparels. The Company offers operating and promoting professional and semiprofessional athletic clubs and events.[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 CAVALRY SPV: Hall WVCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Case No. CC-34-2021-C-44, was removed from the Circuit Court of Nicholas County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on November 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of West Virginia assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00600 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act and common law fraudulent misrepresentation by allegedly attempting to collect debt via written communications where such debt was beyond the statute of limitations for filing a legal action for collection after certain dates set forth by the Plaintiff. Cavalry SPV I, LLC is an American debt buyer based in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas P. Mooney II, Esq. Angela L. Beblo, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC P.O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340-3800 Facsimile: (304) 340-3801 E-mail: nmooney@spilmanlaw.com abeblo@spilmanlaw.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suit Over Improper Wireless Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERESA MACCLELLAND; KAREN UMBERGER; and SCOTT WILLITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS; and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08592 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2021) is a case challenging the bait-and-switch scheme perpetrated by Verizon against its wireless service customers. According to the complaint, Verizon prominently advertises particular flat monthly rates for its post-paid wireless service plans. Then, after customers sign up, Verizon actually charges higher monthly rates than advertised and promised by padding the bill with an undisclosed so-called "Administrative Charge." The so-called Administrative Charge is simply a means for Verizon to charge more per month for the service itself without having to advertise the higher prices. The first time Verizon customers can possibly learn about the existence of the Administrative Charge, or its amount, is on their monthly billing statements, which they begin receiving only after they sign up for the service and are financially committed to their purchase and cannot cancel without penalty, says the suit. Allegeldy, Verizon then deliberately and affirmatively misrepresents the so-called Administrative Charge on its billing statements to further its scheme. Verizon excludes the Administrative Charge from the "Monthly charges" section, and instead puts it in the "Surcharges" section where Verizon lumps it together with government costs. Even worse, Verizon explicitly and falsely states on its monthly bills that the Administrative Charge is a surcharge imposed on subscribers to "cover the costs that are billed to us by federal, state or local governments." CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS provides wireless voice and data services. The Company provides postpaid and prepaid services, such as text and picture messaging, and mobile broadband services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Ave NE, Ste 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com -and- Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMIE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, d/b/a SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02242-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation. Background The Defendant is an internet service provider for consumers, such as Plaintiff, in Placer, El Dorado, and Nevada Counties in California. The Plaintiff alleges that although the Defendant "promises reliable broadband internet services with download speeds up to 100 to 940 megabits per second, customers experience frequent and prolonged internet service outages and near constant sluggish internet speeds," which prevent customers from using the internet. The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendant "continues to charge customers regardless of whether there are prolonged unreasonably slow download speeds and outages." The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in Nevada County Superior Court on Sept. 28, 2020, alleging claims for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and breach of contract. He seeks various remedies, including damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. On Nov. 9, 2020, the Defendant removed the action to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation on Feb. 4, 2021, citing an arbitration provision the Plaintiff allegedly signed as part of his contract with the Defendant. Analysis The parties do not dispute that the scope of the arbitration provision encompasses the Plaintiff's claims. Rather, the only dispute is whether an enforceable agreement exists in the first place. The Plaintiff argues: (1) the Defendant has not provided sufficient evidence of the Plaintiff's assent; and (2) the arbitration provision is unenforceable. A. Plaintiff's Assent The Defendant argues the Plaintiff agreed to a Residential Services Agreement ("RSA"), which included an arbitration provision. It emphasizes that the Plaintiff's own Complaint acknowledges a valid contract exists and even includes a breach of contract claim. The Defendant argues the Plaintiff "cannot deny that he assented to the arbitration provision in the very contract under which he brings his claims." In opposition, the Plaintiff argues the Defendant failed to provide evidence that he agreed to the arbitration provision. He further argues Kelly's declaration does not indicate who signed the device (the Plaintiff or his representative), nor does it provide screenshots of the hyperlink that the Plaintiff would have purportedly seen. The Plaintiff argues the Defendant's evidence, such as the example screenshot from the Suddenlink ETADirect User Guide and the billing statements, is insufficient to show the Plaintiff knowingly consented to arbitration. In sum, the evidence before the Court includes: (1) the Plaintiff's general allegations about entering into a contract with the Defendant; (2) a declaration regarding the Defendant's routine business practices, which indicates Plaintiff or his authorized representative were required to sign acceptance of the RSA -- along with an acknowledgement that the RSA contained an arbitration provision -- as a condition of the installation and activation of the Defendant's services; and (3) billing statements that indicate the Plaintiff confirmed his agreement to the terms of the RSA by paying his monthly bill. Judge Nunley concludes the foregoing evidence is sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff assented to the arbitration provision. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the aforementioned evidence is sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff had -- at the very least -- constructive notice of the arbitration provision and assented to those terms. B. Enforceability The Plaintiff next argues the arbitration provision improperly waives the right to public injunctive relief and is unenforceable on other grounds. Judge Nunley first finds that the arbitration agreement is not invalid under McGill because the Plaintiff seeks an injunction benefitting primarily those who would qualify as purported class members, not the general public. Second, he finds that the Defendant's offer not to enforce the challenged provisions -- and the fact that the current version of the RSA does not contain most of those provisions -- arguably renders the Plaintiff's remaining arguments moot. In any event, Judge Nunley holds that the Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that it should invalidate the entire contract based on these four provisions that appear to be "collateral to the main purpose of the contract." Accordingly, he rejects the Plaintiff's arguments and concludes that the operative arbitration provision in the current RSA is enforceable. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and stays the case pending completion of arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims. The parties will notify the Court within 30 days of completing arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrf5nrab from Leagle.com. CHARLES SCHWAB: Defends Robo-Advisor Cash Sweeps Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Martin, writing for AdvisorHub, reports that Charles Schwab Corp. locked horns with a group of investors who in September brought a class action claim alleging its robo-advisor, Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, over-allocated customers to cash, bolstering the retail brokerage's income while costing investors hundreds of millions in potential gains. The plaintiffs had characterized the cash sweeps at issue as "undeclared" fees. The Westlake, Texas-based company asked the court to toss the case arguing Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, the subsidiary entity overseeing its robo-advisor, had "fully" disclosed how the program generates revenue and that the investors had acknowledged as much in account opening forms and in investment questionnaires, according to a motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 8 in U.S. District Court in Northern California. "Plaintiffs approved the portfolios, including the cash allocation they now complain about, before investing," Schwab's attorneys wrote in the filing. "SIP's use of low-risk cash allocations to generate revenue was widely known and understood from its inception." Schwab also said that the plaintiffs' Sept. 10-filed complaint is "doomed to fail," arguing that the plaintiffs improperly leveled state-law claims to avoid the higher pleading standards in federal securities laws. "[R]ather than litigate this claim under the standards and procedures prescribed by Congress, Plaintiffs have impermissibly repackaged it under state-law causes of action," Schwab argued. The plaintiffs' lead attorney John T. Jasnoch, of law firm Scott & Scott, did not respond to a request for comment on Schwab's filing. The plaintiffs had alleged in their initial filing that SIP made "hundreds of millions of dollars in unwarranted and unfair cash sweeps to Schwab" and caused customers to collectively miss out on "over $500 million in portfolio growth" since the program's 2015 inception. The putative class claim accused the Schwab unit of violating its fiduciary duty, breach of contract and violation of state laws. "CSIA systematically kept the 'Intelligent Portfolios' accounts of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class over-concentrated in cash during the white-hot boom years of America's recent stock market," the complaint said. Amounts invested with Schwab by each of the named plaintiffs were not disclosed, although their complaint indicates they had as low as 9% and as high as 25% of their balances allocated to cash in any given month they maintained their accounts. Schwab, unlike its many robo competitors that charge annual fees based on account balance or flat monthly fees, charges no advisory fees or commissions, and derives much of its revenue from net interest margin on cash sweeps into Charles Schwab Bank, according to the complaint. A smaller share of revenue comes from a portion of client portfolios that may be invested in Schwab exchange-traded funds (ETFs), from which the company earns management fees, according to the complaint. Schwab, in its motion to dismiss, characterized the cash withholding and ETF fees as a "win-win." "This structure provides a win-win situation for fee-conscious investors by allowing Schwab to earn revenue while providing clients a balanced and professionally managed portfolio with no advisory fee," the firm's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Schwab and CSIA fully disclosed these two sources of revenue on the SIP website, in Plaintiffs' contracts, and in the disclosure documents incorporated into the contracts." Schwab also said in its motion that benchmarking the plaintiffs' portfolios to a 100% equities allocation was improper because the three plaintiffs had selected a more conservative approach to their portfolio, which "renders speculation about 100% high-risk equity portfolios entirely hypothetical." The lawsuit came on the heels of Schwab's July disclosure that it took a $200 million charge in the second quarter pertaining to an ongoing probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission that "largely concerns historic disclosures" relating to SIP. The SEC has yet to take any public action on the investigation, Schwab noted in its Nov. 8 filing. Schwab said in the motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs acknowledged that their class claim appeared to be an attempt to "read the tea leaves" from the SEC investigation. A Schwab spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the filing. The named plaintiffs, Lauren M. Barbiero, of Terrytown, Louisiana, and Kimberly J. Lopez and William K. Lopez of Walden, New York, opened Intelligent Portfolios accounts with Schwab in March 2019, April 2019 and October 2020, respectively. Barbiero closed her account in March 2020, the same month the market plummeted from widespread shutdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, but Kimberly Lopez and William Lopez remained customers of the program. [GN] CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Gaul Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CheckPeople, LLC. The case is styled as Sherry Gaul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CheckPeople, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01313-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. CheckPeople -- https://checkpeople.com/ -- is a popular paid people lookup service that allows people to search the public records database to run a background search on individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 572-7208 Email: bthomassen@edelson.com CHEERLEADERS PHILADELPHIA: Groff Slams Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Melody Groff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.A.G. Enterprises, Inc., Evans & Santarelli, Inc., John A. Meehan and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04867, (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2021) seeks redress for the denial of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding with Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal fees. Defendants operate adult-oriented entertainment facilities under the names "Cheerleaders Philadelphia," "Cheerleaders Gentlemen's Club" or "Cheerleaders" located in Philadephia, Pennsylvania where Groff worked as a dancer. She claims to be denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime being misclassified as an independent contractor. She was compensated exclusively through tips from customers but was required to share her tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips, including disk jockeys and security personnel without their knowledge, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Sherry, Jr., Esq. EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C. 1634 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 546-6636 Fax: (215) 546-0118 Email: daniel@erlegal.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com CIGNA HEALTH: Settles Proposed Suit Over Liposuction Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co. reached a tentative deal to end a proposed class action claiming it wrongly fails to cover specialized liposuction procedures for patients with lipedema, papers filed in a California federal court show. The parties announced the deal Thursday, one day before the patients' motion for class certification was due in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They plan to file a motion explaining the deal and seeking court approval by Dec. 2, they told Judge Jon S. Tigar. [GN] CORECIVIC INC: Settles Investors' Class Action for $56 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that CoreCivic Inc. and investors who say it misled them about the quality of its private prison facilities secured final authorization for their $56 million settlement from a federal judge in Tennessee. The cash deal "far exceeds the median recovery in securities class action settlements in 2020," according to an investor memo filed in support of the final approval bid. The private detention and corrections services provider didn't admit wrongdoing in settling, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee said. Judge Aleta A. Trauger certified the investor class in 2019. [GN] COTY INC: Discovery Ongoing in MA Laborers' Pension Fund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the complaint captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et al., Case No. 2019-0336-AGB seeks monetary relief. The case is currently at the discovery stage with a trial date scheduled for November 2022. The consolidated purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the "Cottage Tender Offer") and the Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company S.a r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et al., Case No. 2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), alleging that the directors and JAB Holding Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement. The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint. On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of JAB Holding Company S.a r.l. from the action. On August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to dismiss. "The case is currently at the discovery stage with a trial date scheduled for November 2022, the Company said. Coty Inc. is an American multinational beauty company founded in 1904 by François Coty. COTY INC: Evans Purported Class Suit Concluded ---------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the case captioned Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277 has been dismissed and concluded. The case is a purported stockholder class action complaint, alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the P&G beauty brands acquisition against the Company as well as certain current and former officers of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case, which was filed on September 4, 2020, is captioned Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277. On November 23, 2020, the court appointed the individual Susan Nock as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Firm as lead counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2021. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and seeks, among other things, monetary relief. On March 8, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on August 4, 2021 the court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that it failed to set forth a valid claim. "There has been no appeal of the dismissal and the Evans Action has been concluded," the Company said. Coty Inc. is an American multinational beauty company founded in 1904 by François Coty. CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Hale Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Management, L.P. The case is styled as Shane Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Management, L.P., Case No. 4:21-cv-00877-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Management LP -- https://www.creditmanagementonline.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Uri Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (215) 540-8888 Fax: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com DANWEI LLC: $27K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Perkins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUCAS PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. DAVE SINGH, an individual, and DANWEI LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01157-AC (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, granted the Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Service Payment filed Sept. 13, 2021. Background Plaintiff Perkins filed the hybrid collective and class action lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of state and federal wage-and-hour statutes and other statutory and common law claims, and seeking recovery of unpaid wages, statutory damages, civil penalties, economic and non-economic statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. The Defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court on July 26, 2019, based on the existence of federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendants wrongfully deducted all or part of the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes from employee's wages and instituted an illegal tip pool policy. On Jan. 26, 2021, the parties engaged in discovery and attended a settlement conference with Judge Beckerman of the district, after which the parties reported the case settled. The Court preliminarily certified the collective and class members, approved the settlement and settlement notice, directed the Notice be sent to the Members, and appointed lead counsel in an Order dated May 26, 2021. The Notice informed the Members of the gross settlement amount of $75,000, the Counsel's intent to seek attorney fees in the amount of one-third of the Fund and $2,000 in accrued costs and reasonably anticipated settlement administration expenses, and the Plaintiff's intent to request $2,500 as a service payment. The Notice further provided: "You may obtain a copy of the motion for attorney fees and expenses and service payment by contacting Class Counsel or online via the federal courts' PACER system. You may object to the request of Class Counsel for attorney fees and expenses by filing an objection within the time and in the manner specified below." Finally, the Notice advised objections must be made in writing, mailed by first class mail to the Counsel or the Court, and received no later than Sept. 30, 2021, or by appearing at the Oct. 12, 2021 final approval hearing. On Nov. 1, 2021, the Court granted the Joint Motion for Final Class and Collective Settlement Approval in the matter. Remaining for the Court's determination is the Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Service Payment filed Sept. 13, 2021. Discussion Judge Acosta finds the percentage-of-recovery method is the appropriate avenue for determining an attorney fee award in this instance. The requested attorney fees request of $25,000 is equivalent to 33% of the Fund, an upward departure from the benchmark fee award. Consequently, Judge Acosta not only must address the question of adequate notice but also must consider the Vizcaino factors to determine if the requested upward departure is justified. He finds that the notice of the Motion was adequate and the amounts sought for attorney fees, expenses, and the service payment are reasonable. Considering all the circumstances, Judge Acosta concludes that the Counsel's request for attorney fees equal to 33% of the Fund ($25,000) is reasonable. This finding is justified under the Vizcaino factors and the trend in numerous courts to increase the "benchmark" to approximately 30% of a common fund. Moreover, Judge Acosta finds the Counsel's request for expenses in the amount of $2,000 and the Plaintiff's request for a service payment of $2,500 are both reasonable as well. Order Judge Acosta granted the Motion. The Counsel is awarded $25,000 in attorney fees and $2,000 in accrued and reasonably anticipated settlement administration expenses, which will be paid from the Fund. Additionally, the Plaintiff is awarded a $2,500 service, which will also be paid from the Fund. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/h5bmprt5 from Leagle.com. DIAMOND TECHNICAL: Settlement Deal in Gunter Suit Initially OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW GUNTER On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DIAMOND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01428-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and scheduling fairness hearing. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement satisfies the standard for approval of a class/collective action settlement under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In an FLSA settlement, the Court must ensure "that the compromise reached is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide. The Plaintiff Andrew Gunter filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint in this Action on September 22, 2020. The Plaintiff alleged that he and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all time worked based on several theories of liability, including that Defendant allegedly: (1) failed to pay overtime based on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective and Pennsylvania classes' "regular rate" of pay; (2) failed to properly pay travel time overtime; (3) paid overtime at an artificial "regular rate" by excluding necessary payments, adjustments, and expenses from the regular rate of pay; (4) did not pay all time worked based on alleged time editing; and (5) failed to keep accurate records. The Plaintiff claimed that he and other similarly situated individuals are owed additional overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207, and Pennsylvania wage law. The Defendant Diamond Technical Services, Inc. denied Plaintiff's claims and asserted a counterclaim and affirmative defenses. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CijExu at no extra charge.[CC] EARGO INC: Faces Chung Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ALDEN CHUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARGO, INC.; CHRISTIAN GORMSEN; and ADAM LAPONIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the complaint, on August 12, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that claims submitted to the Company's largest third-party payor, which accounted for 80% of Eargo's accounts receivable, had not been paid since March 1, 2021. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.00, or over 24%, to close at $24.70 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On September 22, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that "it is the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (the 'DOJ') related to insurance reimbursement claims the Company has submitted on behalf of customers covered by federal employee health plans." Moreover, the DOJ is the "principal contact related to the subject matter of the [ongoing] audit" of Eargo by an insurance company that is the Company's largest third-party payor. As a result of the foregoing, Eargo withdrew its full year financial guidance. On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.81, or over 68%, to close at $6.86 per share on September 23, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Eargo had improperly sought reimbursements from certain third-party payors; (ii) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (iii) that, as a result and because the reimbursements at issue involved the Company's largest third-party payor, Eargo's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (iv) 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. EARGO, INC. operates as a medical device company. The Company offers hearing aids systems and devices for the treatment of hearing loss. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com ECKERT COLD: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eckert Cold Storage Company, et al. The case is styled as Leonel Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eckert Cold Storage Company, a California corporation; Balance Staffing Workforce, LLC, a limited liability company; Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010495 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Eckert Cold Storage Company -- https://eckertcs.com/ -- is a cold storage facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com EHEALTH INC: Faces Patel and Bertrand Class Suits ------------------------------------------------- eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company filed an answer to the complaints captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.) and denying any wrongdoing. On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, the two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, the Company's then-chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, the Company's then-chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung, and the Company's then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the Company's accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and the Company's profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that the Company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On June 24, 2020, the court consolidated the above-referenced matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2020, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on October 23, 2020. The Defendants' motion, which the plaintiff opposed, was granted in part and denied in part on August 12, 2021. "The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims to the extent premised upon alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to churn, but denied the Defendants motion with respect to alleged misstatements regarding purported operating costs," the company said. On October 1, 2021, the Company filed an answer denying in part and admitting in part the remaining allegations, and denying any wrongdoing. eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. EISAI INC: Gibriano Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eisai, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amy Gibriano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eisai, Inc., Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-19937-JXN-LDW (D.N.J., Nov. 11, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Eisai -- https://www.eisai.com/index.html -- is a Japanese pharmaceutical company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave New York, NY 10106 Phone: (646) 837-7129 Email: aobergfell@bursor.com ELECTRONIC CONTROL: Povarnitson FCRA Suit Goes to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEKSANDR POVARNITSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a ALBIREO ENERGY, LLC; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 37-2021-43575-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on November 15, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01948-AJB-JLB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California state statute, and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act by failing to provide the necessary disclosure to employees and failing to provide the necessary certification to the credit reporting agency the Defendant used to conduct its background checks. Electronic Control Systems, LLC is a provider of building technology solutions to commercial property owners and managers, headquartered in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: John D. Vaughn, Esq. Jeffrey A. Feasby, Esq. Christopher W. Rowlett, Esq. PEREZ VAUGHN & FEASBY INC. 600 B Street, Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 784-3549 Facsimile: (619) 460-0437 E-mail: rowlett@pvflaw.com EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES: Linemen Slam Misclassification, Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Mann, Mackenzy Hamby, Nathaniel Hamby and Kevin Trunnell, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Emergent Technologies Group, LLC and Ronald Pearcey, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04559 (N.D. Ga., November 4, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and also assert individual Georgia state-law claims against Emergent for breach of contract and, in the alternative, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Emergent contracts with third parties to install telecommunication networks, including fiber-optic networks. Plaintiffs worked as linemen for Emergent Technologies providing telecommunication-installation services, including the hanging or burying of fiber-optic lines, to third-party clients with which Emergent had contracted to provide such services. Plaintiffs claim to be classified an independent contractors and paid a flat daily rate for each workday, regardless of the number of hours worked per day or hours worked each week in excess of 40 hours per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael David Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: 678.780.4880 Facsimile: 478.575.2590 Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com ENVIROCON: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Estevez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENVIROCON TECHNOLOGIES INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-08893 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2021) is class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, who is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, brings this complaint alleging the Defendant of failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software. The Plaintiff claims that they were denied access to the Defendant's website when they attempted to transact business to purchase products, goods, and/or services due to multiple access barriers which they have encountered. These access barriers have deterred them from learning about the various products sold to sighted individuals because they were unable to determine and/or purchase items from its website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide them equal access to the website. In addition, the Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. Envirocon Technologies Investments, LLC is an online retail company that owns and operates a website www.lemishine.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St., 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Tel: (212) 595-6200 Fax: (212) 59-9700 E-mail: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com EPIC HOME: Arroyo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epic Home Solar, et al. The case is styled as Isidro Arroyo, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Epic Home Solar, a California corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00310634-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 3, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Epic Solar Inc. -- https://www.thinkepic.com/ -- is a full service Solar company serving the Central Valley and surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Rodriguez, Esq. JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS, A Prof. Corp. 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., # 412 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805 Phone: 213-280-8908 ERIE COUNTY PRISON: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie County Prison. The case is styled as Christopher Steven Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Erie County Prison, and through its Warden, Case No. 1:21-cv-00314-RAL (W.D. Pa., Nov. 12, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Erie County Prison -- https://eriecountypa.gov/departments/corrections/ -- is a minimum-security Adult in Erie, Erie County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. EVOLENT HEALTH: Class Cert. Deadlines in PCRS Case Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., FRANK WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS MCGRANE, SETH BLACKLEY, CHRISTIE SPENCER, and STEVEN WIGGINTON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01031-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan entered an order that: 1. The joint motion seeking a stay of deadlines relating to class certification is granted; and 2. After Plaintiffs file their forthcoming Third Amended Complaint, the Parties will promptly meet and confer regarding a proposed briefing schedule relating to class certification and will submit the same to the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HqVPYa at no extra charge.[CC] EXEL INC: Huling Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exel Inc. The case is styled as Aaron Huling, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXEL INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010526 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain -- https://www.dhl.com/us-en/home/ -- provides logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com F. RUGGIERO & SONS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against F. Ruggiero & Sons of Westchester, Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. F. Ruggiero & Sons of Westchester, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09351-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. F. Ruggiero & Sons of Westchester, Inc. -- https://ruggieroandsonsfh.com/ -- is a fifth generation funeral home which has been independently owned and operated by the Ruggiero family since 1875.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com FARFETCH LTD: Pension Funds Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Lead Plaintiffs, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers National Pension Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE FARFETCH LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08657-AJN-BCM, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Farfetch securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018 initial public offering. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933. On September 24, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 50.88 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $20.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $750.5 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to fund incremental growth and other general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions. On August 8, 2019, Farfetch reported a larger-than-expected loss of $89.6 million for second quarter 2019. The Company also announced a $675 million acquisition of New Guards Group and that its Chief Operating Officer had resigned. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.12, or over 44%, to close at $10.13 per share on August 9, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading as low as $10.20 per share, a nearly 50% decline from the $20 per share IPO price. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that large scale online wholesale was reasonably likely to lead to pricing volatility and heavy promotions of luxury goods; (2) that the Company's core business was vulnerable to such pricing pressures; (3) that the Company would aggressively pursue acquisitions to remain profitable; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Lead Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Judgment dated September 30, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE FARFETCH LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 21-2752, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 29, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers National Pension Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System are represented by: John C. Browne, Esq. Hannah G. Ross, Esq. Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq. Michael M. Mathai, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1448 E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com lauren@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. Michelle Newcomer, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jdancona@ktmc.com gcastaldo@ktmc.com mnewcomer@ktmc.com rjanove@ktmc.com - and - John D. Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street 52nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 E-mail: jzaremba@zarembabrown.com FASTLY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fastly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss the case captioned In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation and the Company is awaiting a decision on said motion. On August 27, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Marcos Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:20-cv-06024-PJH) naming as defendants the Company and certain of the Company's officers. On September 15, 2020, a substantively identical complaint was filed against the same defendants in the same court, captioned Rami Habib v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:20-cv-06454-JST). On September 27, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases into one putative class action, captioned In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 10, 2021, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 12, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The Consolidated Complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false or misleading statements between May 6, 2020 and October 14, 2020 regarding the Company's business and financials, including allegations that the Company failed to disclose the identity of one of its largest customers. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that certain of the Company's officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On June 11, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint that Lead Plaintiff opposed on July 26, 2021, and defendants filed a reply on September 1, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on November 4, 2021. The Company is awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss. Fastly, Inc. provides infrastructure software. The Company offers cloud computing, image optimization, security, edge computer technology, and streaming solutions. Fastly serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. FEDERAL BUREAU: Brankle Files Suit in D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. The case is styled as David W. Brankle, and similarly situated inmates at FCI Sandstone v. FEDERAL BUREAU; MICHAEL CARVAJAL Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; BARB VON BLANKENSEE, Regional Dir. North Central Region, Fed. Bureau of Prisons; J. FIKES Warden, FCI Sandstone, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, R. DRUMMY, Dir. Health Servs., FCI Sandstone; R. WORLICK, Captain, FCI Sandstone; ANY AND ALL UNNAMED SUBORDINATES OF THE PARTIES LISTED ABOVE; in their official capacity, jointly and severally; Case No. 1:21-cv-02918-UNA (D.D.C., Nov. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Federal Bureau of Prisons -- http://www.bop.gov/-- is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FENIX INTERNET: Faces Biometric Privacy Law Class Action in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the parent company of OnlyFans has become the latest target of a class action lawsuit launched under Illinois' biometrics privacy law, with the suit claiming OnlyFans has improperly scanned the faces of content creators in Illinois, when the creators are forced to verify their age and identity using a facial recognition program. On Nov. 5, attorneys Eugene Y. Turin and Colin P. Buscarini, of the firm of McGuire Law, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Fenix Internet LLC. Fenix is identified in the complaint as the corporate entity through which OnlyFans content creators are paid. In recent years, and particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, social media platform OnlyFans has boomed into an online behemoth of video content. The growth has been almost entirely driven by the ability of sex workers and pornographers to use the platform to share and monetize adult sexual content. Content creators are paid through OnlyFans from people who purchased either a monthly subscription to specific content creators, or who purchase specific content from the creators. According to the complaint, OnlyFans now boasts more than 130 million user accounts worldwide, purchasing media content from more than 2 million content creator accounts. Most OnlyFans users are located in the U.S., with many in Illinois, the complaint said. According to the complaint, OnlyFans reported more than $1.2 billion in purchases from visitors in 2020 alone. In response to rising complaints from the public of content potentially containing underage "creators," OnlyFans launched a program to require content creators to verify their identity and age before they can post content or get paid. Under the automated process, the complaint said, OnlyFans requires potential creators to submit a photo of themselves, taken as a selfie. They are then required to submit a photo of their official government photo ID, such as a drivers license, showing their date of birth. According to the complaint, OnlyFans then uses a program to create a "geometric profile of their face" and compare it to "the biometric profile that it extracts from the user's ID document to see if they match." The complaint asserts OnlyFans has thus "collected the facial biometrics of thousands of individuals, including Illinois residents." According to the complaint, the named plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, has been an OnlyFans content creator since 2019. She was allegedly required to re-verify her age and identity using OnlyFans' automated verification program in 2021. According to the complaint, OnlyFans' verification program violates the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA.) In the past six years, a growing number of plaintiffs' law firms, including McGuire Law, have used the BIPA law to launch thousands of class action lawsuits against businesses of all kinds and sizes. The lawsuits typically accuse businesses of violating technical provisions of the law, which require businesses to secure written consent from people, and provide them certain notices, before scanning their biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, retinal scans, or, as in this case, facial geometry. Many of the lawsuits have particularly targeted employers, accusing them of improperly requiring workers to scan their fingerprints to verify their identities when punching in and out of work shifts. However, a number of other class actions under BIPA have taken aim at social media and big tech companies, including Facebook, Google, Shutterfly and others. Facebook, for instance, was sued over its photo tagging programs, which scan the faces of people depicted in photos uploaded to Facebook, and then creates and saves a template of those faces, enabling the program to locate that person in all other photos in which they appear on Facebook. The class actions have netted substantial settlements. Facebook agreed to pay $650 million to settle the BIPA class action over its tagging software. Class actions against employers typically have brought in settlements ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to $25 million. A growing number of businesses are opting to settle, rather than go to trial, and risk potential ruinous judgments in the face of a law that gives plaintiffs the chance to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation – with individual violations defined by some courts under the law as each time a biometric identifier is scanned. In the OnlyFans complaint, the plaintiffs assert OnlyFans violated BIPA by allegedly failing to publish a policy with "a schedule and guidelines" explaining how the facial scans would be handled and ultimately destroyed; allegedly improperly using the facial scans for profit; and allegedly failing to secure the facial scans and users' data from former employees of OnlyFans and Fenix. The complaint seeks damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. The plaintiffs seek to expand the lawsuit to include potentially thousands of OnlyFans users in Illinois who submitted photos of their faces and IDs through OnlyFans' identity and age verification system. [GN] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Settlement in Two CA Class Suits Awaits Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- First Advantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that two separate class action cases were filed against the Company in the State of California. The two cases are now being coordinated together under a single judge and a settlement agreement has been agreed to, pending final court approval. As a result, the Company has recorded a total liability of $6.3 million for these two cases at September 30, 2021 (Successor) and December 31, 2020 (Successor). This liability represents the Company's agreed-upon settlement amount and related class action administrative fees. Additionally, the Company maintains liability insurance programs to manage its litigation risks and the Company's insurers have agreed to a single deductible to be applied to the two cases. "As a result, the Company has recorded a total insurance recoverable asset of $2.2 million for these two cases at September 30, 2021 (Successor) and December 31, 2020 (Successor), which represents the portion of the legal settlement and legal fees incurred expected to be recovered from the Company's insurers," the Company said. This is included in prepaid expenses and other current assets in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. First Advantage Corporation is an international provider of risk mitigation and business solutions. The company operates in six primary business segments: Lender Services, Data Services, Dealer Services, Employer Services, Multifamily Services, and Investigative and Litigation Support Services. It serves mortgage lenders, automobile dealerships, real estate investment trusts and property management companies, many of the top providers of transportation services, insurance agents, the national law firms, and non-profit organizations. FIRSTENERGY: Judge Certifies Electricity Surcharge Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters, reports that Ohio ratepayers who claim they were wrongly charged on their electricity bills to bail out failing nuclear power plants in the state can sue electric utility FirstEnergy Corp as a class, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus in Columbus on Nov. 9 certified a class of Ohio residents who were charged a monthly surcharge for electricity under a state law, House Bill 6, designed to raise about $1 billion to subsidize plants owned by a former FirstEnergy subsidiary. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, a Republican who championed the law, was federally charged last year with conspiring to secure its passage in exchange for $60 million in bribes. Householder has pleaded not guilty. Last July, Ohio resident Jacob Smith filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act civil lawsuit against FirstEnergy, claiming that tens of thousands of customers like him were wrongly charged on their electricity bills to subsidize the survival of Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants. Two similar proposed class action lawsuits were later filed and consolidated with Smith's. Smith's complaint claims that the $60 million bribe allegedly paid to Householder and his associates originated with FirstEnergy and a subsidiary. Jennifer Young, a FirstEnergy spokesperson, said the company is "unable to comment on pending litigation." Lawyers representing Smith and the other plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The defendants in the cases, who also include FirstEnergy's ex-chief executive Charles Jones, did not oppose the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, Sargus said in his ruling. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed legislation, in March, that ends the customer-funded subsidies for the plants, according to local media. FirstEnergy agreed in July as part of a deferred prosecution agreement to pay $230 million to settle U.S. charges that it conspired to pay millions of dollars to elected state officials to pursue House Bill 6. The Ohio-based company serves over two million customers in Ohio, the Nov. 9 ruling said. The cases are Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al; Hudock et al v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al; James Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Nos. 2:20-cv-3755; 2:20-cv-3954; 2:20-cv-3987. For Smith: Margaret Murray, William Bartle and Dennis Murray of Murray & Murray For Hudock et al: Dennis Murray and Margaret Murray of Murray & Murray; and Richard Kerger of The Kerger Law Firm For James Buldas: Dennis Murray of Murray & Murray; and Richard Kerger of The Kerger Law Firm For First FirstEnergy Corp.: Michael Gladman of Jones Day For Charles Jones: Carole Rendon of Baker & Hostetler [GN] FOLLETT HIGHER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Follett Higher Education Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09449 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Follett -- https://highered.follett.com/ -- is an ed-tech company that provides textbooks, test preparation materials and digital contents for schools, libraries and colleges.[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 FORD MOTOR: Wins Arbitration Bid in Straub; Ranums' Claims Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Christopher Straub, et al., Plaintiffs v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-10634 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss to the extent that the Court dismisses all claims asserted by James and Christie Ranum with prejudice. Background On March 22, 2021, named Plaintiffs Christopher Straub, and James and Christie Ranum, filed the putative class action against Defendant Ford, asserting claims relating to their vehicles. After Ford filed a Motion to Dismiss, the Court issued its standard order, giving the Plaintiffs the option of either responding to the motion or filing an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs opted to file an amended complaint and did so on June 18, 2021. The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint is now the operative complaint and it includes the same parties. It includes the following five counts: 1) "Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq. (on behalf of the proposed Nationwide Class)" (First Claim for Relief); 2) "Breach of Implied Warranty (on behalf of the proposed Classes)" (Second Claim for Relief); 3) "Breach of Express Warranties (On Behalf of the Proposed Classes)" (Third Claim for Relief); 4) "Violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 (on behalf of the North Carolina Sub-Class)" (Fourth Claim for Relief); and 5) "Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201, et seq. (on behalf of the Florida Sub-Class)" (Fifth Claim for Relief). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a Nationwide Class, a North Carolina Sub-Class, and a Florida Subclass as follows: a. Nationwide Class: "All current and former owners or lessees of a 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018 model year Ford Edge model vehicles equipped with an Ecoboost 2-liter engine (the Nationwide Class)." b. North Carolina Sub-Class: "All current and former owners or lessees of a 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018 model year Ford Edge model vehicles equipped with an Ecoboost 2-liter engine, who reside in the state of North Carolina, and who purchased or leased their vehicles in the State of North Carolina (the North Carolina Sub-Class)." c. Florida Sub-Class: "All current and former owners or lessees of a 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018 model year Ford Edge model vehicles equipped with an Ecoboost 2-liter engine, who reside in the state of Florida, and who purchased or leased their vehicles in the State of Florida (the Florida Sub-Class)." Plaintiff Straub brings his claims on his own behalf and on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the North Carolina Sub-Class, while the Ranums bring their claims on their own behalf and on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the Florida Sub-Class. The Ranums are citizens of Florida. On Jan. 13, 2017, the Ranums purchased a certified, pre-owned 2015 Ford Edge Titanium Eco-Boost from Off Lease Orlando, Florida. Plaintiff Christopher Straub is a North Carolina citizen. On Aug. 10, 2015, Straub leased a new 2015 Ford Edge from Crossroads Ford located in Fuquay Varina, North Carolina. The lease includes a provision concerning arbitration. Analysis Ford filed two motions: 1) a motion seeking to compel Plaintiff Straub to arbitrate his claims; and 2) a motion to dismiss that challenges all claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint. I. Ford's Motion To Compel Plaintiff Straub's Express Warranty And MMWA Claims To Arbitration In response to Ford's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff Straub now agrees that his implied warranty and consumer-protection-act claims should be dismissed. That leaves his express warranty claim and his derivative MMWA claim remaining against Ford in this case. Ford's Motion to Compel contends that Straub is required to arbitrate those claims. Ford's motion contains a primary argument -- that it is the arbitrator (and not the Court) who decides if Straub's claims against Ford are subject to arbitration and the Court should refer the matter without deciding anything else. Additionally or alternatively, Ford argues that even if this Court were to reach the question of arbitrability, it should compel arbitration of Straub's claims because: 1) Straub signed a valid arbitration agreement, and his claims are within its scope; and 2) Ford is entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in Straub's Lease under principles of estoppel. Judge Cox holds opines that under plain language of the agreement, Ford is not a party who may choose to have a claim decided by arbitration. He further opines that Ford's duty to comply with its warranty arose only when Straub leased the vehicle. Had Straub not signed the Lease for that vehicle, he would not have received the warranty at issue from Ford. Judge Cox rules that Defendant Ford is entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in Straub's Lease under principles of estoppel. Accordingly, he will grant Ford's motion asking this Court to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his express warranty claim and his MMWA claim asserted against Ford and the action will be stayed as to those claims. He must still, however, analyze Ford's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to the claims asserted by the Ranums. II. Ford's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint Ford's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint is brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Ford's motion challenges the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims on several grounds. In response to Ford's Motion to Dismiss, the "Plaintiffs agree that they lack direct privity with Ford and that no applicable exception to the privity requirement exists." Thus, the Ranums' implied warranty claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Ford's motion includes a number of challenges to the express and implied warranty claims asserted by the Ranums under Florida law, and their derivative MMWA claims asserted under federal law. Among other things, Ford's motion asserts that the Ranums' express and implied warranty claims fail under Florida law, for lack of privity. Ford's motion also challenged the derivative MMWA claims asserted by the Ranums. Judge Cox finds that the Plaintiffs' brief did not respond to Ford's challenge to the Ranums' express warranty claim as failing due to lack of privity -- other than to concede that they lack privity with Ford. As such, the Ranums have therefore conceded (and also waived) their express warranty claims. Judge Cox will therefore dismiss the Ranums' express warranty claims with prejudice. And given that ruling, he will also dismiss their derivative MMWA claims as well, because they rise or fall with the state-law warranty claims. That leaves the Ranums' consumer-protection-act claim under the Florida statute. The Ranums assert a consumer-protection-act claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). Ford challenges this count on a number of fronts. Among other things, it contends that the Ranums' FDUTPA claim must be dismissed because it is untimely and because the Ranums have failed to allege fraudulent concealment with sufficient particularity. Judge Cox opines that the Ranums' allegations amount to a claim of mere non-disclosure of the alleged defect, which is insufficient under Florida law to toll the statute of limitations under a fraudulent concealment theory. He will dismiss the Ranums' FDUPTA claim with prejudice as time-barred. Conclusion & Order Judge Cox concludes that Plaintiff Christopher Straub now agrees that his implied warranty and consumer-protection-act claims against the Defendant should be dismissed and, therefore, he dismisses those claims with prejudice. The Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted to the extent that the Court orders that Plaintiff Christopher Straub will arbitrate his express warranty claim and his derivative MMWA claim against the Defendant and the action is stayed as to those claims. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted to the extent that the Court dismisses all claims asserted by James and Christie Ranum with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z54asvk from Leagle.com. FORWARD AIR: Faces Arnold Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIEL ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORWARD AIR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00170 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 3, 2021) is an action arising out of the recent data breach that was allowed by the Defendant, which held in its possession the personally identifiable information ("PII") of former and current employees who reside across the United States (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the PII exposed in the Data Breach included, among other things: names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and bank account numbers. The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the PII of former and current employees, the suit says. The Defendant allegedly disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard PII; and failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 311 22nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 983-8900 Facsimile: (615) 682-8533 Email: john@spragenslaw.com -and- David K. Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: dlietz@masonllp.com -and- Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gklinger@masonllp.com GAOTU TECHEDU: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley (collectively, "Defendants"), charging both companies with violations of the federal securities laws, including insider trading, relating to their unlawful disposal of Gaotu Techedu Inc. ("Gaotu") (NYSE: GOTU) American Depository Shares. Defendants' unlawful sales of Gaotu shares allowed them collectively to avoid billions in losses while investors suffered significantly. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 20, 2021 CLASS PERIOD: March 22, 2021 through March 29, 2021 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial services institutions that served as the prime brokers for Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office investment fund with $10 billion under management and whose assets included ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS") and Gaotu, both of which Archegos had big concentrated positions in. Unbeknownst to investors and regulators, Defendants had simultaneously allowed Archegos to take on billions of dollars of exposure to volatile equities through swaps contracts, dramatically elevating the risk posed by these concentrated positions. On March 25, 2021, MoffettNathanson published a report questioning ViacomCBS's value, downgrading the stock to a "sell," and setting a price target of only $55 per share, compared to the company's $85 offer. Following that report, ViacomCBS's stock fell dramatically and closed at $48 per share on Friday, March 26, 2021. Since Archegos had traded ViacomCBS on margin, it was required to maintain a certain amount of collateral to avoid triggering a margin call. On March 27, 2021, it was reported that Archegos failed to cover and, as a result, had to liquidate more than $20 billion of its leveraged equity positions on Friday, March 26, 2021. Then, on April 6, 2021, CNBC.com reported that "Morgan Stanley sold about $5 billion in shares from Archegos' doomed bets on U.S. media and Chinese tech names to a small group of hedge funds late Thursday, March 25," before the MoffettNathanson report reached the public. The article also reported that Goldman Sachs quickly disposed of its shares tied to Archegos. These sales by Defendants were made with confidential, insider information, including that Gaotu was among the few securities Archegos had to liquidate, and allowed Defendants to unlawfully avoid billions of dollars in losses combined. WHAT CAN I DO? Gaotu investors may, no later than December 20, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer& Check, LLP encourages Gaotu investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] GAOTU TECHEDU: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Gaotu Techedu Inc., formerly known as GSX Techedu Inc. ("Gaotu" or the "Company") (NYSE: GOTU), between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Gaotu ADSs during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Gaotu investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Gaotu Securities Class Litigation The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley traded in Gaotu ADSs while in possession of material non-public information that Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management, failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Gaotu. Defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of shares of Archegos's doomed bets, including billions of dollars' worth of Gaotu securities beginning on March 25, 2021, before the market learned of Archegos's collapse. As a result of these insider sales, defendants avoided billions of dollars in losses. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos but disposed of their Gaotu shares to class members anyway before the news about Archegos was revealed and the price of Gaotu shares plummeted. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. CONTACT: Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN] GARRYMORE RESTAURANT: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfredo Marcelo Agapito Velasquez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GARRYMORE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a NILES, CO'R RESTAURANT L.L.C. d/b/a O'REILLY'S PUB & RESTAURANT, M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MACCOOL'S, and CORNELIUS O'REILLY, Case No. 1:21-cv-09407 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation due to time-shaving, unpaid spread of hours premiums, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements under the NYLL because they failed to provide proper wage statement due to the unpaid spread of hours premiums and the fact that the Plaintiff and Class members were paid cash for hours exceeded 40 each week. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members would receive pay stubs without any information regarding their overtime hours worked. In other words, the Plaintiff and Class members did not receive proper wage statements, as their statements failed to accurately reflect the number of hours worked and their proper compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was to work as a dishwasher for Defendants' Nile's restaurant. The Defendants owns and operates the restaurants as a single integrated enterprise namely: Niles, O'Reilly's Pub & Restaurant and Finn MacCool's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 GASEARCH LLC: Werner Sues Over Natural Gas Contract Cancellation ---------------------------------------------------------------- WERNER PROPERTIES, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASEARCH, LLC, SUSAN FAITH, THE EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY, DOMINION ENERGY, INC., and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV 21 955721 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., November 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, deceptive trade practices, corporate veil piercing, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and declaratory or injunctive relief. The case arises from the abrupt cancellation of natural gas supply contracts for Gasearch, LLC's customers in Ohio that are serviced by Dominion Energy, Inc. Gasearch failed to purchase or otherwise secure enough amounts of natural gas at prices that would allow the company to fulfill its obligations under these contracts at the time they were signed or thereafter. The cancellation occurred after the surge of natural gas prices. As a result of the Defendants' breach of their contractual obligations, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed, the suit says. Werner Properties, Inc. is an operator of commercial real estate in Ohio. Gasearch, LLC is a natural gas supplier based in Youngstown, Ohio. The East Ohio Gas Company is a gas company located in Cleveland, Ohio. Dominion Energy, Inc. is an American power and energy company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan T. Byron, Esq. KAUFMAN, DROZDOWSKI & GRENDELL, LLC 29525 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250 Pepper Pike, OH 44122 Telephone: (440) 462-6500 Facsimile: (440) 462-6504 E-mail: etb@kdglegal.com GEICO: Approval of Notice to Adjuster Class Sought in Pugliese -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC PUGLIESE On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No. 1:21-cv-11629-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the following relief: 1. That GEICO provide Plaintiffs, within 10 days from the date of the Court's Order granting this Motion, the names, last known addresses, home and cellular phone numbers, and work and personal e-mail addresses of those individuals who work or worked for GEICO as Automobile and/or Residential and/or Catastrophic Adjusters I and/or II and/or III within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the period October 2018 through March 2021; 2. That the Court authorize the Notice to be immediately issued by first class mail, electronic mail, and text message to those individuals whose names are provided; 3. That the Court authorize the Consent to Join Lawsuit Form, to be enclosed with the Notice to Potential Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope; and 4. That the potential class members be allowed to opt-in to this action at any time up to 60 days after the mailing and/or e-mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms to those individuals whose names are provided. The Plaintiffs Marc Pugliese and Michael Loughlin, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former Automobile and/or Residential and/or Catastrophic Adjusters I and/or II and/or III (Adjusters) employed within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO, submit this Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional Certification. The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cq888x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Pushee, Esq. FORMISANO & CO., P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite 1 Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: (401) 944-9691 E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com GENERAL REVENUE: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Santiago Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CASSANDRA SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-19983-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., November 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff concerning her alleged financial obligation to Capella University. The Defendant did not break-out or itemize the total balance presented to the Plaintiff by principal, penalties, late fees, court costs or other charges. The Defendant did not have the legal or contractual authority to assess late charges on the Capella obligation. Capella never authorized the Defendant to charge or add late charges to the balance of the said obligation. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive letter, the Plaintiff's ability to intelligently choose her response or know the amount actually owed to Capella has been affected. General Revenue Corporation is a debt collection company with its principal place of business located at 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 200, Mason, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 GLOBAL HOME: Rudneva Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ Liudmila Rudneva, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. GLOBAL HOME CARE, INC., J&A HEALTH SERVICES, LLC A/K/A GLOBAL HOME CARE, AND BIG HEART HOME CARE LLC A/K/A MERLMAX CHALLENGE HOME CARE, Case No. 160367/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 15, 2021). Global Home Health Care Inc. -- http://www.globalhomehealthcare.com/-- is a home health care company with a strong passion for people and the community.[BN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley (collectively, "Defendants"), charging both companies with violations of the federal securities laws, including insider trading, relating to their unlawful disposal of Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX Techedu Inc. ("Gaotu") (NYSE: GOTU) American Depository Shares. Defendants' unlawful sales of Gaotu shares allowed them collectively to avoid billions in losses while investors suffered significantly. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 20, 2021 CLASS PERIOD: March 22, 2021 through March 29, 2021 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial services institutions that served as the prime brokers for Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office investment fund with $10 billion under management and whose assets included ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS") and Gaotu, both of which Archegos had big concentrated positions in. Unbeknownst to investors and regulators, Defendants had simultaneously allowed Archegos to take on billions of dollars of exposure to volatile equities through swaps contracts, dramatically elevating the risk posed by these concentrated positions. On March 25, 2021, MoffettNathanson published a report questioning ViacomCBS's value, downgrading the stock to a "sell," and setting a price target of only $55 per share, compared to the company's $85 offer. Following that report, ViacomCBS's stock fell dramatically and closed at $48 per share on Friday, March 26, 2021. Since Archegos had traded ViacomCBS on margin, it was required to maintain a certain amount of collateral to avoid triggering a margin call. On March 27, 2021, it was reported that Archegos failed to cover and, as a result, had to liquidate more than $20 billion of its leveraged equity positions on Friday, March 26, 2021. Then, on April 6, 2021, CNBC.com reported that "Morgan Stanley sold about $5 billion in shares from Archegos' doomed bets on U.S. media and Chinese tech names to a small group of hedge funds late Thursday, March 25," before the MoffettNathanson report reached the public. The article also reported that Goldman Sachs quickly disposed of its shares tied to Archegos. These sales by Defendants were made with confidential, insider information, including that Gaotu was among the few securities Archegos had to liquidate, and allowed Defendants to unlawfully avoid billions of dollars in losses combined. WHAT CAN I DO? Gaotu investors may, no later than December 20, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Gaotu investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Averts $4.3BB British Class Action Over iPhone Tracking ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kirstin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that the UK Supreme Court has blocked a planned 3.2 billion pound ($4.3 billion) British class action against Google (GOOGL.O) over allegations the internet giant unlawfully tracked the personal information of millions of iPhone users. Britain's top judges unanimously granted a Google appeal against the country's first such data privacy case on Nov. 10, a move that upsets a string of similar claims waiting in the wings against companies such as Facebook and TikTok. The landmark case led by Richard Lloyd, a consumer rights activist and the former director of Which? magazine, sought to extend Britain's class action regime to include compensation claims for alleged misuse of data -- even if there is no obvious financial loss or distress. Lloyd, backed by a commercial litigation funder, alleged Google secretly took more than 5 million Apple (AAPL.O) iPhone users' personal data between 2011 and 2012 by bypassing default privacy settings on Safari browsers to track internet browsing histories, and used this for commercial purposes. "We are bitterly disappointed that the Supreme Court has failed to do enough to protect the public from Google and other Big Tech firms who break the law," he said. His lawyer, James Oldnall from law firm Milberg, called it a "dark day when corporate greed is valued over our right to privacy". Google said it had focused for years on products and infrastructure that respect and protect people's privacy, and that the claim was related to events that took place a decade ago and had been addressed at the time. British business also welcomed the ruling. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said allowing such a case could have put a chill on investment and impacted firms across the economy. "The Supreme Court has recognised that the 'loss of control' of an individual's personal data is not, in and of itself, sufficient to found a collective action for compensation," said Kate Scott, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance. "Data litigation will undoubtedly continue, but with a focus on claims where actual damage has been suffered -- which is the right outcome for all businesses, and not just big Tech like Google." Under a U.S.-style representative or class action, a group of people affected by the same issue are represented by a single person and are automatically part of a lawsuit, without individually signing up, unless they opt out. Proponents of such lawsuits say they allow access to justice for those with small individual claims or without sufficient financial resources to take on often large, powerful companies. Critics say such lawsuits fuel claims without merit, driven by opportunistic commercial litigation funders and law firms. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Hunton Andrews Kurth Discusses UK High Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, disclosed that on November 10, 2021, the UK Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the Lloyd v Google case. The decision is expected to make it difficult in practice for a future class-action lawsuit that is brought on behalf of a class of individuals who have not actively opted into being represented by the lead claimant to proceed under UK law. The Lloyd case concerned alleged violations by Google in 2011 and 2012 of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (the "DPA") in connection with the collection and use of the browser-generated information of approximately four million UK-based Apple iPhone users. Lloyd alleged, on his own behalf, and on behalf of the approximately four million other iPhone users (who had not affirmatively agreed to be represented by Lloyd), that Google's use of the browser-generated information violated the DPA and sought compensation for the damage allegedly suffered. Pursuant to the UK's Civil Procedure Rules, Lloyd was required to seek the permission of the court to serve his claim outside of the UK against Google in the U.S. In the first instance, Lloyd's request to serve the claim on Google in the U.S. was rejected on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and that the representative claim brought on behalf of the other claimants was inappropriate to the nature of the relief sought. That decision at first instance was subsequently overturned by the UK Court of Appeal, which held that the representative claim was appropriate and that there was a reasonable prospect of success of the claim, on the basis that mere "loss of control" of personal data was sufficient to give rise to a claim for damages under the compensatory scheme of the DPA. The Court of Appeal's decision was subsequently appealed by Google to the UK Supreme Court, on the grounds that (1) the facts pleaded by Lloyd could not provide any basis for a claim for compensation under the DPA; and (2) the court should not permit the claim to continue as a representative claim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Google, finding that the representative claim against Google should not be allowed to proceed. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court considered the following: The statutory scheme of the DPA does not permit the recovery of compensation for the mere "loss of control" of personal data. Instead, compensation may be awarded only when a data subject has suffered some form of material damage (in practice, financial loss or distress) as a result of a violation of the law. Compensation will not be recoverable in relation to a violation of the law that does not result in tangible, material damage. The representative claim by Lloyd on behalf of the other affected individuals should not be allowed to proceed, as Lloyd was unable to demonstrate that each of those individuals who he represented in the claim had suffered a violation of their rights under the DPA and material damage as a result of that violation. As a general matter, a representative claim of the type advanced by Lloyd is appropriate only in circumstances where all members of the representative class have suffered the same loss, and it is not appropriate in circumstances where an individual assessment of the impact of the alleged violation on each member of the class is required. Accordingly, the UK Supreme Court did not grant Lloyd permission to serve the claim against Google in the U.S., effectively bringing it to an end. While the judgment considered provisions included in the DPA that were in force at the time of the alleged violation, equivalent provisions are included in the UK General Data Protection Regulation ("UK GDPR"), and the ruling is likely to be applicable going forward to representative claims advanced on the basis of the right to compensation that is included in the UK GDPR. The decision will be welcomed by controllers because it (1) limits the future prospects of representative claims of the nature of that advanced by Lloyd, and (2) provides reassurance that mere technical breaches of the UK GDPR that do not result in material damage to data subjects are not a sufficient ground for a compensatory award. Going forward, actions for collective redress in relation to violations of data protection law in the UK likely will need to be based on the affirmative opt-in of the represented claimants, and each claimant will need to demonstrate the material damage that they suffered. [GN] GREG WALTERS: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Arbitration Awards ------------------------------------------------------------------ John B. Lewis, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article posted at the law firm's Employment Class Action Blog, reports that one might expect that the plain text of a statutory provision would be in line with the overall goal of the law. But when that statute is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), it's not necessarily the case. And many people even differ on what the original intent of the FAA was in 1925. In the law firm's June 16, 2021 blog article, it outlined the issues and challenges in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, which was argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 2, 2021. In Badgerow, the Court must decide whether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, as opposed to Section 4, which governs petitions to compel arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. Secs. 9 and 10 compared to Sec. 4. As we stated in our June 16 blog, if the Court's opinion is driven solely by the language of the act's Section 4, it could have a far different result then the presumed purpose of the FAA - to facilitate enforcement of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court's prior decisions laid the groundwork for many of the interpretive concerns raised during the oral argument. For example, "[T]he Act is 'something of an anomaly' in the realm of federal legislation: It 'bestow[s] no federal jurisdiction but rather require[es] [for access to a federal forum] an independent jurisdictional basis over the parties' dispute.'" Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), quoting Moses H. Cove Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25, n. 32 (1983). And in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 566 U.S. 49, 66 (2009), Justice Ginsburg found the unique language of Section 4 providing that a petition to compel arbitration can be filed in "any United States district which, save for [the arbitration] agreement, which would have jurisdiction under title 28," was persuasive authority. She construed the language to mean that "the district court should assume the absence of the arbitration agreement and determine whether it would have jurisdiction . . . without it." See 556 U.S. at 66. But Sections 9 and 10 do not have the "look through" language. Regardless, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the difference in language didn't end the inquiry, but instead, the FAA was to be treated as "a single comprehensive statutory scheme." Quezada v. Bethtal OG & C Servs., Inc., 946 F.3d 837, 842 (5th Cir. 2020). Could the forthcoming Badgerow opinion upend the enforcement of arbitration agreements in federal courts, or would it simply be consistent with the FAA's unusual history? The justices had many questions but received few totally satisfying answers. Counsel for petitioner Denise Badgerow took the position that whether the look-through approach applies to applications to enforce or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 "is controlled by the FAA's plain text, and competing statutory arguments are not close." The exception "is found solely in Section 4" and "applies exclusively to petitioners under that single section." (Transcript at 3.) That position caused Justice Kagan to ask, So, on your theory, when would Sections 9 and 10 give federal courts jurisdiction? Is it only in diversity cases? * * * [I]sn't that a little bit backwards, that it ends up that you put diversity cases in the federal court system and you take all the cases that involve federal questions and say … the federal courts don't have anything to do with those cases? (Transcript at 14.) Counsel for the petitioner attempted to bolster his language-driven argument by pointing out that "state courts, in fact, play a prominent role in enforcing the Act, and in large part, the Act is left to enforcement in state courts." (Transcript at 16.) In response, counsel for the respondents argued that "petitioner's approach would decapitate the FAA." While "Petitioner says state courts are equally good. But, unlike FAA's standards for confirmation and vacatur, state courts often revisit the merits under their own state arbitration acts." (Transcript at 33-34.) Indeed, the brief for the respondents cited authority demonstrating that different states permit an award to be vacated "based on a court's reassessment of the legal and factual issues decided by the arbitrators." (Brief at 46.) During the respondent's argument, Chief Justice Roberts made the telling comment: [I]t is the [FAA] . . . an odd creature in that . . . it doesn't by itself give rise to jurisdiction. And it seems to me that one reason . . . why that is, is because they recognize that people arbitrate all sorts of disputes, and they don't want all the 380,000 . . . cases being brought in federal court, just like you don't want [the enforcement of settlement agreements] being brought in federal court just because it arose out of a federal case. (Transcript at 46.) The petitioner's rejoinder during the argument invoked the Court's prior rulings and belittled attempts to harmonize Sections 4, 9 and 10. My friend said our reading will decapitate the [FAA]. I think that's odd because our reading is in fact, the reading that was the overwhelming majority view . . . for a quarter of a century. The only courts that have started questioning whether our reading is correct is in light of the Court's opinion in Vaden . . . not because of a textual reason . . . they said, as a policy matter . . . . if the look-through approach applies at the start it should probably apply at the finish. (Transcript at 57.) But the petitioner maintained that this was not how statutes were to be construed and it was "a senseless reading of the statute itself." (Id.) So, coming full circle, the gulf remained between the petitioner's position that the language of Section 4 drove the result, while the respondents relied, in part, on an argument that the narrow statutory construction advocated by Badgerow would lead to the questionable result of only diversity cases presenting federal courts with jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 10 but not those raising federal questions. Bottom Line Oral argument in Badgerow revealed the lack of any easy answers. If a pure textual approach is followed, some federal arbitral awards could be left in state court, where federal standards are not necessarily followed. [GN] HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hearst Communications, Inc. The case is styled as Maribel Ramirez, Maricarmen Ocasio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hearst Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09109-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Hearst -- https://www.hearst.com/ -- is a leading global, diversified media, information and services company with more than 360 businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arun Gopal Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 203-4573 Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com HERITAGE COMMERCE: PAGA-Related Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------- Heritage Commerce Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a third employee/claimant filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and the case is ongoing. In November 2020, a former and a then-current bank employee purporting to represent a class of Bank employees, alleged in a lawsuit that the Bank violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and by failing to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary payments. Because the class/PAGA action alleges wage and hour claims, it is not covered by the Bank's insurance. In late December 2020 the same former and then-current bank employees filed a lawsuit asserting, as individual employees, causes of action against the Bank for gender discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge of the former employee, and sexual harassment, among other claims. Plaintiffs allege denial of promotional opportunities, and harassment and discrimination by Bank employees and customers of the Bank. The December 2020 lawsuit was tentatively settled in October 2021, and the parties are finalizing a definitive settlement agreement. A portion of the settlement will be covered by the Bank's insurance. In February 2021, the Bank was notified of another set of PAGA and potential class claims alleged by letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency transmitted on behalf of a third claimant, who was also a former Bank employee. The notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is a prerequisite to a PAGA filing, alleged the same claims, class, and relief requests that are the subject of the lawsuit filed in November 2020, and disclosed no new claims. The third employee/claimant has not been added to the previously filed class/PAGA action. In October 2021 the third employee/claimant filed a lawsuit alleging race, color, gender, and sex discrimination; disability discrimination; discrimination against an employee making a CFRA claim, violation of the Equal Pay Act, retaliation, and related claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend the filed class and PAGA complaint, and the action filed by the third employee/claimant. Heritage Commerce Corp operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, attracts deposits from the general public and uses such funds to originate a variety of commercial and consumer loans. HERTZ CORP: Customers Sue Following Stolen Car Accusations ---------------------------------------------------------- Click2Houston reports that one of the largest car rental companies in the world now faces a lawsuit after dozens of customers claim they were detained by police or even jailed after accusations of driving a stolen car. The attorney representing those customers said Hertz has a practice of filing stolen car reports, despite having other evidence. "There were 165 claims, and we know that's just the tip of the iceberg," said attorney Francis Malofiy. In a statement to KPRC 2 Investigates, Hertz said: "The vast majority of these cases involve renters who were many weeks or even months overdue. Situations, where vehicles are reported to the authorities, are very rare." Yet, KPRC 2 Investigates has identified at least seven cases involving Houstonians with similar stories. In those cases, court records show those rental drivers are accused of driving stolen vehicles. In 2014, a Houstonian on vacation with family in Georgia was arrested for driving a stolen rental vehicle. However, a judge later dropped the case after finding Hertz "falsely reported the incident" after misplacing their vehicle, according to court records. In 2019, a Harris County judge dismissed another case against a customer because charges were filed after the vehicle was returned to police. Driving home late after work on Christmas Eve, James Tolen was pulled over by Houston police for driving a rental pickup truck that had been reported stolen. "Two of them had their guns drawn on me and another one was pulling up," said Tolen, who was ultimately released after police got a Hertz representative on the phone. Tolen's fiance, Krystal Carter, had rented the vehicle from Hertz in October 2020. "To say that I'm disappointed in Hertz would be the understatement of a lifetime," said Carter, a President's Circle member with Hertz. An HPD police report shows that Hertz reported the vehicle stolen three months before Carter and Tolen rented it. Malofyi, who represents Tolen, said Hertz didn't tell police that they knew where the truck was or that they were renting it out again. Hertz did not respond to questions about Tolen's case or any other Houston-based case. Hertz cares deeply about our customers, and we successfully provide rental vehicles for tens of millions of travelers each year. Unfortunately, in the legal matters being discussed, the attorneys have a track record of making baseless claims that blatantly misrepresent the facts. The vast majority of these cases involve renters who were many weeks or even months overdue returning vehicles and who stopped communicating with us well beyond the scheduled due date. Situations where vehicles are reported to the authorities are very rare and happen only after exhaustive attempts to reach the customer. Hertz Just days ago, Harris County dismissed the case against Zanders Pace, who had an auto theft arrest warrant for two years. Pace said while he was driving his Hertz rental sedan, he clipped a car while on 288. Pace had taken the damaged rental car to a repair shop. "I contacted my insurance, they contacted Hertz. Everybody knew I was in an accident," said Pace. Underwriters for Hertz prodded the local office via email to pick up the rental car. Instead, Hertz processed Zanders payment and 28 days later filed a police report. "I haven't even stolen a piece of bubblegum in my lifetime, but that's something that degrades you when someone calls you a thief," said Pace. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Carson TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melissa Carson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 21EV006162 was removed from the State Court of Fulton County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Nov. 15, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04715-TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is the largest home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Rebecca Virostko, Esq. Sidney Stewart Haskins, II, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5100 Email: jvirostko@kslaw.com shaskins@kslaw.com HOME DEPOT: Didzun Labor Code Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICHARD JAMES DIDZUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 21-2-03932-31, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Snohomish to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01540 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Washington Revised Code and Washington Administrative Code including failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to provide lawful rest periods, unjust enrichment, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Home Depot USA, Inc. is a company that operates home improvement retail stores, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laurence A. Shapero, Esq. Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 876-5303 Email: laurence.shapero@ogletree.com kyle.nelson@ogletree.com HOSTESS BRANDS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hostess Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hostess Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09450 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hostess Brands -- https://www.hostessbrands.com/ -- is an American-based bakery company formed in June 2013.[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 HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Quinn Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Katherine Quinn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Capital America, Case No. 21STCV37386 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 12, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-08930 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Breach of Contract. Vizio Inc. -- https://www.vizio.com/ -- is an American publicly-traded company that designs and sells televisions, soundbars, viewer data, and advertising.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Zachary C. Frampton, Esq. HOLLND ND KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street Suite 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 896-2400 Fax: (213) 896-2450 Email: zac.frampton@hklaw.com HYZON MOTORS: Miller Sues Over False and Misleading Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Miller, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HYZON MOTORS INC. f/k/a DECARBONIZATION PLUS ACQUISITION CORPORATION, ERIK ANDERSON, PETER HASKOPOULOS, CRAIG KNIGHT, and MARK GORDON, Case No. 6:21-cv-06695 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Hyzon f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation between January 23, 2021 and September 27, 2021, both dates inclusive, and to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder with regards to false and misleading statements. On January 23, 2021, the Company issued a press release entitled "Hyzon Motors to offer autonomous-drive zero-emission trucks after signing new deal with UK-based AIDRIVERS," which announced Hyzon's agreement with AIDRIVERS, "a leading autonomous mobility company, to develop an integrated vehicle platform to produce autonomous zero-emission trucks, buses, and coaches for off-road industrial mobility operations." Hyzon stated the first fleet of operational trucks would be deployed in 2022. On February 9, 2021, the Company issued or caused to be issued a press release entitled "Hyzon Motors, the Leading Hydrogen Fuel Cell Heavy Vehicle Company, Announces Business Combination with Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation; Combined Company Expected to be Listed on Nasdaq" (the "February Press Release"). Also on February 9, 2021, the Company filed a Form 8-K, signed by Defendant Haskopoulos, with the SEC announcing the merger plan attached the February Press Release. On March 1, 2021, the Company filed its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020 on a Form 10-K with the SEC (the "2020 Annual Report"). The 2020 Annual Report was signed by Defendants Anderson and Haskopoulos. Attached to the 2020 Annual Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") signed by Defendants Anderson and Haskopoulos attesting to the accuracy of the financial statements and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2020 Annual Report referenced and referred investors to "the Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 9, 2021 for additional information" regarding the merger. On May 13, 2021, the Company filed an amendment to the 2020 Annual Report on a Form 10-K/A with the SEC that was signed by Defendants Anderson and Haskopoulos and referenced and referred investors to "the Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 9, 2021 for additional information" regarding the merger. Attached to the Form 10-K/A were SOX certifications signed by Defendants Anderson and Haskopoulos attesting to the accuracy of the financial statements and the disclosure of all fraud. The statements referenced were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its joint deals and "customer" contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On September 28, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca Capital published a report about the Company (the "Blue Orca Report"). On this news, Hyzon shares fell $2.58 per share, or 28%, to close at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Hyzon securities (including Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation's securities) at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Hyzon purports to be a leader in fuel cell electric mobility with an exclusive focus on the commercial vehicle market, and a near-term focus on back to base (captive fleet) operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 322 8th Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 310-2980 Email: nathant@hbsslaw.com - and – Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, DC 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and – Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-301-3335 Facsimile: 310-388-0192 Email: brian@schallfirm.com ICEBOX INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Icebox, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Icebox, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09346-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Icebox, Inc. -- https://www.icebox.com/ -- is located in Atlanta, Georgia and is part of the Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal INFINITY DIAGNOSTIC: Settles Class Action Over COVID-19 Testing --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post, reports that consumers who paid $75 for COVID-19 testing could get their money back under the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit. But full payment would go only to customers with evidence of their purchase from Infinity Diagnostic Labs, such as a receipt or test results, says a proposal that's received preliminary approval from a state judge. Customers without proof could certify that they received the company's blood test, allowing them to receive a payment of up to $37.50 each. Individual payments from a $15,000 fund would be determined by the number of claims based on certifications, the agreement says. The settlement also would provide $100,000 to attorneys for the class of an estimated 400 people, including the Marlton law firm of DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C. It also would include $1,000 payments for each of five named plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges Infinity Diagnostics marketed its "finger-stick antibody blood tests" as a way to quickly diagnose active cases of COVID-19. But it contended the tests, administered at a facility in Ventnor, detected antibodies created due to previous infections and did not show current infections from the coronavirus. The proposed settlement says Infinity Diagnostics "vehemently denies" the lawsuit's claims. The company also "denies any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever . . . and asserts that it fully complied with New Jersey law." A representative of the firm, based in Teterboro, Bergen County, could not be reached for comment on Nov. 9. "We are pleased with the proposed settlement and the outcome of the case," said Marlton attorney Stephen DeNittis. He said Infinity "did the right thing to resolve this" He noted Infinity customers should contact his firm "if they do not receive a claim form in the next 30 days so they can file a claim." The two sides agreed to settle "to avoid the time, expense and inherent uncertainties of protracted litigation," the proposed agreement says. The settlement would cover New Jersey residents who obtained the tests from Diagnostic Laboratories since March 1. 2020. The proposed resolution followed five months of negotiations between the parties, the agreement notes. Superior Court Judge Stanley Bergman gave preliminary approval to the agreement on Friday, Nov. 5. He set a Jan. 21, 2022, hearing for final approval. [GN] INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against InnovAge Holding Corp. ("InnovAge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INNV) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired InnovAge securities pursuant and/or traceable to the March 2021 IPO. Investors have until December 13, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The action alleges that InnovAge and other insiders made false and misleading statements in the registration statement for the company's March 2021 IPO, which allowed InnovAge to raise over $373.6 million in proceeds. Specifically, the registration statement omitted, among other facts, that: (1) certain of InnovAge's facilities failed to provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate services, manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use of specialists; (2) as a result, the company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); and (3) consequently, there was a significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an audit of the company's services. The registration statement's accuracy was brought into question on Sep. 21, 2021, when the company revealed that CMS determined to freeze new enrollments at its Sacramento facility based on observed deficiencies. On this news, the company's stock price fell $2.90 per share, or 25%, in a single trading day. As of the filing of the complaint, InnovAge trades nearly 70% below the $20 IPO price. If you purchased or otherwise acquired InnovAge 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] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Layoffs --------------------------------------------------------- Bobbie Wagner and Chadwick Inniss individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-09443 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought alleging that IBM, through its layoff and hiring practices, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (with respect to employees who worked in Vermont); (3) the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The complaint alleges that IBM has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against its older workers, both by laying them off (or terminating or constructively discharging them) disproportionately to younger workers and then not hiring them for open positions. Over the last several years, IBM has been in the process of systematically reducing its employment of older workers in order to build a younger workforce. Between 2012 and the present, IBM has laid off or otherwise terminated at least 20,000 employees over the age of forty. Such discriminatory termination and hiring practices constitute unlawful discrimination under the ADEA and state anti-discrimination law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Bobbie Wagner is 54 years old. The Plaintiff Chadwick Inniss is 53 years old. IBM is an American multinational technology business that offers services and goods ranging from computing, cloud platforms, advanced analytics tools and others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Zachary Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Frutarom Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom and the improper payments. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. One motion ("Borg") asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and its former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"). On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding. On June 15, 2021 and August 11, 2021, the U.S. lead plaintiffs filed update notices with the Israeli court regarding the appeal in the U.S. proceeding. The other motion ("Oman") (following an initial amendment) asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman motion was filed on July 4, 2021. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. "On September 30, 2021, Frutarom notified the court that it joins the legal arguments made in the motion to dismiss," the company said. New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of flavor and fragrance products in the United States and internationally. JACOBY & MEYERS: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Legal Clients --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY HARDING and ESTATE OF JEFFREY HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP; FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP; TOTAL TRIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; ANDREW FINKELSTEIN; and KENNETH OLIVER, Case No. 2:14-cv-05419-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying classes of: "legal clients of Defendants Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Andrew Finkelstein, and Kenneth Oliver who were billed for litigation support services provided by Defendant Total Trial Solutions, LLC from March 31, 2009 until the present pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3)"; 2. appointing Estate of Jeffrey Harding as Class Representative; 3. appointing Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel. Jacoby & Meyers is an American law firm established as a partnership by Leonard Jacoby and Stephen Meyers that used an extensive advertising campaign to build exposure and awareness of the firm. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP operates as a law firm. Total Trial Solutions is a consulting and production company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGKflD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 424 Madison Ave, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 - and - Joseph Santoli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SANTOLI 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (201) 926-9200 The Defendant is represented by: James E. Cecchi Lindsey H. Taylor CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 JAMES COHAN GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Cohan Gallery, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. James Cohan Gallery, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09416 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. James Cohan -- https://www.jamescohan.com/ -- is a contemporary art gallery in the Tribeca and Lower East side neighborhoods of Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tyler Baker, Annette Nokes, Robert Botterill, Sophia Porter, Anna Swartz, Mike Xavier, Brian Slafter, Heide Humphreys, Frank Ortega, Michael Taillard, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-14421 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 Florida on Nov. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-62258-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- engages in the research and development of products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: 973/994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael F. Buchanan, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER, LLP 1133 Avenue of the America New York, NY 10036 Email: mfbuchanan@pbwt.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodine Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Alexander Bodine, Halle Ellingson, Kurt Hall, Bennett Johnson, Kyle Melquist, Samantha Stolzenbach, Sharon Trainor, and Stacey Vaidis, individually on behalf of themselves and as a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-14343, 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 Florida on Nov. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-62257-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- engages in the research and development of products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: 973/994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 900 Third Avenue, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 980-7400 Email: klerner@robinskaplan.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael F. Buchanan, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER, LLP 1133 Avenue of the America New York, NY 10036 Email: mfbuchanan@pbwt.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Minett Fernandez, individually on behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-14492, 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 Florida on Nov. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-62259-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- engages in the research and development of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: 973/994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael F. Buchanan, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER, LLP 1133 Avenue of the America New York, NY 10036 Email: mfbuchanan@pbwt.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lokietz Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Marcy Lokietz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Neutrogena Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-17290, 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 Florida on Nov. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-62261-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- engages in the research and development of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: (845) 356-2570 Fax: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Pay Compensation Claims After Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Clun at smh.com.au reports that the High Court has paved the way for women who were injured by defective pelvic mesh implants to make compensation claims against Johnson & Johnson, rejecting an application from the pharmaceutical giant for special leave to appeal against a Full Federal Court ruling. It was the second attempt by the company to overturn a 2019 ruling of Federal Court Justice Anna Katzmann, who found Johnson & Johnson and its related companies engaged in misleading conduct and the risks of the devices were "known, and not insignificant". The Full Federal Court rejected a challenge to Justice Katzmann's decision in March this year. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that the company and Ethicon, Inc., continues to defend suits related to Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and additional cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States had been organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In March 2021, the MDL Court entered an order closing the MDL. The MDL Court has remanded cases for trial to the jurisdictions where the case was originally filed and additional pelvic mesh lawsuits have been filed, and remain, outside of the MDL. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the United States cases and the estimated costs associated with these settlements and the remaining cases are reflected in the Company's accruals. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada. In November 2019, the Federal Court of Australia issued a judgment regarding its findings with respect to liability in relation to the three Lead Applicants and generally in relation to the design, manufacture, pre and post-market assessments and testing, and supply and promotion of the devices in Australia used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In March 2020, the Court issued a decision and entered damages awards to the three Lead Applicants. The Company appealed the decision to the intermediate appellate court, the Full Court. The appeal was heard in February 2021 and, in March 2021, the Full Court entered a judgment dismissing the appeal. An application for special leave to the High Court of Australia was filed in April 2021, and in July 2021, the High Court agreed to hear oral argument on the application, which is scheduled to occur in November 2021. With respect to class members other than the Lead Applicants, the Federal Court will conduct an individual case assessment process that will require proof of use and causally related loss, although the form of that process has not yet been decided. The class actions in Canada were discontinued in 2020 as a result of a settlement of a group of cases and an agreement to resolve the Israeli class action was reached in May 2021, which is subject to court approval. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens-Related Suit Set for 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that trial in the consolidated contact lens related putative class suit is set to begin in March 2022. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. Discovery and pre-trial motion practice are complete. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2022. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zytiga Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that Janssen Biotech, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., related to ZYTIGA(R). In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of indirect purchasers of ZYTIGA(R). Several additional complaints were filed thereafter in Virginia and New Jersey. The indirect purchaser complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states and the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry and seek damages. The Virginia cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the New Jersey case. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2021. In April 2021, Janssen moved to dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Action. Discovery in the Indirect Purchaser Action is ongoing. In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed against Janssen Biotech Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of direct purchasers of ZYTIGA(R). The direct purchaser complaint alleges that defendants violated the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry and seek damages and injunctive relief. In April 2021, Janssen moved to compel arbitration of the Direct Purchaser Action. In October 2021, the Court granted Janssen's motion and compelled arbitration of the Direct Purchaser Action. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JUUL LABS: Calhoun School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALHOUN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08848 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Calhoun Intermediate School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 17111 G-Drive North in Marshall, Michigan. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, N.Y. Mills Central Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK MILLS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08845 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. New York Mills Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1 Marauder Boulevard in New York Mills, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Champaign School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAMPAIGN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08835 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Champaign Community Unit School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 502 West Windsor Road in Champaign, 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Palmyra-Macedon Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- PALMYRA-MACEDON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08832 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Palmyra-Macedon Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 127 Cuyler Street in Palmyra, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Yazoo Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yazoo County School District, 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-08847 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Yazoo County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 94 Panther Drive in Yazoo City, Mississippi. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Lyncourt Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- LYNCOURT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08838 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Lyncourt Union Free School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2709 Court Street in Syracuse, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Volusia Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth --------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOLS, 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-08834 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Volusia County Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 200 North Clara Avenue in DeLand, Florida. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Gouverneur School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ GOUVERNEUR CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08843 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Gouverneur Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 133 East Barney Street in Gouverneur, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Johannesburg-Lewiston Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHANNESBURG-LEWISTON AREA SCHOOLS, 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-08850 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Johannesburg-Lewiston Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 10854 M 32 East in Johannesburg, Michigan. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lawton School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 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-08849 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Lawton Community Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 101 Primary Way in Lawton, Michigan. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lowville Academy Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOWVILLE ACADEMY AND CENTRAL SCHOOL, 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-08842 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Lowville Academy and Central School is a unified school district with its offices located at 7668 North State Street in Lowville, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Copenhagen District Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- COPENHAGEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08839 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Copenhagen Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 3020 Mechanic Street in Copenhagen, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: School City Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, 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-08844 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Indiana 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 says. School City of East Chicago is a public school district with its offices located on East 144th Street in East Chicago, Indiana. 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: Sumter Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08833 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Sumter County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2680 West County Road 476 in Bushnell, Florida. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Bainbridge Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BAINBRIDGE GUILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08841 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Bainbridge Guilford Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 18 Juliand Street in Bainbridge, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Whitesboro Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHITESBORO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 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-08840 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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 says. Whitesboro Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 65 Oriskany Boulevard in Whitesboro, New York. 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: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al. The case is styled as Danyell Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, a California Corporation; Kaiser Permanente International, a California Corporation; Case No. CGC21594659 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Kaiser Foundation Hospitals -- https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/ -- provides health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446 Phone: 310-888-7771 Fax: 310-888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHASMINE SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2102203, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 11, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01923 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods or proper premiums, failure to provide rest periods or proper premiums, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages due and payable twice monthly, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay wages upon termination of employment, unlawful competition and unlawful business practices. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is a non-profit health care organization based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Andrew M. McNaught, Esq. Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com amcnaught@seyfarth.com bbifoss@seyfarth.com KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chicas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ALVAREZ CHICAS; and ALONSO VILLATORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KELCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.; E.L.M. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP.; JOHN KELLY; and JOSEPH PROVENZANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09014 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. KELCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. is engaged in the business of providing landscaping and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 E. Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 824-0200 Email: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KARINE BAEZ; and JAQUELINI DA SILVEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC; JS JANITORIAL SERVICE, INC.; and EDIMAR EVANGELISTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11784-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 2, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as janitors. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC provides janitorial services. The Company offers maintenance, contract cleaning, floor care, technical, exterior, integrated facility support services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com KKR & CO: Pension Fund Suit Compels Inspection of Books & Records ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit styled STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KKR & CO. INC., Case No. 2021-0968, the Plaintiff filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware a verified complaint to compel inspection of KKR's books and records concerning the decision of the company's board of directors to grant KKR's controlling stockholders and certain other company insiders 8.5 million shares of common stock of KKR, worth approximately $560 million. KKR & Co. Inc. is an investment management firm based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 - and – Randall J. Baron, Esq. Benny Goodman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and – Gladriel Shobe, Esq. Jarrod Shobe, Esq. SHOBE & SHOBE, LLP P.O. Box 971563 Orem, UT 84097 Telephone: (385) 722-4451 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawrence Sues Over Defective Ventilators ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Lawrence, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC and Philips RS North America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02439 (D. Minn., November 4, 2021), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory, actual, statutory, consequential, punitive and/or any other form of damages, restitution, disgorgement and/or other equitable relief, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and, where applicable, expert fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest, award of such other and further relief resulting from breach of implied warranty. Philips recalled its Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and mechanical ventilator devices involving an estimated 3 million to 4 million devices globally. Said products contained polyester based polyurethane foam that degrades and can be inhaled by the users, causing health risks, including respiratory issues and cancer. Lawrence used a Philips DreamStation machine CPAP device to treat a health condition. Because of the defect, he claims to be facing the risk of possible exposure to off-gassed or degraded polyurethane foam in the devices. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ashleigh E. Raso, Esq. Anthony Nemo, Esq. Ava Marie M. Cavaco, Esq. MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD 1616 Park Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Tel: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9121 Email: araso@meshbesher.com tnemo@meshbesher.com acavaco@meshbesher.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: McCarty Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al. The case is styled as Brian McCarty, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01656-JFC (W.D. Pa., Nov. 15, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sandra Duggan, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: sduggan@lfsblaw.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ray Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kerry Ray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01320 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 15, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01655-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Keller, Esq. ASCHEMANN KELLER, LLC 300 North Monroe Street Marion, IL 62959-2565 Phone: (618) 998-9988 Fax: (618) 993-2565 Email: tkeller@quitamlaw.org KSE MEDIA: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KSE Media Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KSE Media Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09437 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KSE Media Ventures, LLC was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes broadcasting visual programs by television to the public.[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 KSF ACQUISITION: Cawley Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KSF Acquisition Corporation. The case is styled as Jaimie Cawley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KSF Acquisition Corporation doing business as: SlimFast, Case No. 7:21-cv-09421-CS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SlimFast -- https://slimfast.com/ -- is an American company headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida that markets an eponymous brand of shakes, bars, snacks, packaged meals, and other dietary supplement foods sold in the U.S..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Robert Denlea, Esq. Amber Trumbull Wallace, Esq. David Michael Rubinstein, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. DENLE & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Dr, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 331-0100 Fax: (914) 331-0105 Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com awallace@denleacarton.com drubinstein@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legends Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legends Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09435 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Legends -- https://www.legends.net/ -- is a food, beverage, merchandise, retail, and stadium operations corporation serving entertainment venues and companies.[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 LELAND, NC: To Pay $4 to Developers After Ruling Over Illegal Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Orona and Wilmington StarNews at starnewsonline.com reports that Leland could soon have to pay out millions of dollars to developers after an N.C. Supreme Court ruling opened the door for a class action lawsuit against the town to move forward. In 2018, development company Plantation Building of Wilmington sued Leland, claiming the town illegally collected more than $121,000 in impact and capacity fees from them between Sept. 7, 2015 and July 1, 2018. Those type of fees, which were required before developers could be issued building permits, were once a common way for municipalities to pay for infrastructure improvements. But a 2016 N.C. Supreme Court case found municipalities had no authority to charge the fees, leading to lawsuits across the state with developers looking for refunds. In a summary judgment last year the court awarded Plantation Building of Wilmington $148,640.80 in damages plus interest in their case against the town. As part of the case, Plantation Building of Wilmington also filed for class certification, allowing it to move forward as a class action lawsuit. The town appealed the certification, which was ultimately upheld on Oct. 29. More:Southport aims to settle developer lawsuit for up to $310,000 Now Leland could have to pay back more than $4.1 million in illegal fees it collected from nearly 50 developers between September 2015 and July 2018. In August 2020, the town set aside $500,000 into a public utility lawsuit settlement fund to deal with anticipated payouts stemming from the suit. The next step is for the N.C. Supreme Court decision to be certified, which is scheduled for Nov. 18. Plantation Building of Wilmington also sued the city of Southport, alleging it collected illegal impact fees between 2016 and 2018, which led to a settlement in June. As part of that agreement, Southport admitted to no wrongdoing and agreed to pay the developer more than $300,000. The settlement states the city chose to settle in order to avoid further expense and inconvenience. [GN] LHOIST NORTH: Faces Rogers Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF TEXAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01182-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., November 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to its corporate policy and practice of requiring its drivers to perform their return trip off-the-clock and failing to include all nondiscretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay. Mr. Rogers has been employed by Lhoist as a driver first at its McKinney, Texas yard and then at its Clifton, Texas yard since approximately September 22, 2020. Lhoist North America of Texas LLC is a supplier of lime, limestone, and clay products in North America, headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com LIGHT 101: Babakhodjayev Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- Negmatkhon Babakhodjayev, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. LIGHT 101, INC., AND ANY OTHER RELATED ENTITIES,, Case No. 160368/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 15, 2021). Light 101, Inc. is a home health agency in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Court Junks New Jersey Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln Educational Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the court granted the Company's Motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey Federal District Court. Following a wave of hundreds of class action lawsuits being served upon colleges and universities across the country by students in connection with transitioning from in-person to online classes due to COVID-19, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in New Jersey Federal District Court and served on December 21, 2020. Like most of the other lawsuits across the country, the suit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. In lieu of an answer, on January 25, 2021 the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. On July 9, 2021 the court granted the Company's Motion to dismiss the breach of contract, unjust enrichment claims for tuition and registration fees and conversion claims in their entireties. The only claim remaining is for student and technology fees, where the judge stated it was premature to dismiss those claims. On July 23, 2021, the Company submitted its Motion for Reconsideration as to the remaining claim and awaits a ruling in this regard. On November 3, 2021, the court granted the Company's Motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides various career-oriented post-secondary education services in the United States. The Company was founded in 1946 and is based in West Orange, New Jersey. LOOPTIFY INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Looptify Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Looptify Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09429 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Looptify -- https://looptifyapp.com/ -- is a High-Profile marketplace platform for notable celebrities, influencers, musicians, professional athletes, and more.[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 LOVE WELLNESS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Love Wellness. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Love Wellness, Case No. 1:21-cv-09378 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Love Wellness is focused on women's personal care guided by doctors with products ranging from ingestible beauty to digestion products.[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 M.C.T. RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Wages, Marquina et al. Allege -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MARQUINA and ALEXIS RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MAC COOLS, CORNELIUS O'REILLY and CRISTINO YANES, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06047 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2021) allege the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Marquina was employed by the Defendant as a cook since 1997, whereas Plaintiff Rivera was hired in January 2017 as a busboy and waiter. The Plaintiffs assert that although they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Allegedly, the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying them and other similarly situated employees a wage at the minimum wage rate and overtime wages for the total hours they worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint to recover unpaid wages at the minimum wage rate and at the overtime rate for all work hours over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs also seek spread of hours pay, improper deductions pay, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court determines to be just and proper. M.C.T. Restaurants Inc. operates restaurants. Cornelius O'Reilly is an owner, officer, director, and/or managing agent of the Corporate Defendant. Cristino Yanes has participated in the ay-to-day operations of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James F. Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C. 52 Duane St., 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 374-0009 Fax: (212) 374-9931 E-mail: jsullivan@jfslaw.net MAGIC MONEY: Lawsuit Seeks Refunds of Astrowold Festival Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed seeking refunds of prepaid charges for merchandise, concessions, rides and games incurred by attendees of Astroworld Festival. According to the lawsuit filed in 11th District Court in Harris County, festivalgoers were encouraged to pay in advance for such items online through the Magic Money app, and those payments were automatically deducted from their accounts. Festival organizers advertised that the use of Magic Money would result in "significant savings" and would help avoid long lines at the event. "We believe it's likely that the more than 50,000 concert attendees have lost tens of millions of dollars in payments and service fees through Magic Money, with as yet no prospects of reimbursement," says attorney Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston. "The tragic events and cancellation, and the failure of organizers to respond to requests for refunds have resulted in violations of state laws designed to protect the public, leaving litigation as the only option. In addition to the terrible loss of life and injuries, the economic losses to the concertgoers and Houston community are going to be very large as well." According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff and Plano, Texas, resident Brenda Wong bought prepaid credits through the Magic Money app before arriving at the festival. Ms. Wong was caught up in the deadly crowd surge but was able to make her way to safety outside the festival grounds. Her attempts to contact Magic Money and gain a refund have been unsuccessful. Named as defendants in the complaint are Florida-based Magic Money LLC and festival organizers that include Scoremore LLC and its subsidiaries; Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiaries; and Houston-based Cactus Jack Records LLC. The case is Brenda Wong v. Magic Money LLC et al. NO. 2021-73898 in the 11th District Court in Harris County. [GN] MANNA 2ND AVENUE: Herrera Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO BELLO HERRERA, and ANGELO BELLO SILVA, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MANNA 2ND AVENUE LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina; MANNA MADISON AVENUE LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina; MANNA PARC 61 LLC d/b/a Gina Mexicana; MAMEXICANA LLC d/b/a Gina Mexicana; MANNA LEXINGTON AVENUE LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina; WEST D&P LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina; and MAMERICANA 92 LLC d/b/a Gina Americana; MANNA AMSTERDAM AVENUE LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina; ENTERPRISE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Amaranth; PAOLA PEDRIGNANI, IGOR SEGOTA, and JEAN FRANCOIS MARCHAND, Case No. 1:20-cv-11026-GHW-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from December 31, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so- orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later;" 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Spanish; and 9. directing equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. Manna 2nd Avenue LLC is in the Farm Management Services business. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kKEqjg at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class, are: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 MBO PROFESSIONAL: Wade-McNutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MBO Professional Services, Inc. The case is styled as Chanell Wade-McNutt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBO Professional Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010522 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MBO Partners -- https://www.mbopartners.com/ -- helps enterprises easily and compliantly engage independent professionals with strategic, technology-driven solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com MDL 2599: Ct. Initially Certifies Settlement Class in Airbag Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No.2599), Case No. 1:14-cv-24009-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. preliminarily certifying the following Class: "(1) all persons or entities who or which owned and/or leased, on the date of the issuance of the Preliminary Approval Order, Subject Vehicles distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its territories or possessions; and (2) all persons or entities who or which formerly owned and/or leased Subject Vehicles distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its territories or possessions, and who or which sold or returned, pursuant to a lease, the Subject Vehicles after February 9, 2016 and through the date of the issuance of the Preliminary Approval Order. Excluded from this Class are: (a) Volkswagen, its officers, directors, employees and outside counsel; its affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors and employees; its distributors and distributors' officers and directors; and Volkswagen's Dealers and their officers, directors, and employees; (b) Settlement Class Counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel, and their employees; (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; (d) Automotive Recyclers and their outside counsel and employees; and (e) persons or entities who or which timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class;" 2. appointing the following persons and entities as Settlement Class Counsel: Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Suntrust International Center One S.E. 3 rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th FloorNew York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Todd A. Smith, Esq. SMITH LACIEN, LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 5770 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 509-8900 E-mail: tsmith@smithlacien.com - and - Roland Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Blvd. No. 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyme.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com 3. preliminarily approving the Settlement; 4. directing the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and Settlement Class Counsel shall file their request for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses by January 21, 2022; and 5. directing the Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel to file their responses to timely filed objections to the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and the Fee Application no later than February 28, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nmEjfE at no extra charge.[CC] MEREDITH CORPORATION: Sells Data Info Without Consent, Burke Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOAN BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00335-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Nov. 2, 2021) alleges violation of the California's Right of Publicity Law. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendant sold and continues to sell subscriber mailing lists containing the Plaintiff's and the other Class members' names and likenesses, along with other highly sensitive personal information, to various parties on the open market, including to data miners, data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, list brokers, aggressive marketing companies, and various other third parties. The lists the Defendant sold identified, by name, address, and other personal attributes, the Plaintiff and every other California subscriber to its various magazine publications, including Better Homes & Gardens and Southern Living magazines to which Plaintiff subscribed. Meredith's monetization of the Plaintiff's and its other California subscribers' names and likenesses in this way was done in direct violation of California's Right of Publicity Law, says the suit. MEREDITH CORPORATION is a diversified media company primarily focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing, interactive media, licensing, and other related operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Gary W. Kendell, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com kendell@sagwlaw.com -and- Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 357-2107 Fax: (305) 200-8801 Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com fhedin@hedinhall.com META PLATFORMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Nov. 10 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. FB Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/facebook-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 CEI Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/camber-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 ONTF Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/on24-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Image: https://www.accesswire.com/users/newswire/images/672167/image.png Meta Platforms, Inc. f.k.a. Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) FB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 3, 2016 - October 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/facebook-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Meta Platforms, Inc. f.k.a. Facebook, Inc. made materially 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. Camber Energy, Inc. (NYSE:CEI) CEI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 18, 2021 - October 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/camber-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Camber Energy, Inc. made materially 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. On24, Inc. (NYSE:ONTF) This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities who also acquired ON24's shares pursuant and traceable to the Offering issued in connection with the Company's February 2, 2021, initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 3, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/on24-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21017&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, the surge in COVID-19 customers 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] META PLATFORMS: Ohio Public Sues Over Breach of Public Trust ------------------------------------------------------------ Ohio Public Employees Retirement System on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC. f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID M. WEHNER, and NICK CLEGG, Case No. 3:21-cv-08812 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Facebook Class A common stock between April 29, 2021 and October 21, 2021, inclusive, alleging against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, arising from an egregious breach of public trust by Facebook, which knowingly exploited its most vulnerable users--including children throughout the world--in order to drive corporate profits. The Defendants repeatedly misrepresented to investors and the public that use of Facebook's products does not harm children, that the Company takes aggressive and effective measures to stop the spread of harmful content, and that Facebook applies its standards of behavior equally to all users. Facebook investors recently learned the truth when former Facebook employee turned whistleblower, Frances Haugen, came forward with internal documents showing that Defendants were aware that Facebook's platforms facilitate dissention, illegal activity, and violent extremism, and cause significant harm to users, especially children, but Facebook refused to correct these issues. All told, these disclosures erased more than $100 billion in shareholder value and subjected Facebook to immense reputational harm. The Company repeatedly assured investors that it has "the most robust set of content policies out there" and touted the aggressive steps it takes to ensure the safety and security of its users by preventing misinformation and harmful content from spreading through its platforms. Facebook also stated that it was committed to keeping people safe and assured investors that it enforces its content policies evenly across all users. These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were false. Thousands of recently leaked internal Facebook documents paint a remarkably different picture. Those documents show that Defendants were acutely aware that the products and systems central to Facebook's business are riddled with flaws that sow dissention, facilitate illegal activity and violent extremism, and cause significant harm to users, but Facebook lacks the will or ability to correct them. Despite this knowledge, Facebook opted to maximize its profits at the expense of the safety of its users and the broader public, exposing Facebook to serious reputational, legal, and financial harm. Moreover, Facebook has taken significant steps to attract pre-teens to its products, which the Company viewed as "a valuable but untapped audience," despite knowing that those products have a toxic effect on the well-being of their most vulnerable users, particularly teenage girls. The Defendants also knew that Facebook's user metrics were unreliable and artificially inflated and that the number of duplicate accounts created by users comprised a greater proportion of Facebook's active users than the Company represented. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Facebook common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. From the date of the first article published by The Wall Street Journal on September 13, 2021 to The Wall Street Journal article published on October 21, 2021 that raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the Company's user metrics, Facebook's stock price declined by $54.08 per share, or over 14%, representing a decline of more than $150 billion in Facebook's total market capitalization, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a public pension fund organized for the benefit of public employees throughout the state of Ohio who are not covered by another state or local retirement system who purchased shares of Facebook Class A common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Facebook operates the world's largest family of social networks, enabling more than three billion users worldwide to connect and share content through mobile devices, personal computers, and virtual reality headsets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 819-3470 Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Email: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com MIDDLESEX WATER: Municipalities May File PFOA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Chang, writing for centraljersey.com, reports that a class action lawsuit(s) may be filed against companies responsible for polluted groundwater in the municipalities affected by Middlesex Water Company's drinking water notice regarding perfluorooctanoic acid. The notice includes all residential and retail customers served by the water company's Park Avenue treatment plant in South Plainfield. Residential and retail customers are in South Plainfield, Clark, Edison, Metuchen, Woodbridge and Carteret. The municipalities have banded together to retain Vlasac and Shmaruk, LLC, Iselin, and Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, to investigate the actions implemented by 3M and Middlesex Water Company to comply with federal and state safe drinking water standards. New Jersey is one of seven states that have enforceable regulation drinking water standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). "Just like we combined forces to engage environmental experts, it makes good sense to join together on any litigation efforts because we collectively represent over 300,000 residents and that makes us a powerful force," Woodbridge Mayor John E. McCormac said. Edison Mayor Thomas Lankey said he believes litigation "is absolutely necessary" including "assessing the accurate level of PFOA contamination, insure continued truthful and timely public release of critical information, and the complete details on what Middlesex Water Company is actively doing to limit continued exposure, and ultimately mitigate this pollutant." McCormac, Lankey, Carteret Mayor Daniel J. Reiman, Metuchen Mayor Jonathan Busch, South Plainfield Mayor Matthew P. Anesh, and Clark Mayor Sal Bonaccorso announced the collaboration in a press release through Woodbridge Township on Nov. 9. Since the initial notice on Oct. 22, the municipalities have held meetings with their respective residents with representatives from the water company explaining the notice of the exceedance of the PFOA drinking water standard, which officials said is a Tier 2 violation. Dennis Doll, the president and chief executive officer of the company, has said there is "no immediate threat" with the violation and the water is safe for customers to use. Doll, at the meetings, explained the water company began evaluating treatment options to remove the chemical from its groundwater supply in 2019. PFOA is a member of the group of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), used as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers used in non-stick cookware and other products, as well as other commercial and industrial uses, based on its resistance to harsh chemicals and high temperatures. PFOA has also been used in aqueous film-forming foams for firefighting and training, and it is found in consumer products such as stain-resistant coatings for upholstery and carpets, water-resistant outdoor clothing, and greaseproof food packaging, according to the water company. Current scientific research suggests exposure to high levels of certain PFAS over many years may lead to adverse health outcomes. The company has completed the design of a facility for enhanced treatment to comply with new state regulations in New Jersey for PFOA. The plant, which is estimated at approximately $47 million, will use granular activated carbon, which has proved effective against PFOA and PFAS. The plant is expected to go into service by mid-2023. Doll said the company has evidence to believe PFOA has been put into the ground by the 3M Corporation and has filed a lawsuit against the corporation in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to recoup wellfield remediation costs. He said similar lawsuits have been filed across the country. Along with the hiring of the law firm, municipalities have also come together to retain T&M Associates, headquartered in Middletown, Monmouth County, as an environmental consultant. McCormac had announced the collaboration at its meeting on Oct. 25. The environmental consultant will review and analyze water quality reports, tests and related documents from 3M and Middlesex Water Company as it relates to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) standard for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), according to the release. Reiman said for many years the borough has "aggressively and successfully fought to protect the health of our residents and to hold polluters accountable in the court of law. "We demand immediate action, first to correct the exceedance of PFOA in drinking water, second to compensate our residents and businesses for the added costs of buying bottled water and the installation of water filters," he said in the release. Busch said "after thorough consideration" they have decided to join "the filing of this lawsuit to help protect our residents' interests." Anesh said he is requesting the South Plainfield Borough Council to consider joining the lawsuit at a meeting on Nov. 15. Middlesex Water Company has provided literature on PFOA treatment on its website. The New Jersey Department of Health advises that infant formula and other beverages for infants, such as juice, should be prepared with bottled water when PFOA is elevated in drinking water. Women who are pregnant, nursing or considering having children may choose to use bottled water for drinking and cooking to reduce exposure to PFOA. Residents can consider installing in-home water treatment (filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in the water, according to information provided during a presentation the water company held in Woodbridge on Oct. 25. For more information, contact the company's Customer Service Department at 800-549-3802 or visit www.middlesexwater.com/alerts. Also customers can visit the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection website at www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/pfas. [GN] MINNESOTA WILD HOCKEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minnesota Wild Hockey Club, LP. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Minnesota Wild Hockey Club, LP, Case No. 1:21-cv-09440 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minnesota Wild Hockey Club -- https://www.nhl.com/wild -- owns and operates the Minnesota Wild professional hockey franchise.[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 MISSISSIPPI: Court Narrows Claims in Alexander v. MDOC & Parchman ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Debra A. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. PELICIA E. HALL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-21-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.). Introduction After the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint as a shotgun pleading, the Plaintiffs in the prison civil rights case filed a fifth amended complaint challenging the conditions of their confinement and alleging a conspiracy to deprive them of certain constitutional rights. The Defendants again moved to dismiss. Procedural Background On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs, 14 current or former prisoners at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated," filed a "Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" in the Court against numerous individuals associated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") and Parchman, challenging the conditions of their confinement. The Defendants (except for Marshal Turner, who had not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in the case) moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and otherwise failed to state a claim because, among other things, the complaint was a shotgun pleading. On March 2, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part. Addressing first the standing argument, the Court concluded that jurisdiction existed because of "the overlap between the standing challenge and the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims." Then turning to the merits of the claims, it deemed the complaint an improper shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice to allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to "remedy the pleading deficiencies." On March 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default against Turner. Four days later, the Clerk of Court entered the requested default. On March 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a "5th Amended Complaint and Jury Demand" against the same Defendants. The fifth amended complaint alleges (1) a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim that the conditions at Parchman are a violation of the Plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and (2) a 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) claim that the Defendants "conspired amongst themselves, and with private persons who are members of various gangs, to deprive the Plaintiffs of the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." Two weeks later, all the defendants except Turner moved to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. The motion is fully briefed. The Court's March 2 order dismissed the entire second amended complaint rather than dismissing claims against specific Defendants. Because the default against Turner was not entered until after the complaint was dismissed, the Defendants assert that the holding by the Court that the Plaintiffs' complaint was due to be dismissed presumably applied equally to all the Defendants, including Turner. The Court agrees. Because there was no operative complaint at the time the default against Turner was entered since the fifth amended complaint had not yet been filed, the default against Turner is set aside. Discussion A. Standing The Defendants, presenting arguments nearly identical to those in their first motion to dismiss, argue the Plaintiffs lack standing because they (1) "have not made any specific allegations to place themselves among those inmates allegedly injured at Parchman"; and (2) "even assuming the Plaintiffs alleged an injury, they still cannot satisfy the causation requirement for standing" because they "have not alleged any particular conduct by any particular Defendant" that is traceable to the injury. As the Court explained in deciding the standing issue in the first motion to dismiss, "these arguments go to the heart of a Section 1983 claim against an individual defendant," creating an "overlap between the standing challenge and the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims." For the same reasons, Judge Brown concludes that jurisdiction exists and that the Defendants' arguments should be considered a part of their challenge to the merits. B. Failure to State a Claim The Defendants argue the fifth amended complaint fails to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985. To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must allege more than labels and conclusions, as a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. It must state a plausible claim for relief, rather than facts merely consistent with liability." The Court Brown must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff." However, it does not accept as true "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions." a. Gloria Perry Judge Brown holds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any factual allegations against Gloria Perry in the fifth amended complaint. Indeed, Perry's name appears only in the caption. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege anything against Perry much less how Perry is connected to MDOC or Parchman or how her conduct is relevant to the allegations in the fifth amended complaint, the claims against Perry are properly dismissed. b. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Claims Because the Plaintiffs have pled that each defendant knew of conditions that exposed them as inmates to a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and that each failed to take any action to correct those conditions, Judge Brown holds that they have sufficiently alleged that each defendant acted with deliberate indifference and thus have stated a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation based upon the conditions of their confinement. C. 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) Claims Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiffs do not make any allegations that the alleged conspiracy was motivated by racial animus but rather seem to assert that their class -- prisoners at Parchman -- is treated differently than prisoners elsewhere. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, such allegations are insufficient to state a claim under Section 1985(3). d. Summary In sum, the Plaintiffs' claims against Perry will be dismissed due to their failure to assert any factual allegations against her. And because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1985(3), such claims will be dismissed. As the Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim under Section 1983 for a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights, Judge Brown must next determine if the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. C. Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiffs "have not alleged a violation of a clearly established law in the case." Together, Judge Brown finds that the complained of conditions, to which all the Plaintiffs as inmates at Parchman were exposed and all the Defendants allegedly had knowledge, amount to a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. With respect to the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a particular injury, "a prisoner need not show serious current symptoms or an actual injury to state a valid Eighth Amendment claim; it is enough that the prison conditions pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health." Because the Plaintiffs have pled facts which, if proven, would amount to the violation of clearly established constitutional rights, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. D. Prison Litigation Reform Act Finally, the Defendants argue the "claims for compensatory damages are barred by the physical injury requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e." The Plaintiffs respond that this argument is "incorrect and premature" because they "have alleged gross violations of their Eighth Amendment Rights, entitling them, at a minimum, to nominal damages and punitive damages." Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that they have suffered any physical injury because of the Defendants' conduct. Thus, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages based on emotional or mental injury, such claims are properly dismissed. However, they "may recover nominal or punitive damages, despite Section 1997e(e), if they can successfully prove that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights." Conclusion The March 15 entry of default against Turner is set aside. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of all claims against Perry, dismissal of the Section 1985(3) claims, and dismissal of the claims for compensatory damages to the extent they are based on emotional or mental injury. The motion is denied in all other respects. The Section 1985(3) claims against all the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The claims against Perry are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynxbxpma from Leagle.com. MOSAIC COMPANY: Florida Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a Florida state court has granted dismissal of a class action lawsuit against the company with leave to amend. On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, FL against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago. "Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a medical monitoring program funded by the defendants," the Company said. On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to dismiss the Company filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The Company intend to vigorously defend this matter. The Mosaic Company mines phosphate and potash, and operates through segments such as international distribution and Mosaic Fertilizantes. MOSAIC COMPANY: Settles Minas Gerais Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Company has resolved a class action lawsuit commenced by the State of Minas Gerais in Brazil, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021. In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class action claiming that the Company predecessor company in Brazil did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws. This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the Company were fined for not complying with several labor regulations. The company filed its defense, claiming that the Company complied with these labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the inspectors in 2010 was abusive. Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor regulations. The amount claimed in the proceeding is $29.9 million. The parties settled the action in September of 2021 and a schedule was jointly established to implement labor regulations. The Mosaic Company mines phosphate and potash, and operates through segments such as international distribution and Mosaic Fertilizantes. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Gill's Claims Over Live-Streaming Break Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SIETEL SINGH GILL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, a New York unincorporated association, and NFL ENTERPRISES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 1032 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. Background The case arises from the alleged interruption of a live-streaming service, Game Pass Pro, during the 2020 Super Bowl. Plaintiff Gill, an Australian resident who subscribed to the service, brings a putative class action lawsuit against Defendants National Football League ("NFL") and NFL Enterprises LLC ("NFLE") for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The putative class consists of persons -- other than residents and citizens of the United States and its territories, Canada, or China -- who purchased subscription services provided by the Defendants to watch American football games, including the 2020 Super Bowl, from the Defendants. The FAC alleges, on information and belief, that between approximately 300,000 and 700,000 international customers in approximately 181 countries bought and used Game Pass during the 2019-2020 NFL season. The NFL is a New York unincorporated association which "consists of 32 independent, for-profit football clubs" and maintains a principal place of business in New York. he NFLE is organized under the laws of Delaware and maintains a principal place of business in New York. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NFL. On Feb. 4, 2021, the original complaint in the action was filed. On April 8, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and, in support, a memorandum of law; and the declaration of Sara A. Ricciard. On April 9, 2021, the Court ordered Gill to file an amended complaint or to oppose the motion to dismiss. On April 30, 2021, Gill filed the FAC. On May 20, 2021, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the FAC, and, in support, a memorandum of law; and a new declaration from Ricciardi. On June 17, 2021, Gill filed a memorandum of law in opposition. On June 24, 2021, the Defendants filed a reply. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Court received letters from Gill, asking the Court to schedule an initial conference and issue a case management plan, and from the Defendants, seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On Sept. 7, 2021, the Court scheduled a conference for Sept. 29, 2021. On Sept. 9, 2021, Gill opposed the motion to stay discovery. On Sept. 21, 2021, the Court adjourned the conference until Oct. 12, 2021, on account of the Defendants' substitution of counsel. On Oct. 7, 2021, the Court notified the parties to be prepared to address at the conference, inter cilia, whether the FAC incorporated the 2013 contract. On Oct. 12, 2021, at the conference, the Court ordered Gill to submit the materials discussed at the conference and agreed upon by the parties as cognizable, which included the 2013 contract and associated terms and conditions, and stayed discovery. On Oct. 13, 2021, Gill submitted these materials. Discussion Judge Engelmayer first analyzes the choice of law question implicit in the Defendants' motion and finds New York law applicable. He then reviews the Defendants' arguments for dismissal, which are that (1) Gill was not in privity with defendants, who claim as of 2020 not to have been parties to his contract to receive Game Pass; (2) Gill, in failing to attach the contract to his complaint, has failed to identify specific provisions that were breached; and (3) the unjust enrichment claim fails. Finally, he addresses the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations. A. Choice of Law The parties have not cited any provision in the 2013 Terms and Conditions -- the sole writing the Court has been furnished from the period when Gill claims to have contracted with defendants to receive Game Pass -- addressing the law applicable to claims by subscribers such as Gill. The FAC states that the parties' agreement is governed by New York law, but is silent as to the basis for this. For their part, the Defendants note that, under the 2019 Terms and Conditions that identify Overtier and Deltatre as responsible, respectively, for licensing and operating the Game Pass product, a subscriber's lawsuit is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where he or she resides (and is to be brought in a court within that jurisdiction). However, they do not themselves apply Australian law (or move to dismiss in favor of Australia). Their briefs instead exclusively cite New York law. In these circumstances, Judge Engelmayer applies New York law to the motion to dismiss. B. Privity The Defendants attempt to sideline Gill's claims sounding in contract -- those for breach of contract and implied warranty of merchantability -- by arguing that, based on the pleadings and the materials cognizable on them, they did not contract with Gill and were not in privity with him. Because Gill has not adduced a written contract between Gill and the Defendants, and because the 2019 Terms and Conditions identify Overtier and Deltatre (and not the Defendants) as the entities responsible for providing Game Pass to subscribers, the Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable in contract. Judge Engelmayer denies the motion to dismiss based on an asserted lack of privity between Gill and the Defendants. He opines that the FAC viably pleads that Gill contracted in 2013 with the NFL and NFLE for Game Pass. And the materials cognizable on Gill's claims do not clearly refute this claim. Gill has not come forward with a written agreement from 2013 and, consistent with their claim not to have been parties to that agreement, the Defendants profess not to have one. All that has been adduced from the period during which Gill contracted to received Game Pass are the 2013 Terms and Conditions. As to ensuing years, Judge Engelmayer finds that the FAC alleges that, with Gill not having cancelled the automatic renewal feature, his agreement to receive Game Pass was automatically renewed each year. The FAC does not recite any information about communications, if any, to Gill or other subscribers from the entities responsible for Game Pass during the years 2014-2018, including any speaking to the identity of the entities contractually responsible for furnishing Game Pass to subscribers. C. Failure to Identify Specific Contractual Provision That Was Breached The Defendants separately move to dismiss the breach of contract claim because the FAC does not attach a contract or identify specific provision(s) of it that were breached when the Super Bowl livestream was disrupted. But that argument falls incomplete, Judge Engelmayer holds. To state a claim for breach of contract, he says, a complaint is not required to attach a copy of the agreement. And the FAC clearly sets out the Defendants' central contractual obligation (to livestream NFL games, including the Super Bowl) and their asserted breach (the failure to do so without interruption). It thereby adequately, and plausibly, pleads the existence, and defendants' breach, of a contract with Gill. Also, the Defendants' authorities are again inapposite. D. The Unjust Enrichment Claim The Defendants also move to dismiss the FAC's unjust enrichment claim, on the ground that such a claim cannot coexist alongside a breach of contract claim where the existence of a valid contract is undisputed. Gill counters that unjust enrichment may be pled in the alternative where there is a genuine dispute over the existence of a contract. The FAC unavoidably pleads the existence of an enforceable contract of which an unjust enrichment claim would be duplicate. Gill has not identified any consequential difference between his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The latter therefore must be dismissed. E. The Class Allegations In something of a Hail Mary, defendants, finally, attempt to strike the FAC's class allegations, arguing that, on the face of the FAC, class certification is necessarily unsustainable. They argue, first, that because the class definition is not limited to subscribers in privity with the NFL and NFLE and may include subscribers who obtained Game Pass from other or successor entities, a certified class could include persons who lack Article III standing to sue defendants. Second, they argue, individual issues will predominate, either because the FAC pleads an individualized series of events particular to each plaintiff, and/or because the 2019 Terms and Conditions require lawsuits to be filed in the jurisdiction and under the law of each plaintiff's residence. This bid fails at this stage, Judge Engelmayer opines. He holds that the Defendants' arguments are ones properly made and resolved at the class certification stage. To the extent they posit that some members of the proposed class may prove not to have Article III standing, that question is aptly addressed at the class certification stage, at which, with the benefit of discovery, the Court may narrow the proposed class definition to respond to Article III concerns. To the extent individual issues may predominate, that concern, too, is paradigmatically one to be litigated at class certification -- with the possible outcomes including certification, non-certification, or certification of narrowed or subclass(es), tailored to match unifying features of the Plaintiffs therein. And at this early, pre-discovery stage, it is by no means clear whether or to what extent a class could properly be certified, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Judge Engelmayer accordingly denies the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations, without prejudice to their right to make the same or similar arguments in the event of a later motion for class certification stage. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Engelmayer denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss, save that he grants the motion to dismiss the FAC's unjust enrichment claim. Judge Engelmayer also denies the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations, without prejudice to the Defendants' right, later in this litigation, to oppose class certification on similar grounds. The case will now proceed to discovery. Judge Engelmayer directs the parties to submit a joint case management plan within one week of this order. His judgment is that in the first instance, discovery should be limited to the contractual relationship governing the Game Pass service provided to Gill, and that such discovery should be capable of completion within three months. If, following such discovery and any ensuing motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff's claims has survived, discovery would then be warranted on issues of breach, damages, and potential class certification. Judge Engelmayer directs the counsel to formulate a case management plan consistent with these parameters. He respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to close the motions pending at dockets 15 and 25. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/55fc8nr8 from Leagle.com. NCAA: Davis Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------- The case styled as Larry Davis, Randy Duncan, Brandon Robinson, Raymond Roy-Pace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 49D07-2108-CT-027357, was removed from the Marion Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Nov. 3, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02792-SEB-MPB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Thomas Dassow, Esq. Tyler Jackson Zipes, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC 10201 North Illinois, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Phone: (317) 818-3100 Fax: (317) 818-3111 Email: rdassow@hovdelaw.com tzipes@hovdelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrea Roberts Pierson, Esq. Bianca M. Eddy, Esq. Patrick H. Reilly, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP (Indianapolis) 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 237-0300 Fax: (317) 237-1000 Email: andrea.pierson@faegredrinker.com bianca.eddy@faegredrinker.com patrick.reilly@faegredrinker.com NEW YORK, NY: Oles Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of New York, et al. The case is styled as Ward Oles, Patricia Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of New York; Mary Gotsopoulis, Jeffrey Shear, individually; Jane and John Does 1-10; Case No. 1:21-cv-09393 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2021). The nature of is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Lower, Esq. LOWER LAW, PLLC 535 5th Ave., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 398-1018 Email: rlower@mgpllp.com NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Jan. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION WERE YOU IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN NEWFOUNDLAND FROM AUGUST 14, 1990 TO OCTOBER 21, 2021? If YES, A Class Action May Affect Your Rights. MOUNT PEARL, Newfoundland and Labrador -- Morris Martin Moore and Valent Legal Announce A Class Action Against the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been Certified by the Court. You could be affected by a class action against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (the "Province"). A lawsuit has been certified as a Class Action against the Province. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Province, through its use of segregation in its correctional facilities, caused harm to inmates, as well as violated their Charter rights. Segregation is any placement in a Provincial Institution in which an inmate is confined in isolation from the general population of the prison. This can include time spent in disciplinary or administrative segregation, the special handling unit, a dry cell, or time spent locked in one's own cell. The Representative Plaintiffs are Paul Hennebury, Nikita Pearce, Adam Hayden and Krystal Maher (A.K.A. Chase Maher). BASIC INFORMATION 1. Why is there a notice? This lawsuit has been "certified" as a class action. This means that the lawsuit meets the requirements for a class action and may proceed to trial. If you are included in the class, you may have legal rights and options before the Court decides whether the claims being made against the Province on your behalf are correct. This notice explains all of these things. A judge of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, General Division, is currently overseeing this case. The case is known as Paul Hennebury et al. v. Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, (Court File No. 2020 01G 4112 CP). The people who sued are called the Plaintiffs. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the Defendant. 2. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit says that the Province improperly subjected prisoners to periods of segregation. This includes subjecting any individual to a period of segregation for 15 days or more, as well as subjecting an individual diagnosed with a Serious Mental Illness to segregation for any length of time. The lawsuit says that the use of segregation in these circumstances constitutes systemic negligence and breach prisoners' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court has not decided whether the Plaintiffs or the Province is right. The lawyers for the Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims in Court. If you are having difficulty completing the Opt In Form or Opt Out Form, you can call Trilogy Class Action Services at 1-877-400-1211 for assistance. 3. Why is this a class action? In a class action, people called the "Representative Plaintiffs" (in this case, Paul Hennebury, Nikita Pearce, Adam Hayden and Krystal Maher a.k.a. Chase Maher), sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. All of these people are a "Class" or "Class Members." The court resolves the issues for all Class Members in one case, except for residents of the Province who remove themselves from the Class or non-residents who do not opt in to the Class. 4. Who is a member of the Class? The Class includes: All current and former inmates who were alive as of August 14, 2019, who meet at least one of the following definitions: I. Inmates with Serious Mental Illness (a) Who were subjected to Segregation for any length of time at one of the Provincial Institutions during the Class Period; (b) Who were diagnosed by a medical doctor before or during their incarceration with at least one of the following disorders, as defined in the relevant Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (" DSM "): Advertisement STORY CONTINUES BELOW This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content Schizophrenia (all sub-types); Delusional Disorder; Schizophreniform disorder; Schizoaffective Disorder; Brief psychotic Disorder; Substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxications and withdrawal); Psychotic Disorder not otherwise specified; Major Depressive Disorder; Bipolar Disorder I; Bipolar Disorder II; Neurocognitive Disorders and/or Delirium, Dementia and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; or Borderline Personality Disorder; and, (c) The Defendant knew, or ought to have known, of the diagnosed mental illness ("the SMI Inmates"). or, II. Inmates in Prolonged Segregation (a) Who were subjected to a period of Segregation for 15 or more consecutive days (" Prolonged Segregation ") at a Provincial Institution during the Class Period (the " Prolonged Inmates ").(together, the " Class Members ") " Segregation " is defined as any placement in a Provincial Institution in which a prisoner: (b) is confined to an isolation cell, pursuant to ss. 27 or 28 of the Prisons Regulations, CNLR 993/96 or otherwise; or (c) is confined in any other manner in which he or she is isolated from the general prison population. " Provincial Institutions " is defined as any of Her Majesty's Penitentiary, the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women, the Labrador Correctional Centre, the Bishop's Falls Correctional Centre, the West Coast Correctional Centre, the St. John's Lockup, and the Corner Brook Lockup. " Class Period " is defined as August 14, 1990 to the date of certification. 5. What are the Plaintiffs asking for? The Plaintiffs are asking for money or other benefits for the Class. They are also asking for lawyers' fees and costs. 6. Is there any money available now? No money or benefits are available now because the Court has not yet decided whether the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador did anything wrong, and the two sides have not settled the case. There is no guarantee that money or benefits will ever be obtained. If they are, you will be notified about how to ask for your share. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS You must decide whether to stay in the Class or whether to remove yourself, and you have to decide this by Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 5:00pm (EST). What you are required to do depends on whether or not you are currently a resident of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you are currently a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador: To stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything. If you do nothing, you will automatically remain in the lawsuit. You will be bound by all Court orders in this case, good or bad, and the Representative Plaintiffs will have authority to resolve your claim. If money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified about how to ask for a share. Residents who do not want to be a part of the class must opt out by sending a written notice on or before Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 5:00pm (EST) to the Class Administrator. Otherwise, you will be bound by the Court's judgment whether favourable or not. 7. By opting out, will my name be made public? No. If you are NOT currently a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador: To be in the Class, you need to take action. Non-residents who want to be a part of the Class are required to opt in to the Class by sending a written notice on or before Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 5:00pm, (EST), to Newfoundland and Labrador Prisons Class Action, 117 Queen St, P.O. Box 1000, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, L0S 1J0. Include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. You can also get an Opt In Form from www.nfldprisonsegregation.com . You must mail your Opt In Form postmarked by Wednesday, January 19, 2022. If you qualify for the Class, you will be bound by all Court orders in this case, good or bad, and the Representative Plaintiffs will be authorized to resolve your claim. If money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified about how to ask for a share. Non-residents who do not want to be a part of the class should take no action. 8. By opting in, will my name be made public? No. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 9. Do I have a lawyer in the case? Yes. The Court has appointed Morris Martin Moore to represent you and other Class members as "Class Counsel." If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own expense. 10. How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will only be paid if they win a trial or if there is a settlement. The Court has to also approve their request to be paid. The fees and expenses could be deducted from any money obtained for the Class, or paid separately by the defendant. A TRIAL 11. How and when will the Court decide who is right? If the lawsuit is not dismissed or settled, the Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims at a trial that will take place in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During the trial, a court will hear all of the evidence, so that a decision can be reached about whether the Plaintiffs or the Province is right about the claims in the lawsuit. There is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs will win any money or benefits for the Class. Advertisement STORY CONTINUES BELOW This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content 12. Will I get money after the trial? If the Plaintiffs obtain money or benefits as a result of a trial or settlement, you will be notified about how to ask for a share or what your other options are at that time. These things are not known right now. Important information about the case will be posted on the website. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 12. How do I get more information? You can get more information at www.nfldprisonsegregation.com or by emailing inquiry@trilogyclassactions.ca , or by calling toll free at 1-877-400-1211 or by writing to Newfoundland and Labrador Prisons Class Action, 117 Queen St, P.O. Box 1000, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, L0S 1J0. Contacts: James Locke Morris Martin Moore 184 Park Avenue Mount Pearl, NL A1N 1K8 Tel: 709-747-0077 www.mmmlawyers.com jlocke@mmmlawyers.com [GN] NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Sues Over Failure to Observe Grace Period ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheri Poe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-01924-LAB-RBB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought against the Defnednat for failure to observe a 60-day grace period and failure to provide the requisite notices as required by the Insurance Code. The Plaintiff became a beneficiary under two life insurance policies issued to her husband in 2001 and 2002. Her husband dutifully paid premiums under the policies for years but, due to an apparent mistake by his bank, missed his December 2017 payment. Despite the Statutes' clear mandate, Northwestern failed to observe a 60-day grace period, failed to provide the requisite notices, and terminated the policies before Plaintiff's husband unexpectedly died in late April of 2018. When Northwestern Mutual was later advised of the death and queried regarding the status of the policies, it stated that no coverage was in effect on the date of the insured's death and refused to allow a claim for the policies' benefits. Plaintiff brings this class action to remedy Northwestern Mutual's violations of the Statutes and its wrongful denial of life insurance claims for nonpayment of premium under policies issued in California prior to January 1, 2013, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who has resided in Orange County, California. Northwestern Mutual is an insurance company licensed to do business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 489-1600 Fax: (213) 489-1611 Email: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Suit Over Decline of Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- SOTHINATHAN SINNATHURAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVAVAX, INC., STANLEY C. ERCK, GREGORY F. COVINO, and JOHN J. TRIZZINO, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (D. Md., November 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Novavax's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Novavax securities at artificially inflated process between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Novavax overstated its manufacturing capabilities and downplayed manufacturing issues that would impact its approval timeline for NVX-CoV2373; (ii) as a result, Novavax was unlikely to meet its anticipated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulatory timelines for NVX-CoV2373; (iii) accordingly, the company overstated the regulatory and commercial prospects for NVX-CoV2373; and (iv) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the company's stock price continuously fell up to $23.69 per share, or 14.76%, to close at $136.86 per share on October 20, 2021, says the suit. Novavax, Inc. is a biotechnology company headquartered in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, 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 ahood@pomlaw.com OCULUS ACCOUNTING: Court Tosses Settlement Approval Application --------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Pembroke-Birss, Esq., and Caitlin Brown, Esq., of Norton Rose Fulbright, disclosed that the Federal Court of Australia has dismissed an application seeking settlement approval to discontinue a representative proceeding against Oculus Accounting Pty Ltd even though the proceeding was no longer viable. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the terms of the settlement were "fair and reasonable" and in the interests of group members as a whole for the purpose of section 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act). The decision highlights important matters to keep in mind when considering strategies for settling representative proceedings. Key takeaways Applicants must demonstrate an entitlement to an order to discontinue a representative proceeding under section 33V even when the order is not opposed. The Court plays a protective and supervisory role in relation to the interests of group members and must be satisfied that any settlement or discontinuance is appropriate. Lack of viability of a representative proceeding will not be sufficient for an order that a proceeding no longer proceed as a representative proceeding (known as "declassing") under section 33N of the Federal Court Act. There are currently two divergent approaches to the test to be applied under section 33V. In the circumstances, it was not necessary for the Court to decide which one was the correct one. It may be that the test that applies will depend on the circumstances of the case. Settlement terms that seek to restrain legal representatives in a way that could affect the ability of other group members to proceed with an individual claim may not be "fair and reasonable" for the purpose of section 33V. In some circumstances, barristers' conduct rules may prohibit restrictions on accepting briefs. Applicants and their legal representatives would not be free to provide group members with the documents discovered by defendants in proceedings. To do so would be a breach of the Harman undertaking. That obligation is owed to the Court and could not be waived by the parties. Consideration should be given to the impact on group members where the limitation period may recommence in respect of their individual claims once the representative proceeding is discontinued. What was the proceeding about? The applicants were clients of Oculus. In 2014, they invested $100,000 in shares in a company which was later placed into external administration. The applicants claimed they made the investment in reliance on financial advice provided to them by Oculus. In 2020, the applicants commenced a representative proceeding against Oculus with up to 107 potential group members. They sought to recover the value of their investment alleging various breaches of general law duties and contraventions of the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law in connection with the advice. Oculus denied the allegations. Why did the parties want to settle? As the proceeding progressed, the applicants realised that there was unlikely to be any substantial recovery even if a judgment were obtained against Oculus. There was an apparent lack of any responsive insurance policy and Oculus was at risk of being placed into liquidation. The applicants' legal representatives formed the view that the claim was not "remotely viable" and were not prepared to continue acting in those circumstances. The parties entered into a settlement deed. The deed proposed a scheme of distribution, which apparently did not provide for any payment to the applicants, although the Court could not be sure of that because details of the proposed distribution scheme were not in evidence before the Court. The application for settlement approval In accordance with the settlement deed, the applicants then made an unopposed application to the Court for approval to discontinue the proceeding (under section 33V) or to declass the proceeding (under section 33N). Notice of the application was distributed to other group members and none of them opposed the proposed settlement. The Court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the proposed discontinuance was fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members as a whole. Despite that decision, the Court noted that the obstacles to approval were not insurmountable and that it seemed appropriate for the proceeding to be ended in the circumstances. The Court invited the applicants to reconsider some of the settlement terms and make a subsequent application. How do you establish an entitlement to approval under section 33V? A representative proceeding in the Federal Court cannot be settled or discontinued without the approval of the Court. When seeking approval, the applicant must establish that the discontinuance or settlement is in the interests of all group members. It's not enough for the order to be unopposed The Court emphasised that even where an order sought under section 33V is not opposed, as in this case, an applicant must still demonstrate an entitlement to the order. This is especially so in the context of representative proceedings where the Court has a protective and supervisory role in relation to the interests of group members. The Court made the following observation: There is a danger that when a settlement is reached or a discontinuance is agreed, the interests of the actual parties to the proceedings may receive their paramount consideration while the impact on group members may not be fully or properly addressed. What is the applicable test? In relation to the test to be applied under section 33V, the Court acknowledged that there were two divergent approaches. The first approach requires the applicant to prove that the approval would not be unfair, unreasonable, or adverse to the interests of other group members. The second approach requires the applicant to prove that the discontinuance is fair and reasonable and in the interests of the members of the representative proceeding as a whole. In relation to which test was the correct one, the Court: -- considered there was "much force" in the view which prefers the former and less stringent test of the first approach; -- agreed with previous judicial comments that "any difference between the tests will be illusory in most circumstances"; -- decided it was not necessary to reach a concluded view in this case because it was inappropriate to approve the discontinuance no matter which test was applied; and -- observed that in cases such as this one, where the discontinuance is akin to a settlement (involving payments to applicants' lawyers), it may be appropriate to apply the more stringent test. Why was approval not granted in this case? The Court held that the applicants had failed to demonstrate on either test that it was appropriate to make an order pursuant to section 33V approving the discontinuance of the proceedings. There were two main issues that informed the Court's conclusion. Lack of evidence about proposed distribution The first issue was the possibility that the applicants may receive money in connection with the discontinuance, pursuant to the settlement terms. The Court was "left in great doubt" as to whether that would be the case as it had not been provided with the schedule of the proposed distribution of settlement monies that was referred to in the settlement deed. The applicants had not shown that any receipt of money pursuant to those terms would be fair and reasonable. The Court said that issue alone supported the conclusion that approval of the discontinuance was not appropriate, and that it was no answer if the applicants were to receive no part of the settlement sum. Restraints on lawyers in the settlement deed The second issue was restraints contained in the settlement terms that could affect the interests of group members. Specifically, the Court was concerned about settlement terms that purported to restrain the applicants' solicitors and counsel from acting, assisting or otherwise being involved in any individual proceedings by other group members. Although a group member could proceed despite the discontinuance, and could do so with the benefit of the court documents available on the court file, without being able to engage the lawyers who were already familiar with the case, a group member would lose substantially all of the benefit of the conduct of the proceeding to date. New lawyers would have to "start afresh". The Court considered this indicated that the discontinuance may be unfair, unreasonable and adverse to the interests of group members. The Court also noted its concern about two related issues. The restraints may be contrary to rules relating to the "cab rank" principle in the barristers' conduct rules which prohibit restrictions on accepting briefs. The applicants or their legal representatives would not be free to provide group members with the documents discovered by Oculus. To do so would be a breach of the Harman undertaking. That obligation is owed to the Court and could not be waived by Oculus. What alternative orders were considered? The Court also declined to make three other orders sought or suggested by the applicants. Declassing under section 33N The applicants sought an alternative order pursuant to section 33N that the proceeding not continue on the basis that it was inappropriate for the claims to be pursued as a representative proceeding and it was therefore in the interests of justice to discontinue the proceeding. The Court held it was not enough for the applicants to merely submit, as they did, that the lack of viability of the representative proceeding made it in the interests of the justice to make an order under section 33N. The applicants needed to establish that one of the specific conditions in section 33N had been satisfied and that it was in the interests of the justice to make the order for that reason. The Court said the conditions will not be satisfied: where the applicant merely concludes that the proceedings are unviable or otherwise comes to the realisation that they are not worth pursuing, a circumstance which would generally also exist if individual actions were to be brought by all group members. Withdrawal under section 33W The Court also noted that the applicants could not withdraw as the representative party under section 33W of the Federal Court Act. This was because the settlement terms required discontinuance of the whole representative proceeding. An order permitting the applicants to withdraw would leave the proceeding on foot but with no representative party. Limitation period In relation to the impact of the discontinuance on the limitation period, the Court noted that group members should be provided with notice of the risk that the running of the limitation periods will resume, and with sufficient opportunity to avoid the potential adverse consequences of that.24 The Court rejected a suggestion that an order could be made under section 33ZF of the Federal Court Act restarting the limitation period once group members had notice of the discontinuance. [GN] OHIO LIVING: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE KORDIE, et al., v. OHIO LIVING, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03791, Case No. 2:21-cv-03791-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that the November 19, 2021 deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Class Certification be extended to December 3, 2021. The Defendants say that they are working diligently to review employee payroll records, pay statements, and other relevant documents to determine their response to Plaintiff's Motion. This requires an analysis of records relating to hundreds of employees at 12 facilities operated by them. The Defendants counsel conferred with Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HytSNO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Zachary J. Weber, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP Zachary J. Weber (0097997) 255 E. Fifth St, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 Facsimile: (513) 977-8141 E-mail: Zachary.Weber@DINSMORE.COM - and - Jan E. Hensel, Esq. 191 W. Nationwide Blvd., Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 628-6880 Facsimile: 614-628-6890 E-mail: jan.hensel@dinsmore.com OMNICARE INC: Settles IC Misclassification Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Reibstein, Esq., of Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that October was a relatively "slow" month for legal developments in the areas of independent contractor misclassification and compliance. But for companies that engage drivers to distribute pharmaceutical products, a nearly $12 million settlement of an IC misclassification case last month may persuade even more companies in that industry to consider taking steps to further enhance their IC compliance. Indeed, this eight-figure settlement is one of five IC misclassification cases that we have reported on in the past two years where class action lawyers have targeted companies that use independent contractors to deliver pharmaceutical products. As we reported in a blog post last April, a freight transportation company that brokered the transportation of pharmaceuticals including controlled substances, was unable to dismiss an IC misclassification collective and class action brought by drivers who sued it under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York wage and hour law. In January 2021, we reported on a case in New Jersey against a pharmaceutical delivery service filed by drivers who claimed they had been misclassified as independent contractors. That company was able, however, to compel arbitration of the state wage and hour claims. A post on this blog in September 2020 reported on a $4.5 million settlement in an IC misclassification case brought by drivers against a delivery company for a pharmacy services provider. Less than a year earlier, we reported on a $7.5 million settlement of an IC misclassification class action brought against two pharmaceutical wholesale distributors by 115 drivers. These cases illustrate the compelling need by companies in the pharmacy services industry to elevate their current level of compliance with state and federal independent contractor laws. Many companies use a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM). That type of process assesses a company's level of compliance and then identifies how the company can restructure, re-document, and re-implement its independent contractor relationships in a customized and sustained manner consistent with its current business model. Enhancing compliance by use of this sort of process minimizes the likelihood of becoming a target of class action lawyers and maximizes the likelihood of a favorable result in the event of a lawsuit for IC misclassification. One element of the IC Diagnostics process includes creating effective arbitration clauses with class action waivers that further insulate companies from class and collective action liability. In the Courts (2 cases) ‎PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS PROVIDER TO PAY $11.9 MILLION TO SETTLE IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION BY DELIVERY DRIVERS. A class of delivery drivers has entered into a proposed $11.9 million settlement with a pharmacy services provider for long-term care and post-acute facilities and assisted living and senior living communities. In a collective action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the company violated minimum wage and overtime compensation provisions under that statute by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and not employees, the company vigorously denied the allegations and asserted the drivers were properly classified as independent contractors. However, to date, 1,231 delivery drivers nationwide have affirmatively opted-in and joined the lawsuit. According to the complaint, the work performed by the drivers primarily consisted of driving vehicles to the company's customers pursuant to routes and schedules mandated by the company and its affiliates and delivering the company's products to healthcare facilities in accordance with the company's policies and standards. The proposed settlement, which includes a non-admission of liability clause and was accompanied by a memorandum of law that articulated certain of the company's defenses, includes nearly $8 million to be divided among the drivers on a pro rata basis dependent upon the number of weeks worked by each driver. It also calls for the payment of approximately $4 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The average payout per driver will exceed $6,000, and more than 300 drivers will receive net payments of more than $10,000. The proposed settlement does not, however, require the company to reclassify the drivers as employees. Hager v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00484 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 8, 2021). NEWSPAPER FACES SECOND TRIAL OF IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION CLAIMS. Newspaper delivery carriers have won a second chance against The Fresno Bee when a California appeals court reversed a trial court's decision in favor of the newspaper. The appeals court reasoned that the lower court used the wrong test for determining independent contractor/employee status. The carriers had brought a class action claiming that the paper had violated various California state laws due to the classification of the carriers as independent contractors. After a bench trial on the issue of whether the newspaper violated the state unfair competition law by failing to pay the carriers' mileage expenses, the trial court concluded that the carriers were independent contractors not entitled to reimbursement. On appeal, the carriers contended that the trial court erred by failing to apply the so-called Borello test, erroneously instead relying upon regulations promulgated by the California Employment Development Department. In reversing the trial court, the appeals court concluded the EDD's regulations were inapplicable and that the trial court failed to properly analyze the Borello test factors. The appeals court "decline[d] to resolve whether the carriers are employees or independent contractors" and chose to remand that issue to the trial court to make that determination under the correct legal test. Becerra v. McClatchy Co., No. F074680 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2021)‎. Legislative Developments (1 item) ‎NEW YORK WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION LAW EXPANDED TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law on October 28, 2021 an amendment to New York's whistleblower protection law expanding ‎protections for employees and broadening those protected by the law to include independent contractors. As we discussed in our November 1, 2021 blog post, Senate Bill S4394A not only broadens the scope of whistleblower ‎protections in New York, but also expands the definition of protected "employees" to include ‎independent contractors. Previously, this statute was regarded as ‎rather limited in that it applied only to disclosures of matters "in ‎violation of law" that presented a "substantial danger to the public health or safety, or that which ‎constitutes health care fraud." The new law vastly widens its contours to include ‎the disclosure, or threatened disclosure, to a supervisor or governmental body of any matter that an ‎employee or independent contractor reasonably believes is in violation of any law, rule or regulation. It also adds to the types of prohibited retaliatory acts against former employees who have "blown the whistle," such as blacklisting or ‎threatening to contact federal immigration authorities. The new law, which will become effective 90 days after enactment, permits the ‎recovery of punitive damages for acts of malicious or wanton retaliation and requires ‎employers to post notices informing workers about the new law. ‎These amendments bring New York into parity with many other ‎states' whistleblower laws, but New York has gone a step beyond by including independent ‎contractors within the ambit of those who are protected by the amended law. [GN] ON24 INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 1, 2022 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ON24, Inc. ("ON24" or the "Company") (NYSE: ONTF) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ON24 securities pursuant and/or traceable to the February 2, 2021 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). Investors have until January 1, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. ON24 is a cloud-based digital experience platform that purports to have seen an increased demand for its platform and products following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 (the "Offering Price") for anticipated proceeds of approximately $428,046,500. According to the complaint filed in the Northern District of California, representations made in the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company's IPO were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the surge in COVID-19 customers 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. After the IPO, as the true facts emerged, the value of the Company's shares declined sharply. By the commencement of the action, ON24's shares traded as low as $18.70 per share, a decline of nearly 63% from the IPO Offering Price. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ON24 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] ON24 INC: Faces Douvia Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES DOUVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ON24, INC.; SHARAT SHARAN; STEVEN VATTUONE; IRWIN FEDERMAN; DENISE PERSSON; HOLGER STAUDE; DOMINIQUE TREMPONT; BARRY ZWARENSTEIN; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; CANACCORD GENUITY LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; PIPER SANDLER & CO.; and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08578 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2021) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, 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 (the "Offering Price") for anticipated proceeds of approximately $428,046,500. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Offering Documents representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, 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, the suit says. As these true facts emerged after the Offering, the Company's shares allegedly fell sharply. By the commencement of this action, ON24's shares traded as low as $18.66 per share, a decline of nearly 63% from the Offering Price. ON24, Inc. provides cloud-based webcasting and virtual communication solutions. The Company offers virtual training, marketing webinars, mobile webcasting, and virtual trade show. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Hal Cunnigham, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com hcunningham@scott-scott.com ON24 INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 1, 2022 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased ON24, Inc. (NYSE:ONTF) securities in connection with the Company's February 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"), for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On24 purports to be a leading, 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. ON24, Inc. (ONTF) Misled Investors Regarding its Scalability According to the complaint, On24 conducted its IPO on February 3, 2021, offering 8,560,930 shares for $50 per share, for proceeds of approximately $428,046,500. The Offering Documents touted the Company's scalability, "highly engaged and loyal customer base," and an increase in its "large enterprise customers" and revenue amid COVID-19. The Offering Documents, however, were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose 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 its traditional customer profile and, as a result, were significantly less likely to renew their contracts. On August 10, 2021, the Company announced its second quarter 2021 financial results, noting that it had "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." Analysts responded quickly by downgrading the stock, which declined nearly 31%, falling from $32.31 per share on August 10, 2021, to close at $22.31 per share on August 11, 2021. The stock now trades as low as $18.49, a decline of more than 60% from the Offering Price. If you purchased shares of On24, Inc. (ONTF) securities pursuant to the Company's February 2021 IPO, you have until January 1, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Contact us to learn more: Aaron Dumas (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com Shareholder Information Form About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against On24, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] ONE40 BEAUTY: COVID-19 Class Action Insurance Coverage Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Flesch, writing for Law360, reports that Sentinel Insurance Co., a Hartford insurer, doesn't need to cover a One40 Beauty Lounge's pandemic losses, a Connecticut federal judge ruled, saying a virus exclusion precluded all coverage. [GN] OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------ Pricilla Aguilar, Julian Haro, Juan Madera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV41922 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid compensations and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor Code. In this case, the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Oder. The Defendants' violations include: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime owed; failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; and failure to maintain timekeeping and payroll records, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. operates in California from numerous locations producing glass bottles and jars.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL: Adams Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs David Adams, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID ADAMS, MICHAEL SHAW, and GERALD KASMERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-80127-BER, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 29, 2021, the lawsuit seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bag drop attendants. On August 30, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss amended complaint/amended notice of removal for failure to state a claim. On October 4, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting with prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss second amended complaint. It is further ordered that all pending motions are denied as moot and the Clerk shall close the case. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's dismissal ruling in an appellate case captioned David Adams, et al. v. Palm Beach County, Case No. 21-13825, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on November 1, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before December 13, 2021; and -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID ADAMS and MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, PA 300 NW 70th Ave Ste 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com Defendant-Appellee PALM BEACH COUNTY is represented by: Bridget Ann Berry, Esq. Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq. Lauren R. Whetstone, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 777 S Flagler Dr Ste 300E West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 650-7900 E-mail: berryb@gtlaw.com hutchinsonp@gtlaw.com whetstonel@gtlaw.com - and - Anaili Medina Cure, Esq. PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 300 N Dixie Hwy Ste 359 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 355-6337 E-mail: acure@pbcgov.org - and - Rachel Marie Fahey, Esq. PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 301 N Olive Ave Ste 601 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 355-2249 E-mail: rfahey@pbcgov.org PARAJUMPERS NORTH AMERICA: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parajumpers North America Corp. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Parajumpers North America Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-09333 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Parajumpers -- https://www.parajumpers.it/ -- offers a collection of jackets and coats, knitwear and accessories on their Official PJS Store.[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 PBF HOLDING: Files Answer to 3rd Amended Complaint in Goldstein ---------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company has filed its answer to the corrected Third Amended Complaint in the case captioned as, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and the Company's subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the Company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the Company's acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the court took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. On April 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22, 2019, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion. The Company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021, the Company's motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint were heard by the court. On February 9, 2021, the court issued an order taking both motions under submission pending additional discovery and briefing related to plaintiff Youssef and whether a new class representative should be substituted. "The court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion hearing cut-off, and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the court's decision as to whether the case can proceed with a new class representative and whether defendants will be permitted to conduct additional soil vapor sampling in the ground subclass area," the Company said. On March 6, 2021, plaintiff Youssef's second deposition was taken. On March 22, 2021, based on plaintiff Youssef's deposition, the Company filed its brief requesting the court dismiss plaintiff Youssef's claims for nuisance and trespass and deny plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to substitute a new named plaintiff or class representative. On April 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a brief regarding their motion. On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") that contained significant changes and new claims, including individual claims, that were not included in the motion for leave to amend plaintiffs presented to the Court. On June 9, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which the Company filed its reply on July 2, 2021. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC was held on August 2, 2021 and the court ordered that the TAC be struck and that the parties meet and confer with respect to the complaint. After meeting and conferring, plaintiffs agreed to submit a corrected TAC with changes reflecting the removal of Youssef and the substitution of Navarro as the named Plaintiff. On August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to take Navarro's deposition on September 23, 2021. Also, on August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to continue the pretrial dates with the new deadlines as follows: defendants to take discovery as to Navarro's adequacy to serve as the class representative due on October 1, 2021; plaintiffs' motion to substitute class representative due on October 8, 2021; defendants' opposition to motion to substitute class representative due on October 29, 2021; plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to substitute class representative due on November 15, 2021; hearing on motion for substitution of class representative scheduled for November 22, 2021, or such other date as ordered by the Court; and the parties to submit a proposed trial schedule, if necessary, within fourteen days of the court's order on Plaintiffs' motion to substitute class representative. On September 7, 2021, the Company filed its Answer to the corrected TAC. On September 23, 2021, Navarro's deposition was taken. On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative. The Company's opposition to this motion was due October 29, 2021. The Company presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PBF Energy is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. PEABODY'S CABARET: Judge Let Dancers Pursue Labor Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A group of former performers at Peabody's Cabaret Lounge can pursue a class action lawsuit against the club's owner, a judge has ruled. In a decision this week, Salem Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Karp concluded that the three women, who originally filed suit in 2018, can serve as representatives of a group that they believe could include up to 300 dancers who performed there since 2015. The former dancers, Summer Beaulieu, Nayelis Baldino and Lauren Turcotte, and their attorney, David Dishman, argued that instead of paying them a wage for their work, the owner of the club, Feng Zhi Lang, charged the women $20 per shift. The dancers allege that the club required many of them to "tip out" to other staff from their own tips. Karp concluded that even if the number of dancers was far less than the estimated 300 by the plaintiffs, there are still enough potential claimants that it justifies treating the case as a class action. He also shared the view of the dancers that some of those who might be entitled to compensation might not have the resources to mount a legal challenge for a comparatively small amount of money or might not want to be a named plaintiff in a lawsuit. "Denying class certification would allow these dancers to go uncompensated and allow the defendants to benefit from what may turn out to be a windfall," Karp wrote. The judge found that the key claim in the lawsuit - misclassifying the dancers as independent contractors, whether or not they signed a purported non-employment agreement - was common to all of the potential claimants in the group. A lawyer for the club had opposed class action status, contending that similar lawsuits, including an earlier suit that resulted in a settlement with the club, were becoming "a cottage industry" for dancers and their attorneys. The club said in its opposition to the class action request was that after that earlier settlement it began offering dancers the choice of becoming employees or signing a document stating that they did not wish to be considered employees. [GN] PEGULA SPORTS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pegula Sports & Entertainment, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pegula Sports & Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09439 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pegula Sports & Entertainment -- http://www.psentertainment.com/-- is an American sports and entertainment company based in Buffalo, New York.[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 PERFECT BAR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perfect Bar, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Perfect Bar, LLC, Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09455 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Perfect Bar -- https://perfectsnacks.com/ -- produces nutrition bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Tate Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Steven Tate, Stephen Flannery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01285 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 15, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01643-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. Philips -- https://www.usa.philips.com/ -- North America LLC designs and manufactures products for consumers, commercial professionals, and government professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011 Phone: (314) 541-0317 Fax: (855) 710-7706 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com PJ MONTGOMERY: Wilson Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PJ Montgomery, LLC. The case is styled as David Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PJ Montgomery, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00774-MHT-KFP (M.D. Ala., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pj Montgomery, LLC is located in Prattville, Alabama and is part of the Restaurants and Other Eating Places Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Elizabeth Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 650 S Shackelford-Ste 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Corinne Wilkerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-08961 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. PRA Group, Inc. or PRA -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a debt buyer and debt collector based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jitesh Dudani, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: jdudani@brlfirm.com PRIMARY AIM: Faces ADA Class Action Over Parking Lot Sloping ------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges the operator of more than 70 Wendy's restaurants across Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia has unlawfully failed to remediate excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, aisles and curb ramps. The 15-page lawsuit alleges defendant Primary Aim, LLC, who owns, leases and/or operates at least 72 Wendy's locations, has run afoul of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in particular by failing to ensure that areas of public accommodation are compliant with the law's sloping requirements. According to the suit, the plaintiff's counsel performed site investigations at 20 of the defendant's facilities and found parking areas that are, or have become, inaccessible to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility. "As a result of Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA, plaintiff's ability to access and safely use Defendants' facilities has been significantly impeded and Plaintiff will be deterred from returning to and fully and safely accessing Defendants' facilities due to the discrimination he has previously encountered there," the lawsuit alleges. The complaint claims the plaintiff, a Fayette County, Pennsylvania resident who uses a wheelchair for mobility, experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk of physical harm entering and exiting his vehicle at the defendant's McKees Rocks restaurant, such that "extra care was needed to avoid falling and to safely traverse the area" due to excessive sloping. "Defendants' centralized maintenance and operational policies, practices or procedures have systematically and routinely resulted in excessive sloping conditions in the Parking Areas of Defendants' facilities, in violation of the ADA and its implementing regulations," the suit contests. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges parking spaces and access aisles within the defendant's parking areas had slopes in excess of 2.1 percent. The suit also claims the accessible routes to some facilities' entrances had a running slope in excess of five percent and up to 8.33 percent, with other facilities having curb ramp flare slopes exceeding 10 percent. [GN] PRIMECARE CONSULTING: Lecuyer et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- LEAH LECUYER and LINDA ALDRIDGE on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIMECARE CONSULTING AND MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a PHYSICIANS CARE CLINIC, f/k/a POWHATAN FAMILY PHYSICIANS, and TOY BAYLESS and SHELANDA HAYES, MD, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00688 (E.D. Va., October 29, 2021) bring this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and/or overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Lecuyer began working as an independent contractor on July 20, 2020 and was later hired as a full-time employee on September 11, 2020 as a Family Nurse Practitioner in the Defendants' Powhatan, Virginia office. Plaintiff Lecuyer ended his employment with the Defendants until July 12, 2021. Plaintiff Aldridge began working for the Defendants as an office manager around June 26, 2020 and was employed until July 13, 2021. The Plaintiffs claim that although they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week for the Defendants, they were instructed not to enter more than 36 hours per week on their timesheets. The Defendants allegedly denied them their lawfully earned 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. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid their regular pay checks from approximately December 15, 2020 to July 12, 2021 as a result of the Defendants failure to make payroll, says the suit. PrimeCare Consulting and Management LLC d/b/a Physicians Care Clinic f/k/a Powhatan Family Physicians provides medical services. Toby Bayless is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. Shelanda Hayes is the Chief Medical Officer. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia St., Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Antiperspirant Contains Benzene, Bryski Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOVA BRYSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case 0:21-cv-62285-XXXX (D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2021) alleges that the Defendant's over-the-counter aerosol antiperspirant products sold under the brand names "Old Spice" and "Secret" (the "Aerosol Antiperspirant Products") were adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the presence of benzene in the Defendant's Aerosol Antiperspirant Products was not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Defendant's Aerosol Antiperspirant Products had she known there was a risk the products may contain benzene, a known human carcinogen. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase products she would not otherwise have purchased absent the Defendant's misconduct, says the suit. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY manufactures and markets consumer products in countries throughout the world. The Company provides products in the laundry and cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care segments. Procter & Gamble products are sold primarily through mass merchandisers, grocery stores, membership club stores, drug stores, and neighborhood stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzhak Levin, Esq. LEVIN LITIGATION, PLLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Ste. 311 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 678-5155 Facsimile: (954) 678-5156 Email: ylevin@levinlitigation.com -and- Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com -and- Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Layne Hilton, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Email: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com hilton@kanner-law.com PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Faces Walters Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ind. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL LABOR GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02831-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., November 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee. Professional Labor Group, LLC is a provider of conveyor, equipment, and racking installation services, with its principal place of business located at 50 South Park Boulevard, Greenwood, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com QUALIA COLLECTION: Avina Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE AVINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01993 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) based on the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Background Plaintiff Avina, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought the lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 (FDCPA), against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, after which the Defendant removed the suit to federal court. The Plaintiff incurred an alleged debt that he was unable to pay, so it went into default. Capital One acquired the debt and retained the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. To that end, the Defendant mailed a collection letter to the Plaintiff in October 2020, in an attempt to collect on the debt. The Letter states the principal of the debt is $1,499.42 and lists amounts accruing for fees and interest. The Plaintiff believed that because amounts were listed for fees and interest, those items were accruing on the alleged debt. But in fact, neither fees nor interest were permitted to accrue because the debt had been charged off in October 2018 for $2,024. The Letter failed to inform the Plaintiff that, despite listing fees and interest, those amounts cannot increase. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e of the FDCPA when it falsely implied that the debt may be increasing. The Letter also listed several disclosures required by the FDCPA including: "If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against you and have such verification or judgment mailed to you." The Defendant's reference to a judgment made the Plaintiff believe that there may have been a judgment entered with respect to the alleged debt, or that Defendant was in the process of obtaining one. In fact, the Defendant had no intention of seeking a judgment on the debt and knew that no judgment had been entered. The Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendant's statement that it could send a copy of a judgment to him would make him believe that there was no longer any point to disputing the alleged debt, and that he owed it regardless of whether he believed he did or not." He further alleges that the Defendant violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by threatening a legal action it did not intend to take and by using unfair means in an attempt to collect the debt. The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging violations of the FDCPA. The Defendant removed the suit to federal court. The Plaintiff now moves to remand the suit to the Circuit Court of Cook County based on the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discussion In his motion to remand, the Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his lawsuit because he does not allege an injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III standing. He argues that, based on a series of recent Seventh Circuit cases addressing Article III standing in the context of FDCPA claims, the Defendant cannot establish that he suffered a concrete harm. The Plaintiff argues that in the case, "there is no allegation present in the State Court Action that the he suffered a concrete harm or appreciable risk of harm from the statutory violation itself, nor is there any factual support alleged in support of the same." Therefore, he contends the lawsuit belongs in state court. The Defendant, on the other hand, insists that the allegations in the Complaint satisfy Article III's standing requirement. Specifically, it argues that the Plaintiff alleges more than a procedural violation or mere confusion based on the allegation that the Letter's statement indicating that the Defendant "could send a copy of a judgment to him would make him believe that there was no longer any point to disputing the alleged debt, and that he owed it regardless of whether he believed he did or not." Judge Vaderrama finds Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC, 983 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2020)), instructive. In Nettles, a debt collector sent the consumer-plaintiff a collection letter that misrepresented the total debt owed. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the letter was false, misleading, or otherwise unfair or unconscionable in violation of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to meet the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing. It observed that the complaint "does not allege that the statutory violations harmed the plaintiff in any way or created any appreciable risk of harm to her. She admits that the letter didn't affect her at all and that her only injury is receipt of a noncompliant collection letter." Similarly, in the case, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter containing false and misleading statements, but those statements did not cause the Plaintiff to act or fail to act. The Plaintiff admits that the noncompliant letter did not affect him. As in Nettles, the only injury to the Plaintiff in the case is the receipt of a noncompliant collection letter. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderrama granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Clerk's Office is directed to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois immediately. The Court terminated the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. The civil case is terminated. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wp3hb3s2 from Leagle.com. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Voluntarily Dismisses Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that on Sept. 27, the plaintiff Toshif Patel voluntarily dismissed his complaint against the company with prejudice. On October 15, 2020, Toshif Patel (the Plaintiff) filed a complaint for alleged violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of its MOXIe Part 2 study results to support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the United States. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages and interest, costs, and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. "On September 27, 2021, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice," the Company said. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing product candidates that modulate the activity of key regulatory proteins involved in the biology of mitochondrial function, oxidative stress, and inflammation to address the unmet medical needs of patients with various life-threatening diseases. The company is based in Plano, Texas. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Suazo Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Resurgent Capital Services LP, et al. The case is styled as Karen Suazo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services LP, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-24016-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com RHODE ISLAND: DeBritto Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy DeBritto, et al., v. Patricia Coyne-Fague, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all Muslim inmates at maximum security of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections who are similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(A)(2)(3)(4) and Rule 23(C)(I)(A)." The Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) is a state agency of Rhode Island operating state prisons. It has its headquarters in Cranston. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qJhULq at no extra charge.[CC] RICH INTERNATIONAL: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rich International Creative Haircare, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rich International Creative Haircare, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09433 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rich International Creative Haircare -- https://www.richhaircare.com/ -- offers the best hair care products for protecting, conditioning and moisturising.[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 RIZAL COLEMAN: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rizal Coleman, et al. The case is styled as Meghan Downing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rizal Coleman doing business as: Sydney Harbour Paint Company, a California sole proprietorship; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-08689-AB-PLA (C.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rizal Coleman doing business as Sydney Harbour Paints -- https://www.shpcompany.com/ -- offers unique products for interiors and exteriors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Petition to Appeal Denial of Class Cert. Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that Shterna Pinchasov filed a petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification, which Robinhood Financial LLC (RHF)opposed. In November 2020, plaintiff Shterna Pinchasov filed a putative class action in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami-Dade County asserting claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations that Robinhood Financial LLC (RHF) failed to prevent customers from using its interface for stocks that were subject to a "T1 Halt," and seeking damages. Securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq Stock Market, have the authority to halt and delay trading in a security, and a "T1 Halt" (or regulatory halt) may occur pending the release of material news about a company. RHF removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In August 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In September 2021, the court denied plaintiff's motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. In October 2021, plaintiff filed a petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification, which RHF opposed. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a mobile app introduced in March 2015. RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Action Over RockSolid Deck Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Rust-Oleum Corp. deceives consumers about the durability of its RockSolid deck products, touting their restorative ability even though they cause wood decking to deteriorate, a new proposed class action in an Illinois federal court alleges. Outdoor wooden decks, concrete patios, and similar structures require periodic upkeep because of exposure to the elements and normal wear-and-tear, Californian Neil Stevens says. The RockSolid products are marketed as resurfacers that are capable of extending the life of decks, he alleges in a suit filed Nov. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] SAFE HOME: Faces Roper Suit Over Fraudulent Home Security Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFE HOME SECURITY OF CONNECTICUT (SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC.), Defendant, Case No. CV21 955225 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Nov. 2, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendant's scheme whereby it illegally and fraudulently changes the Plaintiff and class members' home security service providers from a competitor company over to the Defendant, and takes additional money from class members including the Plaintiff for those services. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had an existing alarm service for his residence in Cuyahoga County with an alarm company other than the Defendant. The Defendant appeared at the Plaintiffs home and, without the Plaintiffs permission, switched the Plaintiffs alarm service to the Defendant by either forging the Plaintiffs name, or obtaining the Plaintiffs signature through deception, device, scheme or artifice. The nature of the deception, device, scheme or artifice was leading the Plaintiff to believe that the signature was for something other than changing security services to the Defendant. The Defendant charged the Plaintiff money totaling more than $500 pursuant to this wrongful conduct, in an amount readily identifiable in the Defendant's records, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been injured by Defendant's alleged conduct, and seeks recovery of the monies collected by the Defendant, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief to which he is entitled. SAFE HOME SECURITY OF CONNECTICUT (SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC.) is a safety company that helps clients customize and design comprehensive home security systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN, LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Tel.: (440)352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com jbartela@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -and- Joseph K. Rosalina, Esq. RUSSO ROSALINA & CO., LPA 1240 SOM Center Road Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 Telephone: (440)461-5800 Facsimile: (440) 461-0861 Email: jrosalina@rrlpa.com SALVATION ARMY: Taylor Sues Over Financial Coercion and Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Taylor, Kevin Lewis, Darrell Burkhart, and Leevertis Page, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPORATION, and THE SALVATION ARMY d/b/a CENTRAL TERRITORIAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:21-cv-06105 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought under the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act against the Salvation Army, seeking to hold The Salvation Army accountable for profiting from labor it obtained from them and others like them by force and threats of serious harm, including with threats of incarceration, restricting workers' physical movements away from The Salvation Army, and through financial coercion and abuse. Nationwide, The Salvation Army staffs its commercial thrift store operations and other business enterprises by coercing vulnerable Adult Rehabilitation Center ("ARC") program participants to perform labor under threat of serious harm, abuse of legal process, and a scheme to make participants believe they face the threat of serious harm, such as incarceration, reputational harm, and financial harm. Engaging in a long-standing abuse of the criminal justice system, The Salvation Army secures much of its labor force by soliciting referrals from courts and probation programs, thereby appropriating the coercive power of the state to force workers--who are extremely economically vulnerable--to work for the benefit of Defendants SA National and SA Central Territory. Under the guise of "work therapy" which The Salvation Army asserts and advertises is a form of treatment for drug or alcohol use disorders, The Salvation Army requires its "ARC workforce" – meaning everyone enrolled in the ARC program – to labor long hours in physically demanding jobs that further The Salvation Army's commercial interests. In exchange for this work, members of the ARC workforce receive a "gratuity" of between approximately $1 and $25 per full week of work--equating to pennies an hour for their labor. The Salvation Army does not afford its ARC workforce the rights that are enjoyed by any of its other employees. The justice-referred ARC workforce does not have a choice about whether they work. They must report to and participate in the ARC program or they risk violating their terms of parole or probation and reincarceration. The Salvation Army's ARC workforce is not limited to justice-referred participants. The Salvation Army also solicits walk-in participants who, like the justice-referred participants, are often extremely economically vulnerable. Defendant SA Central Territory exploits these vulnerabilities to coerce walk-in participants to perform physically demanding labor, often alongside paid employees performing the same work. Forced labor is a core tenant of The Salvation Army's ARC program. It is not possible to participate in the ARC program--or benefit from the provision of housing, clothing, and food--without performing labor in The Salvation Army's commercial operations. Defendant SA Central Territory ensures its ARC workforce continues providing labor by threatening serious harm to them should they stop working. Defendant SA Central Territory knows that such a report could result in the worker being incarcerated or otherwise punished by the justice system for allegedly violating their conditions of probation or parole. The Salvation Army engages in a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause its ARC workforce, justice-referred and walk-in participants alike, to believe that, if they do not perform the required labor, they will suffer serious harm that may include but is not limited to, financial instability, food insecurity, homelessness, and the inability to obtain paid work. Through these unlawful acts, The Salvation Army violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were participants in The Salvation Army's ARC program. The Salvation Army in the United States is a multi-billion-dollar business organized like a military army.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Fish, Esq. M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, PC 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 224-2423 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com nbolanos@fishlawfirm.com - and – Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Charles J. O'Meara, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 Email: aprakash@nka.com comeara@nka.com cbressman@nka.com - and – Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7235 Fax: (415) 277-7238 Email: helland@nka.com - and – Lucy B. Bansal, Esq. Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 123 William Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10038 Phone: (518) 732-6703 Email: lbansal@justicecatalyst.org jherold@justicecatalyst.org SAN JOSE SHARKS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Jose Sharks, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. San Jose Sharks, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09444 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. San Jose Sharks, LLC -- https://www.nhl.com/sharks -- operates as a hockey club. The Company offers sports training, season and group tickets, seating chart, and other services.[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 SCRUB DADDY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scrub Daddy, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scrub Daddy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09434 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Scrub Daddy -- https://scrubdaddy.com/ -- is a cleaning tools company best known for a sponge that it manufactures, also called Scrub Daddy, that is in the shape of a smiley face.[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 SESEN BIO: Court Consolidates Three Exchange Act-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Sesen Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the court consolidated three class action cases over violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 under the caption In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation. On August 19, 2021, August 31, 2021 and October 7, 2021, three substantially identical securities class action lawsuits captioned Bibb v. Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07025, Cizek v. Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07309, and Markman v. Sesen Bio, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08308 were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The three complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on statements made by the Company concerning its BLA for Vicineum for the treatment of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. The three complaints seek compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On October 29, 2021, the court consolidated the three cases under the caption In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH, and appointed Ryan Bibb, Rodney Samaan, Lionel Dreshaj and Benjamin Dresaj collectively as the "lead plaintiff" under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. "On November 1, 2021, two stockholders filed motions to reconsider asking the court to appoint a different lead plaintiff," the Company said. The court has not ruled on those motions at this time. Sesen Bio, Inc. is a late-stage clinical company advancing targeted fusion protein therapeutics ("TFPTs") for the treatment of patients with cancer. SHOPIFY INC: California Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Scott, writing for betakit, reports that a California court has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Shopify and Ledger over a 2020 Shopify data breach that impacted both companies, on jurisdictional grounds. French cryptocurrency wallet provider Ledger was impacted by Shopify's data breach, which exposed data from 292,000 of its own customers. The two firms were named as defendants in a suit filed in April in a Northern California court by plaintiffs John Chu and Edward Baton on behalf of Ledger users. The proposed class-action lawsuit claimed several Ledger users lost their cryptocurrency in phishing campaigns due to their personal data being leaked as a part of this breach. On November 8, Judge Edward Chen ruled in favour of Shopify and Ledger's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, after finding that the United States-based court does not have jurisdiction over Shopify or Ledger, given that the two companies are headquartered in Canada and France, respectively. In September 2020, Shopify revealed that two employees were behind a data breach that had affected some of the merchants on its e-commerce platform. At the time, the company stated "less than 200 merchants" were affected by the incident, which Shopify said saw contact information like emails, names, addresses and order details such as products and services purchased improperly accessed. Shopify claimed that following an investigation, the company determined the breach was the result of efforts by two "rogue members" of its support team to obtain the customer transactional records of specific merchants. Following this discovery, the retail giant said it immediately terminated the individuals' access to the Shopify network and contacted law enforcement. In January 2021, Ledger published a statement on its website revealing that it was affected by this breach as part of a "small number" of Shopify merchants that were found to have been affected by the data breach, in addition to the "less than 200" merchants that Shopify originally identified in September 2020. [GN] SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Reminds of Jan. 4, 2022 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Nov. 9 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired (i) the common stock of Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. ("Silverback" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SBTX) in connection with Silverback's December 3, 2020 initial public offering; and/or (ii) Silverback securities between December 3, 2020 and September 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and alleges violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased or acquired (a) Silverback common stock in connection with the IPO; and/or (b) Silverback securities during the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Silverback Therapeutics Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. On or about December 3, 2020, Silverback conducted its IPO, offering 11,500,000 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of $21 per share for anticipated proceeds of approximately $241,500,000. According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that (i) Silverback's lead product candidate SBT6050 was less effective than the Company had represented to investors; and (ii) the Company had overstated SBT6050's commercial and/or clinical prospects. On September 13, 2021, Silverback issued a press release "announc[ing] that interim data from the dose-escalation portion of its Phase 1/1b clinical trial evaluating SBT6050 as a monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-expressing or amplified solid tumors" were to be presented from September 16-21, 2021. The accepted abstract revealed that while there was a manageable safety profile for the Company's experimental therapy, SBT6050 yielded only one partial response among 14 HER2-positive solid tumors. On this news, Silverback's stock price fell $4.54 per share, or 23.35%, to close at $14.90 per share on September 13, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or acquired Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/silverbacktherapeuticsinc-sbtx-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-454/ or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Joe Seidman Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 seidman@bernlieb.com [GN] SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. ("Silverback" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SBTX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, and docketed under 21-cv-01499, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Silverback common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about December 3, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Silverback securities between December 3, 2020 and September 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Silverback common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO and Silverback securities during the Class Period, you have until January 4, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Silverback, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops tissue-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of cancer, chronic viral infections, and other serious diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is SBT6050, which is in a Phase I/Ib clinical trial, a TLR8 agonist linker-payload conjugated to a HER2-directed monoclonal antibody that targets tumors, such as breast, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancers. The complaint alleges that, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Silverback's lead product candidate SBT6050 was less effective than the Company had represented to investors; (ii) accordingly, the Company had overstated SBT6050's commercial and/or clinical prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On September 13, 2021, Silverback issued a press release "announc[ing] that interim data from the dose-escalation portion of its Phase 1/1b clinical trial evaluating SBT6050 as a monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-expressing or amplified solid tumors will be presented at the upcoming European Society for Medical Oncology 2021 Congress from September 16-21, 2021" and advising that "[t]he accepted abstract . . . is now available on the ESMO website." Per the accepted abstract (the "Abstract"), while there was a manageable safety profile for the Company's experimental therapy, SBT6050 yielded only one partial response among 14 HER2-positive solid tumors. On this news, Silverback's stock price fell $4.54 per share, or 23.35%, to close at $14.90 per share on September 13, 2021. As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Silverback common stock continues to trade below the $21.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Firm Reminds of Jan. 2022 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBTX): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 3, 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (2) between December 3, 2020 and September 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Silverback securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Silverback class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2200.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO documents featured and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silverback's lead product candidate SBT6050 (a TLR8 agonist linker-payload conjugated to a HER2-directed monoclonal antibody that targets tumors, such as breast, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancers) was less effective than the Company had represented to investors; (2) accordingly, the Company had overstated SBT6050's commercial and/or clinical prospects; and (3) as a result, the IPO documents and defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Silverback class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2200.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Schall Firm Reminds of Jan. 2022 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Nov. 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. "Silverback" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SBTX) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on December 3, 2020 (the "IPO"), or between December 3, 2020 and September 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 4, 2022. 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. Silverback's product candidate, SBT6050, was not as effective as the Company touted to investors. The Company materially overstated the product candidate's clinical and commercial prospects. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements and IPO materials were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Silverback, 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] SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Holt Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SmileDirectClub, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00344-KEW (E.D. Okla., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. SmileDirectClub -- https://smiledirectclub.com/ -- is a teledentistry company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smoky Mountain Sportservice, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smoky Mountain Sportservice, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09446 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smoky Mountain Sports Service Inc is located in Nashville, Tennessee and is part of the Restaurants and Other Eating Places Industry.[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 SNOOPERMARKET LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snoopermarket LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snoopermarket LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09432 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Snoopermarket -- https://www.snoopermarket.com/ -- is Snoop Dogg's Online Marketplace for all things Snoop + friends: apparel, hats, shoes, accessories, music, films and more.[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 SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Unsafe, Ieyoub Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------- Timothy Ieyoub, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SoClean, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02053, (E.D. La., November 5, 2021), seek actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available resulting from fraud, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. SoClean manufactures and markets devices used to clean continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, which are used to treat sleep apnea. SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize CPAP machines. Ieyoub alleges that ozone used is an unstable toxic gas that causes respiratory problems in humans and are not safe. Ieyoub is the owner of a SoClean3 CPAP cleaning device.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Wanek, Esq. Lindsay G. Faulkner, Esq. Megan T. Jaynes, Esq. WANEK KIRSCH DAVIES LLC 1340 Poydras St., Ste. 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 324-6493 Facsimile: (504) 324-6626 Email: pwanek@wkdlawfirm.com lfaulkner@wkdlawfirm.com mjaynes@wkdlawfirm.com SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Homeowners' Class Action Over Mine Collapse --------------------------------------------------------------- The State of South Dakota's failure to properly close and remediate gypsum mines it owned and operated beneath the Hideaway Hills neighborhood has made all 158 homes uninhabitable and worthless, according to a new court filing by homeowners seeking class-action certification in litigation against the state. According to the motion filed on Nov. 9 by the Fox Rothschild law firm, class-action litigation is necessary because conditions in Hideaway Hills are so intertwined that examination or testing of just one home fails to provide accurate information about that home or the homes of its neighbors. In addition, there is no way to remediate just one home in the neighborhood, and any solution must address the entire neighborhood. The lawsuit asks that the state pay each household the full value for their homes. Recent core-sample drilling tests confirm that underground instability extends to every home in the neighborhood and correcting the problem would require homes to be removed to resolve the subsurface instability. Even if correction were possible, it's not certain that repairs would successfully ensure the ongoing safety of the neighborhood. "Those homes are now not only worthless, but threaten the lives of their occupants," the motion states. "Three hundred and fifty lives are in danger because their homes rest on a subsurface, owned by the State, that was rendered incapable of supporting structures by the State's exploitation of the land, failure to properly reclaim the land, and its failure to maintain the subsurface in a condition that would support the surface. The State of South Dakota has strict liability for this catastrophic damage and resulting injuries." Geological experts have found 16 active collapses near the site of a large hole that opened in April 2020 near East Daisy Drive. The mine extends at least twice as far as what was previously thought, and experts have documented ground depressions, sink holes and soil subsidence throughout the neighborhood, according to the filing. If granted, class certification will allow every Hideaway Hills homeowner to potentially obtain financial relief from the state of South Dakota, which owned and operated gypsum mines in the area for decades. The lawsuit charges that the state - which still owns subsurface mineral rights under the neighborhood - failed to properly reclaim underground, pit and strip mines before the land was sold to a developer. In May, the named plaintiffs won a key ruling from Circuit Court Judge Kevin Krull, who found that the homeowners "demonstrated that their injuries likely will be redressed by a favorable decision - i.e., an award of damages, based on their constitutional right to individually bring an inverse condemnation case against the State." The case is Andrew Morse and John and Emily Clarke et al. v. State of South Dakota et al., No. 46CIV-20-000295 in the Circuit Court, 4th Judicial District, County of Meade, South Dakota.     Fox Rothschild has grown to a 950-lawyer national law firm with 27 offices by focusing on client service and responsiveness and by attracting bright and creative lawyers who know how to deliver. More information at foxrothschild.com.     Media Contact:    Robert Tharp  800-559-4534 robert@androvett.com [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest Airlines Co. 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, that a complaint alleging breach of contract was filed in Texas. The complaint seeks damages and the Company's deadline to respond is Oct. 27. On August 26, 2021, the complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with Southwest's use of the allegedly defective 737 MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a ticket for air transportation with the Company, which transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company's deadline to respond to the Complaint is October 27, 2021. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. Southwest Airlines Co., typically referred to as Southwest, is one of the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest low-cost carrier. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Seek to Stay Proceedings in RICO-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. 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, that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling and the Company and Boeing have filed motions to stay all trial court proceedings pending an appeal ruling by the court. On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman. The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to conceal defects with the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also moved to dismiss. On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint. The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the plaintiffs' theories of RICO injury. The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage. Discovery is ongoing, class certification briefing has been completed, and a class certification hearing was held before the court on April 26, 2021. On September 3, 2021, the trial court issued an order under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) certifying four classes of persons associated with ticket purchases for flights during the period of August 29, 2017, through March 13, 2019, comprised of (i) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on Southwest Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of the ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, (ii) those who reimbursed a Southwest Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for a Southwest Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (i) above, (iii) those who purchased tickets (without being reimbursed) for flights on American Airlines during the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where, at the time of ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used, and (iv) those who reimbursed an American Airlines ticket purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for an American Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in (iii) above. "On September 17, 2021, the Company filed a petition for permission immediately to appeal the class certification ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," the Company said. Boeing also filed such a petition. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the petitions on September 27, 2021. On or about October 6, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class certification ruling. A briefing schedule has yet to be set by the Fifth Circuit. The Company (and Boeing) have filed motions to stay all trial court proceedings pending an appeal ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company intends to strenuously pursue that appeal. The Company further denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that were not dismissed. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. Southwest Airlines Co., typically referred to as Southwest, is one of the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest low-cost carrier. STATE FARM: Jaunich Seek Approval & Dissemination of Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN E. JAUNICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-01567-PAM-JFD (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granting approval and dissemination of notice to: "the certified class of current and former Minnesota Form 94030 policy owners whose policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002, and who was subject to at least one monthly deduction." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court approves the plan of notice. 0A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HxiL7S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com mkberg@locklaw.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER LLC jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com STEVE HARVEY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve Harvey Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steve Harvey Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09431 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Steve Harvey Enterprises -- http://www.harvey-enterprises.com/-- provides replacement window, roofing, siding, gutter, home repair & remodeling services.[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 STG INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 30 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STG INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01701-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order granting in part and denying in part the joint motion to stay or, alternatively, to continue deadline to file motion for class certification as follows: 1. All existing dates as set forth in the Court's March 31, 2021 order amending the February 9, 2021 scheduling order are vacated, which includes the November 30, 2021 deadline to file a motion for class certification. 2. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement on or before January 21, 2022. The Plaintiff shall contact District Judge Battaglia's chambers to obtain a motion hearing date prior to filing the motion. 3. All other guidelines and requirements remain as previously set. STG International operates as a staffing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oHHE8z at no extra charge.[CC] STRADA SERVICES: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jahola Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRADA SERVICES INC. d/b/a Strada Electric and Security, and JOSEPH STRADA, Case No. 6:21-cv-01915-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant for violations of the FLSA for failure to pay overtime compensation and a premium for all hours worked over 40 each week. The Defendants have maintained a scheme to avoid its obligations to pay overtime wages to its non-exempt, Piece rate paid Installers in order to save many millions of dollars in labor costs and maximize profits all to the detriment of its employees. The Plaintiff, like his fellow piece rate workers in the past 3 years preceding the filing of this complaint, and still to this day, were systematically denied any overtime pay for most if not all hours they worked in excess of 40 on behalf of the Defendants. The Defendants maintained a common unlawful pay practice applicable to all piece rate pay workers, discouraging and misleading Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated from recording or reporting all hours worked. The Defendants wilfully violated the FLSA by refusing to pay any premiums for overtime hours they knew of should have known were worked by piece rate workers and laborers, under the titles of helpers, installers, electricians, or technicians, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from June 14, 2021 as an apprentice or trainee, and then in mid-July, 2021, was promoted to a Piece Rate paid Electrical Installer and worked as such until October 22, 2021. Strada Services Inc., is a Florida, for profit corporation with a principal place of business in Sanford, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Phone: 813-639-9366 Fax: 813-639-9376 Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com SUNCOAST PROPERTY: Burns Files Suit in Fla. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SunCoast Property Management, LLC. The case is styled as Latasha Burns, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SunCoast Property Management, LLC, Case No. 16-2021-CA-006059-XXXX-MA (Fla. Super. Ct., Duval Cty., Nov. 2, 2021). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." SunCoast Property Management -- https://suncoastrentals.com/ -- is a full-service real estate firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Story Max, Esq. 328 2nd Ave., N. Jacksonville, FL 32250-5549 SURGICARE OF LOS GATOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoza Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CARDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURGICARE OF LOS GATOS, INC.; HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV389832 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 3, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cardoza was employed by the Defendants as endoscopy technician. SURGICARE OF LOS GATOS, INC. provides outpatient surgeries not requiring hospitalization. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. Kacey E. Cook, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 SWIFT TECHNICAL: Schnelle Seeks Documents for Third-Party Subpoena ------------------------------------------------------------------ KELLY SCHNELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWIFT TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-mc-02466 (S.D. Tex., October 29, 2021) files this motion to enforce compliance with third-party subpoena. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has requested the Defendant to produce documents and information specifically for workers sourced to Chevron by the Defendant in order to provide them with court-ordered Notice of the Collective Action styled Schenelle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 7:20-CV-00112-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.). However, the Defendant did not respond to the Subpoena. The Plaintiff demands that the Court should transfer the Motion to enforce compliance with the non-party subpoena to the Western District of Texas and to order the Defendant to produce the requested contact information for the workers it provided to Chevron. Swift Technical Services, LLC provides recruitment and staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@bruknerburch.com T-MOBILE US: D&Os Facing Investor Suit Over SoftBank Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile US, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company's current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in an investor class action commenced in Delaware state court. On June 1, 2021, a putative shareholder class action and derivative action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Dinkevich v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0479, against DT, SoftBank and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the repricing amendment to the Business Combination Agreement, and to SoftBank's monetization of its T-Mobile shares. The Company are also named as a nominal defendant in the case. The Company are unable to predict the potential outcome of these claims. The Company intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Business Combination Agreement and Amendments On April 29, 2018, T-Mobile entered into a Business Combination Agreement with Sprint and the other parties in relation to T-Mobile's merger deal with Sprint. The Business Combination Agreement was subsequently amended to provide that, following the closing of the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement, SoftBank would indemnify T-Mobile against certain specified matters and the loss of value arising out of, or resulting from, cessation of access to spectrum under certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations and qualifications. On February 20, 2020, T-Mobile, SoftBank and DT entered into a letter agreement, pursuant to which, SoftBank agreed to cause its applicable affiliates to surrender to T-Mobile, for no additional consideration, an aggregate of 48,751,557 shares of T-Mobile common stock -- SoftBank Specified Shares Amount -- effective immediately following the Effective Time (as defined in the Business Combination Agreement), making SoftBank's exchange ratio 11.31 shares of Sprint common stock for each share of T-Mobile common stock. This resulted in an effective exchange ratio of approximately 11.00 shares of Sprint common stock for each share of T-Mobile common stock immediately following the closing of the Merger, an increase from the originally agreed 9.75 shares. Sprint stockholders, other than SoftBank, received the original fixed exchange ratio of 0.10256 shares of T-Mobile common stock for each share of Sprint common stock, or the equivalent of approximately 9.75 shares of Sprint common stock for each share of T-Mobile common stock. The Letter Agreement requires T-Mobile to issue to SoftBank 48,751,557 shares of T-Mobile common stock, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Letter Agreement, for no additional consideration, if certain conditions are met. The issuance of these shares is contingent on the trailing 45-day volume-weighted average price per share of T-Mobile common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market being equal to or greater than $150.00, at any time during the period commencing on April 1, 2022 and ending on December 31, 2025. If the threshold price is not met, then none of the SoftBank Specified Shares Amount will be issued. On April 1, 2020, T-Mobile completed the Merger, and as a result, Sprint and its subsidiaries became wholly owned consolidated subsidiaries of T-Mobile. Sprint was the fourth-largest telecommunications company in the U.S., offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communication products and services. As a combined company, T-Mobile has been able to rapidly launch a broad and deep nationwide 5G network, accelerate innovation, increase competition in the U.S. wireless and broadband industries and achieve significant synergies and cost reductions by eliminating redundancies within the combined network as well as other business processes and operations. T-Mobile US, Inc. is an American wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share. T. MARZETTI COMPANY: Simeone Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against T. Marzetti Company. The case is styled as Cynthia Simeone, Takisha Jones, Phyllis Charney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T. Marzetti Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-09111-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The T. Marzetti Company -- https://www.tmarzetticompany.com/ -- is the Specialty Food Group of the Lancaster Colony Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com TAMKO BUILDING: Joint Bid to Extend Scheduling Order Dates Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, and SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JWL-KGG (D. Kan.), the parties seek extensions of the following deadlines as follows: Current Proposed New Date Date Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Jan. 13, 2022 March 15, 2022 Disclosure Deadline Deadline to Depose Feb. 11, 2022 April 15, 2022 Plaintiffs' Experts Defendant's Expert March 11, 2022 May 16, 2022 Witness Disclosure Deadline to Depose April 20, 2022 June 24, 2022 Defendant's Experts Rebuttal Expert Witness May 26, 2022 July 28, 2022 Disclosure Deadline Deadline to Depose June 30, 2022 Aug. 31, 2022 Rebuttal Experts Motion for Class July 29, 2022 Sept. 30, 2022 Certification The parties have engaged in written discovery and worked cooperatively to attempt to resolve, and have resolved several, perceived deficiencies that have been identified. Thirteen depositions have occurred and other depositions, including those of non-parties, of Defendant, and of Defendant's personnel, are or will be noticed and will be proceeding, and additional written discovery will be conducted. Further, certain shingles have been produced by the Defendant and inspections and sampling of warranty return shingles is scheduled to occur. Finally, Defendant's document production is continuing and is nearing completion. Despite these efforts, various delays have impacted the parties' progress with fact and expert discovery on the timeline anticipated. This is primarily related to scheduling issues and topic negotiation with respect to the 30(b)(6) deposition of TAMKO; the anticipated removal of shingles from one of the houses at issue; the completion of Defendant's document production and the production of shingles for inspection, sampling and testing; the parties' continuing efforts to narrow the discovery issues in dispute; and the continuing challenges presented in litigating a case in the midst of COVID-19 and its variants, and some personal health issues of one of the counsel in the case. A copy of parties' motion dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FcLOf6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-5816 Facsimile: (215) 875-4606 E-mail: jpolakoff@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net - and - Andrew W. Funk, Esq. FUNK RIEMANN LLP 1600 Genessee St., Suite 860 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 348-3002 Facsimile: (816) 895-6351 E-mail: andrew@frlawkc.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kara T. Stubbs, Esq. BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC 2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 471-2121 Facsimile: (816) 472-0288 E-mail: stubbs@bscr-law.com - and - Jessica D. Miller, Esq. Richard T. Bernardo, Esq. Thomas E. Fox, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-2111 Telephone: (202) 371-7850 Facsimile: (202) 661-0525 E-mail: jessica.miller@skadden.com richard.bernardo@skadden.com thomas.fox@skadden.com TELUS INT'L: Supplemental Joint Status Report on Meagher Deal Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Meagher and the Defendant, by and through their respective counsel of record, submit with Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, their Third Supplemental Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement in the case, BRIELLE MEAGHER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELUS INTERNATIONAL (U.S.) CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02074-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.). On July 12, 2021, the parties submitted their Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement informing the Court that the parties attended private mediation with the Honorable Philip Pro (Ret.) on July 1, 2021 and that, after taking time to consider the mediator's settlement proposal, on July 9, 2021, the parties confirmed that they had come to a settlement in principle. The parties further requested up to and including July 26, 2021 to finalize the terms of the settlement. The parties next filed their First Supplemental Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement on July 26, 2021 and Second Supplemental Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement on Sept. 22, 2021 as they continued to work on the terms of settlement in the matter. The parties have come to an agreement as to the terms of the settlement; however, they still require additional time to put together a more comprehensive Settlement Agreement, including the proposed content of applicable Notice(s). As a result, the parties propose a deadline of Dec. 1, 2021 to finalize the Settlement Agreement and Dec. 22, 2021 in which to file the Motion for Preliminary Class Action Approval. A full-text copy of the Third Supplemental Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhcxu67d from Leagle.com. ANTHONY L. MARTIN -- anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- DANA B. SALMONSON -- dana.salmonson@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Defendant TELUS International (U.S.) Corp. Nicholas R. Conlon -- nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) Jason T. Brown -- jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) in Jersey City, New Jersey, Don Springmeyer, KEMP JONES, LLP, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. TENCENT MUSIC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tencent Music Entertainment Group ("Tencent" or the "Company") (NYSE: TME) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tencent shares during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Tencent investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Tencent Securities Class Litigation The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley traded in Tencent shares while in possession of material non-public information that Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management, failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Tencent. Defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of shares of Archegos's doomed bets, including billions of dollars' worth of Tencent securities beginning on March 25, 2021, before the market learned of Archegos's collapse. As a result of these insider sales, defendants avoided billions of dollars in losses. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos but disposed of their Tencent shares to class members anyway before the news about Archegos was revealed and the price of Tencent's shares plummeted. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] TENNESSEE: ADA Suit Filed in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Governor Bill Lee, et al. The case is styled as R.K., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, J.K; W. S., a minor, by and through her parent and next friend, M.S.; S. B., a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, M.B and L.H.; M. S., a minor, by and through her parent and next friend, K.P.; T. W., a minor, by and through her parent and next friend, M.W.; M. K., a minor, by and through her parent and next friend, S.K.; E. W., a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, J.W.; J. M., a minor, by and through her parent and next friend, K.M. and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Governor Bill Lee, in his official capacity as Governor of Tennessee; Penny Schwinn, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education; Case No. 3:21-cv-00853 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bill Lee -- https://www.tn.gov/governor/about-bill-lee.html -- is a seventh-generation Tennessean and the 50th Governor of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brice M. Timmons, Esq. Bryce W. Ashby, Esq. Craig A. Edgington, Esq. DONATI LAW FIRM LLP 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Phone: (901) 278-1004 Fax: (901) 278-3111 Email: brice@donatilaw.com bryce@donatilaw.com craig@donatilaw.com - and - Jessica F. Salonus, Esq. THE SALONUS FIRM, PLC 139 Stonebridge Blvd. Jackson, TN 38305 Phone: (731) 300-0970 Email: jsalonus@salonusfirm.com - and - Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. GILBERY MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC (Chattanooga TN Office) 100 W. Martin Luther King Boulevard, Suite 501 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: (423) 499-3044 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: justin@schoolandworklaw.com TEXAS: Damon James Wilson Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMON JAMES WILSON, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS; GREG ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; DADE PHELAN, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; DAN PATRICK, in his Official Capacity as Lieutenant Governor and Presiding Officer Of the Texas Senate; and, JOHN B. SCOTT, in his Official Capacity as Texas Secretary of State, Case No. 1:21-cv-00943-RP-JES-JVB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his opposed motion to certify the case as a class action. This action is brought by Plaintiff as a class action, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, under the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Texas is a state in the South Central region of the United States. At 268,596 square miles, and with more than 29.1 million residents in 2020, it is the second-largest U.S. state by both area and population. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C9gyMd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Gladden, Esq. 1204 West University Dr., Suite 307 Denton, TX 76201 Telephone: (940) 323-9300 Facsimile: (940) 539-0093 E-mail: richscot1@hotmail.com THIES & TALLE: Dismissal of Most Claims in Vulles Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMANTHA VULLES, SHERI ESTENSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ALMANOR INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-4, Defendants and Appellees, Case No. DA 21-0141 (Mont.), Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the First Judicial District Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order: -- dismissing the majority of the Plaintiffs-Appellants' claims under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and -- denying their request for class action certification. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are tenants who have alleged that the Defendants-Appellees, the landlords of the apartments the Plaintiffs leased, included illegal provisions in the Plaintiffs' lease agreement. The Plaintiffs-Appellants live in apartment complexes in Helena owned and operated by the Defendants-Appellees. Thies & Talle Management, Inc. and Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc. are incorporated in Minnesota and allegedly employed lease agreements with the Plaintiffs based upon Minnesota law. The Plaintiffs allege their leases contained multiple provisions violating Montana law, primarily the Montana Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (MRLTA), Title 70, chapter 24, MCA. Their Complaint alleged negligence and/or tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) under Title 30, chapter 14, part 1, MCA, and actual and statutory damages for violations of the MRLTA under Section 70-24-403, MCA. Their Complaint also sought certification as a class action under M. R. Civ. P. 23 to include other tenants who entered into similar lease agreements with Defendants. In response to the Defendants' M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the District Court dismissed all of Vulles's and Estenson's claims as time barred. The District Court also dismissed Dulaney's claim for negligence and/or tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, it denied dismissal of the MCPA claim and the MRLTA damages claim as to Dulaney, leaving these as the only remaining claims in the action. The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. The Defendants filed a notice of entry of judgment stating a "final judgment" had been entered. The Plaintiffs appeal the District Court's Order. As a preliminary matter, the Supreme Court of Montana addresses the procedural posture of the appeal. Generally, a district court's ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is appealable only after entry of a final judgment upon adjudication of all matters in the litigation. In the case, the Plaintiffs have improperly attempted to appeal such an order. For their part, the Defendants improperly filed a notice of entry of judgment stating a final judgment had been entered. Because the District Court denied dismissal of two of Dulaney's claims, these claims remain "undetermined" in the pending litigation, and a final judgment has not yet been entered. Nor has certification of the matter as a final judgment for purposes of appeal been sought or obtained under M. R. App. P. 6(6). Consequently, the only ruling properly before the Supreme Court of Montana and reviewable is the District Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' request for class certification, an appeal of which is permissible under the Rules. For purposes of undertaking review of the permissibly appealable class certification issue, the current status of the record is that most of the Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. Although the primary emphasis of the Plaintiffs' appellate arguments is a challenge to the dismissal of these claims, those rulings are not properly before us in this interlocutory appeal. The Plaintiffs' only argument is that the District Court's class ruling was entered prematurely and thus "short-circuited" the certification process. Although acknowledging they requested class certification in their Complaint, the Plaintiffs contend they would have met their burden to demonstrate the propriety of class certification by way of a later motion to certify the class. The Defendants respond that the District Court acted properly to deny the certification request, citing John v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007) ("where it is facially apparent from the pleadings that there is no ascertainable class, a district court may dismiss the class allegation on the pleadings"). The Supreme Court of Montana opines that the "factual or legal issues" comprising the Plaintiffs' claims have been significantly narrowed by the District Court's dismissal of most of the claims, which, as noted, are not reviewable in this appeal. Consequently, it concludes the District Court did not abuse its discretion by holding the Plaintiffs' certification request did not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements. It as particularly reluctant to interfere with discretionary orders in the early stages of litigation" and it "refrains from micromanaging the district court's administration of a class action." Notably, the District Court's class determination was made at an early stage of the litigation and could be revisited, depending upon the advancement of the remaining claims in further proceedings, and the ultimate disposition of the dismissed claims that are not properly before the Supreme Court of Montana in the appeal. In light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/58958zc4 from Leagle.com. Christopher W. Froines -- Chris@froineslawoffice.com -- Froines Law Office, PC, in Missoula, Montana, for the Appellants. Ben Kappelman -- kappelman.ben@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in Missoula, Montana, for the Appellees. TMC THE METAL: Tran Sues Over Decline of Securities Market Value ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phuoc Chan Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMC THE METALS COMPANY INC. F/K/A SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES ACQUISITION CORP., GERARD BARRON, and SCOTT LEONARD, Case No. 1:21-cv-06325 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants (defined below) who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of TMC between March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive; seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, with regards to the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, On March 4, 2021, DeepGreen Inc. announced that it had entered into a business combination agreement with Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corporation ("SOAC"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") with a dedicated Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") focus. Upon closing of the merger, the combined company was renamed TMC the metals company Inc. The combined company, TMC, began trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "TMC" on September 10, 2021. Deep sea exploration rights are regulated by the International Seabed Authority ("ISA"), which, since 1994, has been authorized by the United Nations to administer and regulate deep sea exploration and mining in international waters. TMC's primary assets are three exploration licenses granted by the ISA. These licenses, which are held via three subsidiaries, are: (i) Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI"); (ii) Marawa Research and Exploration Limited; and (iii) Tongo Offshore Mining Limited ("TOML"). On September 13, 2021, Bloomberg published an article revealing that two investors had failed to provide $330 million as part of the private investment in public equity ("PIPE") component of TMC's go-public deal. The article also questioned TMC's "green credentials," revealing that "[e]nvironmentalists claim that TMC's activities will damage sensitive ecosystems and destroy vital biodiversity" and that "since the SPAC deal was announced in March, more than 500 scientists have signed a letter calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until the environmental risks are better understood." On this news, TMC's shares fell $2.45, or 20%, over the next two trading days to close at $10.00 on September 15, 2021, damaging investors. Then, on October 6, 2021, before market hours, market research firm Bonitas Research released a report detailing multiple issues plaguing TMC, including that: (i) the Company had overpaid on licenses to potential undisclosed insiders; (ii) the Company had artificially inflated exploration expenses by more than 100% in order to mislead investors about the scale of its operations; (iii) there are reasons to question the Company's ownership claim of NORI; and (iv) the Company's history of affiliating with bad actors. On this news, TMC shares fell $0.32 per share, or over 7%, to close at $4.14 per share on October 6, 2021, further damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. TMC is a Canadian deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the collection, processing, and refining of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor of the Clarion Clipperton Zone of the Pacific Ocean (the "CCZ").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com TOTAL LIFE: Court Narrows Claims in Santiago's Amended Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICARDO SANTIAGO, VAUGHN FREDERICK, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOTAL LIFE CHANGES LLC and "JOHN DOES 1-5", fictitious name used to identify presently unknown entities, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-18581(SDW)(LDW)(D.N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended putative class action complaint. Background At some point in 2020, the Plaintiffs each purchased "IASO TEA INSTANT with Broad-Spectrum Hemp Extract 0.0% THC" manufactured by the Defendant. The Defendant is a "multi-level marketing company" which "sells its products directly through its website, through third-party distributors and through its representatives" known as "life changers." Santiago purchased the Product directly from one of the Defendant's "life changers," via her page on the Defendant's website. Frederick purchased the Product "off of the Defendant's website." The Product's packaging claimed that the Product contained no THC, a cannabinoid which is the chemical responsible for most of marijuana's intoxicating effects. Santiago purchased the Product to "improve his overall health and wellness" and was apparently satisfied with its effect, even recommending the Product to his parole officer. Frederick intended to use the Product as an "appetite suppressant" and after an initial purchase, bought the Product several more times. Both men were subject to routine drug testing -- Santiago as a parolee and Frederick as a New Jersey Transit ("NJT") bus operator -- and, therefore, desired to purchase a product that did not contain THC. However, both men, after ingesting the Product, tested positive for THC, an outcome they claim can only be attributed to the Product. To confirm their suspicions, both the Plaintiffs sent samples of the Product to labs for independent testing, the results of which indicated that the Product contained small, but measurable, amounts of THC. Upon Santiago's positive test, he was "given a period of time to confirm his suspicions about the Product without penalty." After he gave the lab test results to his parole officer, Santiago was informed that his "positive test for THC would not be considered a violation of his parole." After Frederick failed his drug test, he claims he sustained "significant monetary and compensatory damages" and "has been unemployed since he was terminated from his" position with the NJT. Frederick does not, however, specifically plead that he was fired because of his negative drug test. Both Plaintiffs also plead that they suffered economic harm because they paid a premium for a product that did not conform to Defendant's warranties. On Dec. 9, 2020, Santiago filed an eight-count Complaint against the Defendant. on Feb. 1, 2021, Santiago mailed notice of the alleged defects in the Product to the Defendant. On April 16, 2021, Frederick also mailed notice of the alleged defect to the Defendant. An Amended Complaint was then filed on June 4, 2021, adding Frederick as a Plaintiff and asserting claims for: 1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., (Counts One and Two); 2) breach of express warranty (Count Three); 3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count Four); 4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Count Five); 5) unjust enrichment (Count Six); 6) deceptive trade practices pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq., (Count Seven); 7) negligent misrepresentation (Count Eight); and 8) Fraud (Count Nine). The Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss, and all briefs were timely filed. Discussion The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because the Plaintiffs fail to plead that they suffered an injury caused by their purchase and use of the Product. Although she agrees that neither Santiago nor Frederick have shown that their consumption of the Product injured them by way of bodily harm or negative drug tests, Judge Wigenton opines they have sufficiently pled that they suffered economic harm. She says, monetary harm is a classic form of injury-in-fact. The Plaintiffs claim that they purchased the Product after relying on the Defendant's misrepresentations and would not have purchased the Product but for those misrepresentations. Their alleged economic loss in connection with those purchases is both particularized and actual: It claims harm to the Plaintiffs and regards a real, non-hypothetical transaction. The alleged loss suffices to constitute injury-in-fact. a. Express Warranty (Count Three) Judge Wigenton finds that the Defendant was not given pre-suit notice prior to filing the original Complaint. Santiago sued on Dec. 9, 2020, but it was not until Feb. 1, 2021 that he mailed notice of the alleged defects in the Product to the Defendant. As a result, Santiago's express warranty claim will be dismissed. Mr. Frederick, however, notified the Defendant of the Product's alleged defect on April 16, 2021, approximately six weeks before he joined the suit as a named-plaintiff and before the Amended Complaint was filed. Therefore, Frederick's express warranty claim complied with the requirements of N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 12A:2-607(3)(a) and may not be dismissed on notice grounds. In addition, Frederick's express warranty claim may proceed because it is sufficiently pled. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Product's packaging contained affirmative representations that the Product did not contain THC, that Frederick purchased the Product because of those representations, and that the Product did not conform to those representations because it actually contains THC. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Frederik's express warranty claim will be denied. b. Implied Warranty (Counts Four and Five) Judge Wigenton explains that establishing either breach "requires a showing regarding the product's functionality, not the advertisements that allegedly induced a customer to purchase it." In the case, she finds that Frederick sought to purchase a detox tea to aid in appetite suppression. He does not allege that the Product failed to work as a detoxifying agent or failed to suppress his appetite. Indeed, Frederick purchased the Product multiple times, suggesting just the opposite. His only allegation is that the Product contained an ingredient that it was advertised not to contain. This is insufficient, and Frederick's implied warranty claims will be dismissed. c. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Counts One and Two) Claims under the MMWA depend upon the disposition of the underlying state law warranty claims. Therefore, to state a claim under the MMWA, a plaintiff must first adequately plead a claim for breach of warranty under state law. Because Santiago's state law warranty claims fail, so too must his MMWA claims. Frederick's MMWA implied warranty claims similarly must also be dismissed, however, his MMWA express warranty claim may proceed. d. Unjust Enrichment (Count Six) Unjust enrichment is an equitable cause of action that imposes liability when a defendant received a benefit and "retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust." To state a claim for unjust enrichment under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must allege that (1) at plaintiff's expense (2) defendant received benefit (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for defendant to retain benefit without paying for it. However, restitution for unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, available only when there is no adequate remedy at law. In the case, Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims are identical to their claims for breach of warranty, and having an adequate remedy at law, their unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed. e. NJCFA & Common Law Fraud (Counts Seven and Nine) To bring a successful claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must show: "1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." Both claims are subject to heightened pleading, which requires the Plaintiffs to identify specific actions taken by the Defendant, when and where those actions were taken, and the identity and role of individual actors participating in the allegedly fraudulent scheme. Judge Wigenton finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint does not provide this level of specificity. The Plaintiffs make generalized, conclusory allegations of fraudulent practices, alleging that the Defendant "intended for consumers" to rely on "deceptive" acts, but do not indicate what specific actions were taken, when they were taken, or where they occurred. More is required when raising fraud claims, therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Counts Seven and Nine will be granted. f. Negligent Misrepresentation (Count Eight) To successfully assert a claim of negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show that defendant "negligently made an incorrect statement, upon which [plaintiff] justifiably relied." However, negligent misrepresentation claims sound in tort, and are prohibited where a plaintiff seeks to recover solely economic damages, absent some physical injury. In the case, the Plaintiffs do not allege any physical injury and seek to recover only money damages. Therefore, Count Eight will be dismissed. Conclusion For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wigenton granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs will have 30 days within which to file a Second Amended Complaint. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/nrw54srn from Lweagle.com. TOY TOKYO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toy Tokyo, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Toy Tokyo, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09379 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Toy Tokyo -- https://toytokyo.com/ -- is a Toy Store based out in New York City.[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 TREEHOUSE FOODS: Settlement in PERSM Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case captioned Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. Final approval hearing is scheduled for Nov. 16. The Company and certain of its officers and former officers are parties to the following pending legal proceedings, each of which involves substantially similar allegations. A federal securities class action, Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632 (which, since its initial docketing, has been re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff), was filed November 16, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Additionally, the following actions were each filed by a purported shareholder derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse against TreeHouse and certain of its officers and/or former officers: (i) Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359, filed December 22, 2016 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste; (ii) Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, filed February 7, 2017 in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste; (iii) Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00835, filed February 8, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (iv) City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, filed June 3, 2019 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting claims for contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Essentially, all five complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in 2017. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously, but note that, an agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the class action (Public Employees'). Due to the similarity of the complaints, and in light of the pending class action in Public Employees', Bartelt was consolidated with Lavin, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells, and the parties thereto entered stipulations deferring the derivative cases until either the Court entered an order on any summary judgment motion filed in the Public Employees' class action or the class action is settled. However, on February 8, 2021, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Wells case moved to modify the deferral order to lift the stay, and defendants thereafter opposed the motion. On April 15, 2021, the Court denied the defendants' motion and a status hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2021. On April 19, 2021, the parties in Public Employees' advised the Court that they reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, subject to various conditions, definitive documentation, and Court approval. On July 14, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. The agreement includes a cash payment of $27.0 million (funded by D&O insurance) in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of the class claims and full releases. On July 27, 2021, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for November 16, 2021. "As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a $27.0 million liability and a corresponding insurance receivable within Accrued expenses and Prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2021," the Company said. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. TREEHOUSE FOODS: Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit --------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the Company of $9 million. The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, (the first of which was filed in California state court on October 20, 2015) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities in California. The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the Company of $9.0 million. The preliminary understanding involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may continue through 2021. "As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a $9.0 million liability within Accrued expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2021 with the settlement payment expected to be made in 2022," the Company said. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. U-HAUL CO: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gonzales, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01229571-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Nov. 2, 2021), is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, and a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act against Defendant, for failure to pay all wages due; non provision of legally mandated rest breaks; non-provision of legally mandated meal breaks; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to maintain records of all hours worked; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all wages earned twice monthly in violation failure to pay all wages due upon termination of employment; failure to reimburse for work related expenses and for unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff was not paid all wages owed for regular and overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff and the Class Members are/were not being properly paid all of the wages they were due twice monthly on the pay dates set by the Defendant, for each and every pay period, during the Class Period, as none of their pay stubs ever reflected all the wages they earned, including time worked during their rest and meal breaks and overtime hours worked as a result. In addition to the failure to accurately itemize such earnings, the Defendant failed to include premium pay penalties, in an amount equal to one hour's wages at their regular hourly rate of pay to which the Plaintiff and the Class Members were entitled for each rest and meal break violation during the Class Period. The Plaintiff and Class Members were prevented or impeded in their ability to take lawful, timely and/or duty-free rest and meal breaks due to calls and text from the supervisors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Fullerton, California as a maintenance supervisor. U-Haul provides a portfolio of services, including transportation and moving services across the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. SW EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, APC. 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 674-4922 Email: aguzman@swemploymentlaw.com mhigday@swemploymentlaw.com UNILEVER: Leyva Sues Over Dangerously High Levels of Benzene ------------------------------------------------------------ Angela Leyva, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-10107-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of Suave antiperspirant aerosol and spray products that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. Suave is a brand of antiperspirants manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. The Suave Products discussed herein contain benzene, a carcinogenic chemical impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Products are not designed to contain benzene, and in fact no amount of benzene is acceptable in antiperspirant sprays such as the Products manufactured by Defendant. The presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal and state law. As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to sell under federal law, and therefore worthless. The Defendant did not disclose the actual or potential presence of benzene in its antiperspirant products on the Products' labeling, or in any advertising or website promoting the Products. Defendant did not disclose the presence of benzene in the Products to Plaintiff or Class members at the point of sale or at any time before the point of sale. Accordingly, Defendant knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced contaminated, adulterated, and/or misbranded Products containing dangerous amounts of benzene into the U.S. market. When Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Products, Plaintiff did not know and had no reason to know, that Defendant's Products were adulterated and misbranded and thus unlawful to sell or purchase. Not only would Plaintiff not have purchased Defendant's Products at all had she known the Products contained benzene, she would not have been capable of purchasing them if Defendant had done as the law required and tested those products for benzene and other carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and impurities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a canister of the Defendant's Suave 24 Hour Protection Aerosol Powder from a Walgreens in Florida. Unilever distributes the Products throughout the United States and the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Fax: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aobergfell@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com UNITED AIRLINES: Anderson's TRO, Prelim. Injunction Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS ANDERSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-1050-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, denied in part Plaintiff Anderson's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction The case is before the Court on putative Class Action Plaintiff Anderson's Emergency Motion, filed at 6:52 p.m. on Nov. 1, 2021. The Motion does not include a proposed order, as required by Local Rules 6.01 and 6.02. It does not appear that either the Second Amended Complaint or Motion is verified either by statement signed by a named plaintiff or an affidavit, in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A), and Local Rule 6.01(a)(2) and (3). The Motion does not address the required security. The putative class in the Second Amended Complaint includes all United Airlines employees who "have and/or continue to be subjected to United's discriminatory, unlawful, and unconstitutional employment practices described in this complaint including the COVID-19 vaccine mandate; PCR testing; proof of vaccination or vaccine passports; and/or mask policies" -- that is, all 67,000 United Airlines employees, including those vaccinated and unvaccinated, who may or may not be placed on temporary leave under United Airlines' vaccine mandate. Judge Corrigan holds that Anderson has not shown why the Court should proceed without notice to United Airlines. Indeed, his service list includes Jones Day as counsel for United Airlines. Judge Corrigan will therefore convert the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction only. Additionally, the Motion asks the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction "against non-parties Pfizer, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Inc., and Moderna Inc. (together, 'manufacturers') as they are persons who are in active concert or participation with United and the Biden Administration; and asks the Court enjoin these manufacturers from further production and distribution of their COVID-19, gene therapy vaccines." Judge Corrigan notes that a TRO or preliminary injunction may bind non-parties, but only if they "aid and abet the party bound by the injunction in carrying out prohibited acts," or are in "privity," meaning "nonparty successors in interest and nonparties otherwise legally identified with the enjoined party." He finds that Anderson has provided no support for arguing that the vaccine manufacturers are aiding and abetting United Airlines in its vaccine, testing, and mask requirements, nor that they are in privity with United Airlines. Vaccine manufacturers also cannot be joined as "indispensable parties" to Anderson's claims against United Airlines, as the Court is able to "accord complete relief" for the putative class's claims "among existing parties." Therefore, he will not consider claims against vaccine manufacturers Pfizer, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Inc., and Moderna Inc. at this stage. Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Corrigan denied in part Anderson's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, to the extent that it requests a temporary restraining order, and to the extent that it moves for relief against Pfizer, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Inc., and Moderna Inc. It remains pending as to the request for a preliminary injunction against United Airlines. Mr. Anderson will forthwith serve by email and/or next day mail a copy of the Order, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and the Second Amended Complaint on United Airlines, their attorneys, and any staff counsel who has been handling this matter. Counsel for Anderson will promptly file a certificate to acknowledge this service. Mr. Anderson will file a proposed order as well as a memorandum of law containing citations to legal authority that support the requested preliminary injunction, a verification, and explanation of the amount and form of security, consistent with Local Rules 6.01 and 6.02, and forthwith serve it on United Airlines and its counsel. United Airlines should respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, consistent with Local Rule 6.02(c). The Court will then determine whether to schedule the Motion for Preliminary Injunction for hearing. Attorney(s) for United Airlines should forthwith file a notice of appearance. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ee97utcr from Leagle.com. UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Faces Beach Suit Over Denied Medical Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA BEACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-08612 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2021) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class seek to challenge the Defendant's denials of their requests for benefits pursuant to the 2018 and 2019 editions of the Defendant's "Level of Care Guidelines," which it used to determine whether mental health or substance use disorder services for which coverage was requested were consistent with generally accepted standards of care. While the Plaintiff and the class' Plans required, as one essential prerequisite for coverage, that services be consistent with generally accepted standards, the Defendant developed Guidelines for making that determination that were pervasively more restrictive than the generally accepted standards. Pursuant to the Defendant's "Facility-Based Behavioral Health Program Reimbursement Policy," the Defendant insists that facilities submit claims for reimbursement for facility-based care using a "daily rate," which is a bundled per-diem charge that purportedly accounts for all services provided for treatment at a given level of care. When the Defendant denies such claims for lack of medical necessity, it denies all coverage, even when it acknowledges that some of the services bundled into the per diem charge are medically necessary for the member, rather than considering those services on an un-bundled basis and approving coverage for them, added the suit. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC . 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com -and- D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Devon Galloway, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10 th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 Email: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com dgalloway@zuckerman.com -and- Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 Email: creynolds@zuckerman.com -and- Samantha M. Gerencir, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5838 Telephone: (813) 321-8221 Facsimile: (813) 223-7961 Email: sgerencir@zuckerman.com UNITED ELECTRICAL: Heeg Seeks Certification of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS HEEG, DALTON PARISH, ANDREW CRAMPTON, EVAN KOPKE, TIMOTHY NOLEN, RICHARD JOHNSON and MARIUS RICHARDSON, v. UNITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00796-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. directing the Defendant to produce a complete list of individuals who were employees of Defendant for the past three years as Electrical Workers and designate their dates of employment and location(s) where they worked within one week of the Court's Order; and 2. authorizing them, at their own expense, to present notices to the opt-in class in content and form. The Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, are or were employed by Defendant United Electrical Contractors, Inc., ("UEC or "Defendant") as Electrical Workers. In violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("MWOWA"), the Defendant engaged in illegal policies depriving Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees of overtime for all of the compensable time that they had worked. The Defendant has a policy of compensating its employees only for the time that they are on the construction jobsite. However, Defendant requires employees to engage in principal activities prior to arriving at the jobsite or after they leave the jobsite. This uncompensated work typically occurs at the home location (the "Shop") of the Defendant. The employees would have to locate tools and materialsin the morning prior to going to the jobsite. They would load these materials in a UEC vehicle and transport the materials and tools to the jobsite. The reverse would occur in evening. Materials and tools would be transported back to the shop and unload the materials and tools. Plaintiffs were not compensated for this work. United Electrical provides electrical contracting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30E8TIY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert D. Fetter, Esq. Keith D. Flynn, Esq. MILLER COHEN, P.L.C. 7700 Second Ave. Ste. 335 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 964-4454 Facsimile: (313) 964-4490 E-mail: rfetter(@millercohen.com kflynn@millercohen.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher M. Trebilcock, Esq. Connie M. Cessante, Esq. Carolyn M. Horton, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-8300 E-mail: ctrebilcock@clarkhill.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class in Castaneda Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orellana Castaneda v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04267 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arlene R Lindsay entered an order that the motion to certify class as well as the related motions for leave to electronically file documents are denied with leave to renew after the motion for summary judgment has been decided. The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[CC] UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Brown v. USPS Suit Wins Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LASHAWN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-5624 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the joint motion for approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement. The parties sought approval of settlement with respect to claims brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq. Background In her operative amended complaint, the Plaintiff avers that she was employed by the Defendant as an Assistant Rural Carrier from Oct. 7, 2017, until Aug. 19, 2018, and as a City Carrier Assistant from Aug. 20, 2018, until her termination on Nov. 19, 2018. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate her for all of the hours she worked, including overtime hours, and that, during a period of transition between two work locations, she was not fully compensated for her work in the new location. She also alleges that the Defendant violated the FMLA when it retaliated against her by terminating her employment after she took a medical leave. Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's conduct was willful. In its answer to the complaint, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff's allegations and asserted five affirmative defenses. The Defendant maintains that all of its actions were taken in good faith and with reasonable belief that it was in compliance with the FLSA and the FMLA. Following the close of discovery, the parties conferred and reached an amicable resolution of the disputed claims, memorialized in a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to pay the Plaintiff a total of $4,250, consisting of $1,500 in unpaid earned wages, $1,500 in liquidated damages, and $1,250 in attorney's fees. In exchange, the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the instant litigation and to the release of any and all claims she has or may have against Defendant, the United States of America, and its officers, agents, and employees, arising from her previous employment with the Defendant. The parties now seek the Court's approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Discussion Having reviewed the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement, udge Alejandro is satisfied that it is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" and does not impermissibly frustrate implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. A. Proposed Settlement Agreement is a Fair and Reasonable Settlement of a Bona Fide Dispute As a threshold issue, Judge Alejandro must determine whether the parties' dispute is "bona fide." He is is satisfied that a bona fide dispute exists as to both the Defendant's liability and the Plaintiff's damages under the FLSA. As evidenced by the operative complaint and the Defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, the action involves disputed issues of fact as to whether the Defendant properly paid the Plaintiff at least the minimum wage for all of the regular and overtime hours she worked. Based on the pleadings, it is clear that a bona fide dispute exists regarding the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses thereto. Having determined that a bona fide dispute exists, Judge Alejandro must determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement provides a fair and reasonable resolution of that dispute. When determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, courts in the Third Circuit often consider the Girsh factors, a nine-factor test created for evaluating proposed class action settlement agreements, citing Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975); Lyons, 2015 WL 4378514, at *4. The Girsh factors are: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendant to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Judge Alejandro finds that the Girsh factors 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are relevant to the single-plaintiff action and that they weigh in favor of approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement. B. The Proposed Settlement Agreement Does Not Impermissibly Frustrate Implementation of the FLSA Judge Alejandro further finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement does not impermissibly frustrate implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has examined the release of claims in the proposed Settlement Agreement and the absence of any confidentiality provision, a feature of some FLSA settlement agreements of which courts have repeatedly disapproved. In the case, the release of claims is limited to claims related to the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant arising before the date of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Such a narrowly tailored release does not frustrate implementation of the FLSA. Similarly, the release in the case is sufficiently limited in scope so as to not impermissibly frustrate implementation of the FLSA. C. Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses As compensation for their legal services and efforts, the proposed Settlement Agreement provides for reimbursement of attorney's fees in the amount of $1,250. This amount represents 29.4% of the total settlement amount. Judge Alejandro finds this award of attorney's fees to be reasonable. The lodestar for the Plaintiff's counsel is $28,766. The Counsel's request for $1,250 represents an amount significantly less than the lodestar. Clearly, such an amount does not exceed other attorney's fees awards which amounted to various multiples above the lodestar amount. Therefore, the lodestar method supports approval of the requested attorney's fees. Having considered the relevant factors and the lodestar analysis, Judge Alejandro approves the reasonable request for attorney's fees. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Alejandro finds the terms if the proposed Settlement Agreement to be fair and reasonable and consistent with implementation of the FLSA, and, therefore, approves the Settlement Agreement. She further finds that the request for attorney's fees is reasonable and awards the Plaintiff's counsel fees in the amount of $1,250. An Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3y2ackzu from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Hageman Serves as Co-Counsel in Vaccine Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Mychael Schnell, writing for The Hill, reports that Harriet Hageman, the Republican Wyoming attorney challenging Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) for her seat in Congress, is serving as co-counsel in a class-action lawsuit against President Biden's coronavirus vaccine-or-testing mandate. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit organization where Hageman serves as senior litigation counsel, filed a class-action lawsuit on Nov. 5 on behalf of 11 federal workers who say they have natural immunity against COVID-19 after previously testing positive for the virus and argue the Biden administration's mandate infringes on their constitutional and federal statutory rights. The policy requires that all private employers with 100 or more workers mandate coronavirus vaccines or weekly testing. The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, names the U.S. government, members of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force -- the group tasked with enforcing the mandate -- and top government infectious diseases specialist Anthony Fauci, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs include workers at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Secret Service. The lawsuit argues the vaccine mandate violates the plaintiffs' constitutional and federal statutory rights because it "undermines their bodily integrity and autonomy and conditions their employment on their willingness to take what for them and those working with them is a medically unnecessary vaccine." "Accepting federal employment does not mean serving as a guinea pig for emergency use drugs. Forcing Plaintiff and others to take this vaccine will provide no discernible, let alone compelling, benefit either to Plaintiffs or to the federal employee community," the lawsuit adds. The suit contents that because the plaintiffs have natural immunity from recovering from the virus, the vaccine is "medically unnecessary" for them. Hageman is waging a primary bid against Cheney, who was denounced by her party after supporting former President Trump's second impeachment and consistently rejecting his claims of election fraud. Trump endorsed Hageman in September, following through on his vow to work to oust his GOP opponents from Congress. The race between the two Republicans is shaping up to be a fierce battle that will pit Cheney, a three-term congresswoman who has ties to the GOP, against Hageman, who has the backing of Trump and his supporters. [GN] UNITED STATES: Navy Seal Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAVY SEAL 1, et al., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02429-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all United States Armed Forces service members and civilian federal employees and contractors who are subject to the Defendants' COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, have requested a religious exemption or accommodation from the Mandate based on sincerely held religious beliefs against receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, and been denied such exemption or accommodation." All class members have submitted requests for religious exemption and accommodation from the Vaccine Mandate, and have been denied, delayed, or rejected, or coerced into receiving such a vaccine that is directly contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs, the lawsuit says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Co8bwi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger K. Gannam, Esq. Mathew D. Staver, Esq. Horatio G. Mihet, Esq. Roger K. Gannam, Esq. Daniel J. Schmid, Esq. Richard L. Mast, Esq. LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 Telephone: (407) 875-1776 Facsimile: (407) 875-0770 E-mail: court@lc.org-hmihet@lc.org rgannam@lc.org-dschmid@lc.org rmast@lc.org UNITED STATES: NCLA & TPPF File COVID Vaccination Class-Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal workers with naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19 filed a class-action lawsuit against their employer, the U.S. government, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci and other members of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, the group designated to act as the intermediate enforcer of the executive order mandating that all federal employees get vaccinated. The lawsuit, James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil liberties group, contends that the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate violates employees' constitutional and statutory rights. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institution based in Austin, Texas, serves as co-counsel in the case. The named plaintiffs in this case are employed by government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Secret Service. All possess naturally acquired immunity as confirmed by recent SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and a medical expert. In addition to James Rodden, they include: Isaac McLaughlin, Gabriel Escoto, Michelle Morton, Waddie Jones, Ryan Biggers, Carole Mezzacapo, Edward Surgeon, Susan Reynolds, Roy Egbert, and George Gammon. The Executive Order issued by the Biden administration in September proclaims that "it is necessary to require COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal employees" to halt the spread of the disease. NCLA argues the Vaccine Mandate undermines Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to bodily integrity and to decline medical treatment, and their statutory right to withhold informed consent. It conditions their employment on their willingness to take a vaccine that is medically unnecessary for them given their existing antibody levels. Their proof of antibodies demonstrates sufficient natural immunity to protect their co-workers as well or better than approved vaccines for COVID-19. The federal government does not consider employees fully vaccinated until two weeks after receiving a single-shot series or the second dose of a two-shot series. They must get the vaccine by November 8 to comply with the Vaccine Mandate. Those who do not comply with the looming, aggressive deadline face potential disciplinary action, including termination of employment. As established through their declarations, several experts attest that it is medically unnecessary for these individuals to undergo vaccination at this point. Though the COVID-19 vaccines appear to be relatively safe at a population level, they still carry a risk of side effects, including severe adverse reactions and even death in rare cases. And once administered, there is no way to un-vaccinate someone. Given naturally acquired immunity, the Federal Defendants cannot establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and personal autonomy by making their continued employment contingent upon their receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. The Federal Vaccine Mandate also violates the Emergency Use Authorization law, which allows the government to authorize drugs that have not yet received full FDA approval and make them available to people who want them, on a strictly voluntary basis. The statute specifies that patients have a right to informed consent and to refuse administration of an EUA drug. But the Task Force has turned a permissive procedure to get possibly helpful drugs on the market in a crisis into an unlawful mandate. Plaintiffs request temporary and permanent injunctive relief from the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate, and a declaratory judgment that the mandate infringes upon their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights. NCLA and TPPF released the following statements: "The rational goal of any vaccine policy is to foster immunity. Vaccinating the already immune on pain of unemployment is as arbitrary and capricious an agency action as can be imagined. If your federal employer can do this, what other medical procedures can they impose on federal workers for zero health benefit just because they want to? Can they impose liposuction for the overweight or take spare kidneys for other workers in need?" - John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA "The federal government has joined the vast majority of employers who have implemented vaccine mandates by refusing to carve out exceptions for employees who can demonstrate that they possess naturally acquired immunity. This scientifically unsound refusal effectively forces federal workers to subject themselves to an unnecessary medical procedure, violating their rights to bodily autonomy and to decline medical interventions under the United States Constitution." - Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA "Our lawsuit seeks to vindicate our Clients' constitutional rights to bodily integrity, informed consent, and to remain free of unnecessary and unwanted medical treatment. Under no circumstances should the federal government command Americans to undertake a medical treatment they don't want." - Robert Henneke, General Counsel, TPPF For more information visit the case page here. About NCLA And TPPF NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. TPPF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute. The Foundation's mission is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Arredondo Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA ARREDONDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class: "All persons who paid tuition and/or the Mandatory Fees at La Verne's Main/Central campus location during the Spring 2020 term/semester;" Excluded from the Class are Defendant, including its corporate affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries; Defendant's employees, including officers and directors; and the Judge to which this case is assigned; 2. appointing her as the Class Representative; and 3. appointing Leeds Brown Law, P.C., The Sultzer Law Group P.C., Charon Law as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and Shoop, A Professional Corporation as Local Counsel. The University of La Verne is a private university in La Verne, California. Founded in 1891, the university is composed of the College of Arts & Sciences, College of Business & Public Management. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qySqQZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Shoop, Esq. Thomas S. Alch, Esq. SHOOP | A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 620-9533 E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 969-7810 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Perry L. Segal, Esq. CHARON LAW 303 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600 Redwood City, CA 94065-1422 Telephone: (650) 542-7935 E-mail: perry.segal@charonlaw.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 4, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA SMITH and EMMA NEDLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Savage entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification shall be completed by January 10, 2022. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than February 4, 2022. 3. The Defendant's response to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than February 25, 2022. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's response no later than March 11, 2022. 5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A. 6. No further extensions will be granted. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The university, established as the College of Philadelphia in 1740, is one of the nine colonial colleges chartered prior to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ovP9PH at no extra charge.[CC] URS MIDWEST: $100K Class Settlement in Crane Suit Wins Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN J. CRANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-01407-JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Having read and considered all of the papers of the Parties and their counsel, including the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Award, filed on Oct. 12, 2021; having granted preliminary approval on July 1, 2021; having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"); and good cause appearing, pursuant to FRCP 23(e)(1)(A), Judge Robart grants final approval of the Settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of Class Action Claims. For settlement purposes only, he certifies the Class, as defined in the Court's July 1, 2021 Order Granting Conditional Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Settlement as follows: "All individuals who (1) resided in Washington State, (2) held Washington State Commercial Driver's Licenses, (3) were employed by Defendant, (4) in the position of truck driver or any other similar position, (5) and who drove at least 1 route of at least 4 hours that was (6) paid, in whole or in part, on a per-load piece-rate basis (or any other piece-rate basis), (7) at any time from August 2, 2016 through April 22, 2021." Judge Robart finally and unconditionally approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to FRCP 23(e)(1), and specifically: (i) approves the $100,000 Gross Settlement Amount; (ii) approves the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to Participating Class Members in the manner specified in and subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (iii) approves the Class Representative Service Award of $5,000 to the Class Representative; (iv) approves Class Counsel's requested fees award of $30,000, which is 30% of the Gross Settlement Amount, and is to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount; (v) approves Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses of $4,080.14 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount; (vi) approves payment to CPT Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, of Administration Costs in the amount of $7,500 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount; and (vii) approves and orders that in all other particulars the Settlement Agreement be carried out by the Parties and the Settlement Administrator subject to the terms thereof. Within 30 calendar days of Effective Date Deadline for the Defendant to fund the settlement Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail the Individual Settlement Payments to eligible Participating Class Members; pay the appropriate taxes to the appropriate Within 40 calendar days of the Effective Date taxing authorities; make payment of Court approved attorneys' fees and costs to appropriate counsel; and make payment of the Class Representative Payment Uncashed checks will be sent by the Settlement Administrator to the Washington 90 days after issuance of Settlement checks State Department of Revenue Unclaimed Property Fund with the associated name of the Class Member. The action is dismissed with prejudice; provided, however, that without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the case for purposes of supervising, implementing, interpreting and enforcing the Order and the Settlement Agreement, as may become necessary, until all of the terms of the Settlement Agreement have been fully carried out. Upon the Settlement Effective Date, the Plaintiff and all the Class Members who have not timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Agreement will be and hereby are enjoined from filing, initiating or continuing to prosecute any actions, claims, complaints, or proceedings with respect to the Released Claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/kche2wy9 from Leagle.com. UTAH JAZZ: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah Jazz Team Store. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Utah Jazz Team Store, Case No. 1:21-cv-09436 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Utah Jazz Team Store -- https://jazzteamstore.com/ -- offers official Utah Jazz jerseys, hats, and tees.[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 VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Motion to Pause Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Kelli Duncan, writing for Vail Daily, reports that a federal judge granted a motion by Vail Resorts to pause a class-action lawsuit filed in Colorado alleging improper compensation of its employees while the company settles two similar lawsuits filed in California. The motion to stay the case filed in Colorado was strongly opposed by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, who said it was part of a plan by Vail Resorts to squash all the lawsuits for the least amount of money possible and without having to change its compensation policies. The two California cases are also seeking class-action status, so Vail Resorts has argued that settling the two matters should "resolve and release all outstanding claims against Vail Resorts," including the case filed in Colorado. The California cases contain "weaker claims" that are more limited in scope than the Colorado case and therefore they should not be treated as parallel cases, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Colorado case said in a statement opposing the motion to stay their case. The Colorado case "must be allowed to continue in order to end Vail Resorts' egregious treatment of ski instructors and other hourly employees," one of the plaintiffs in the case wrote in a declaration opposing the motion. "Unless this suit continues and the court determines that Vail Resorts is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, these abuses will continue on a huge scale," the declaration reads. Gordon P. Gallagher, a federal judge assisting with the Colorado case, disagreed in an order filed Friday, Oct. 15, that granted the motion to postpone the case for 90 days. This order pauses matters pending in the case, meaning Vail Resorts will not have to produce any of the evidence associated with the alleged improper compensation requested by the plaintiffs and vice versa. Also pending -- and now postponed -- is a request by the plaintiffs to send information about the lawsuit to current and former employees who may be eligible to join the case and receive compensation. Edward Dietrich, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Colorado case, declined to comment. Dietrich is representing the now 16 plaintiffs along with Benjamin Galdston. Vail Resorts is represented by Jonathan O. Harris and Michelle B. Muhleisen. Neither Harris and Muhleisen nor Vail Resorts responded to requests for comment. A bit of background The Colorado case was first filed in December 2020 in Colorado District Court on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, who are current or former employees at Beaver Creek Resort. The case alleges that Vail Resorts violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws in Colorado and eight other states. The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status to prosecute the case on behalf of a larger group or "class" impacted by the allegations, which, in this case, are current and former employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the past three years. Since the December filing, the three original named plaintiffs have been joined by 13 other plaintiffs from various states who opted to join the class-action lawsuit, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs' allegations include improper compensation for time worked and improper reimbursement for work-related expenses as well as "breach of contract and unjust enrichment." "Vail Resorts is, and has always been, committed to treating its employees fairly and in compliance with all applicable laws," Jamie Alvarez, the company's director of corporate communications, wrote in a statement. Meanwhile, Vail Resorts has been litigating two similar cases filed in California District Court by former employees alleging violations of state labor laws, unbeknownst to the Colorado plaintiffs or their attorneys. Defendants involved in potential class-action lawsuits are required to file a "notice of related case" to let plaintiffs know that other similar complaints have been filed, Dietrich and Galdston wrote in a response to Vail Resorts' recent motion to postpone their case. According to the Civil Rules for the District of Colorado, parties must file notice of related cases "at the time of its first appearance or the filing of its first pleading or document, or other matter addressed to the court." By this point, the company had already extended a settlement offer to plaintiffs in the two cases. The notice was filed alongside the motion to postpone, or "stay," the Colorado lawsuit for 90 days while the California settlement procedures take place. In a response to Vail Resorts' motion to stay the Colorado case, Dietrich and Galdston said the company should not be rewarded for what they deemed to be "litigation misconduct." Alvarez declined to answer a question about why Vail Resorts and its attorneys failed to file a notice of related case for so long. A ruling in favor of Vail Resorts "This court also does not find evidence of the bad behavior listed by plaintiffs," Judge Gallagher wrote in his order granting Vail Resorts' motion to stay the case. He cited a different rule than the local Civil Rules for the District of Colorado, which Dietrich and Galdston said Vail Resorts violated. Beyond the alleged misconduct, Dietrich and Galdston said the claims made in the Colorado case are broader than those made in the California cases and, therefore, would not be resolved by a settlement in those cases. The two California cases are seeking class-action status to prosecute claims on behalf of a much smaller, California-based class. The Colorado case, on the other hand, is seeking class-action status under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and would allow current and former Vail Resorts employees across various states to opt in and receive compensation. Gallagher's order was brief, barely six pages, but it gave an overview of the five criteria, based in legal precedent, that Gallagher used to come to his decision. First is to consider the plaintiffs' interests in resolving their case in a timely manner and "the potential prejudice to (the) plaintiff of a delay." The second piece of this could refer to a case's statute of limitations, a law that sets a time limit on how long legal matters can be prosecuted after the criminal or civil allegations occur. Gallagher said this piece was fine given that the proposed stay is only 90 days and that Vail Resorts offered to stop the clock on the statute of limitations during that time. The next two criteria are "burden on the defendants" and "convenience to the court," according to the order. Gallagher found that requiring Vail Resorts to start producing a bunch of evidence around compensation policies and time sheets for employees when they are about to settle similar lawsuits places an "undue burden" on the company. "Proceeding with discovery at a time when there is pending approval of a settlement would be a waste of defendant's resources, especially when 12 of the 22 counts in (the Colorado case) pertain to (claims made in the California cases)," the order reads. If plaintiffs in the Colorado case decide to opt out of receiving compensation with the California settlement offer or if "any non-overlapping claims exist after the settlement," then Vail Resorts will be asked to present the requested evidence, and the case will continue. As to convenience to the court, "judicial efficiency would be best served by staying discovery while a settlement related to plaintiffs' claims is being finalized," Gallagher wrote in the order. The fourth factor is the interests of any other people who are not directly involved in the case, which Gallagher said does not apply here, and the fifth is public interest. "Regarding the fifth factor, 'the general public's primary interest in this case is an efficient and just resolution,'" the order reads. "We dispute the accuracy of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, however, to avoid the time-consuming and costly nature of further litigation, the parties involved have negotiated a tentative settlement and will seek court approval to finalize and ensure the outcome is a fair resolution to all," Alvarez said in her statement on behalf of Vail Resorts. Vail Resorts must submit documents related to the settlement offer by Nov. 12, at which point a hearing will be held to determine whether a judge wants to grant preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. As the California settlements go forward with the Colorado case postponed, employees that cash in on the settlement offer give up their legal rights to join the Colorado case. In recent court documents, Dietrich and Galdston have expressed intentions to push for full compensation for unpaid wages owed to plaintiffs in their case. They will also seek "injunctive relief," a legal measure that could force Vail Resorts to change its policies around compensation. Alvarez declined to disclose the exact settlement offer proposed in the two California cases but said Vail Resorts believes it is "appropriate and fair." After the 90-day stay in the Colorado case is up, the two parties are required to contact the court within three days to schedule a status conference to discuss next steps. [GN] VEECO INSTRUMENTS: $15MM Accord Reached in Investor Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that an agreement to settle the action, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., on a class-wide basis for $15.0 million has been signed. On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition. On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. "The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute," the Company Said. In October 2021, Veeco and the court-appointed class representatives signed an agreement to settle the Wolther Action on a class-wide basis for $15.0 million, subject to court approval and class members' opportunity to object and opt-out. The settlement amount will be funded by insurance carriers. Veeco is a global capital equipment supplier, headquartered in the U.S., that designs and builds processing systems used to manufacture high tech microelectronics devices including semiconductors, photonics, MEMS, display technologies and power devices. VERISK ANALYTICS: To Appeal Order Denying Arbitration Bid --------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2021, that the Company is seeking appellate review of a Pennsylvania state court's decision denying its request to send a class action lawsuit to arbitration. On December 10, 2020, the Company were served with a putative class action lawsuit brought by Erica Jackson in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No. 2020 CV 03695. The class complaint alleges that the Company violated Pennsylvania's Wiretap Act ("PWA"), 18 Pa. Const. Stat. Sec. 5701 et seq. by "wiretapping" and "intercepting" the plaintiff's communications on the website colleges.educationgrant.com. The plaintiff alleges a class of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted through the use of the Company's wiretapping on the website. The complaint claims damages pursuant to the PWA for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. On February 16, 2021, the company filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court ultimately denied the Company's preliminary objections. The Company subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties' arbitration proceedings. On September 30, 2021, the court denied the Company's motions without issuing a written opinion and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. On October 8, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review of the lower court's decision with the Pennsylvania appellate court system. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, the Company said. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is an American multinational data analytics and risk assessment firm based in Jersey City, New Jersey, with customers in insurance, natural resources, financial services, government, and risk management sectors. VERIZON CONNECT: Continuance of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO HIRAM SANTILLAN, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v. VERIZON CONNECT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01257-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the parties ask the Court granting their request for a brief continuance of deadlines, and the related certification deadlines, as follows: -- Class certification discovery January 31, 2022 deadline -- Class certification discovery February 21, 2022 motion cutoff; -- Class certification motion filing March 28, 2022 deadline The parties says that there have been no previous requests for a continuance of any deadline. A very short continuance will allow them to schedule the necessary depositions and complete the discovery relating to certification. Because it does not appear that they will be able to resolve these discovery issues before the current discovery deadline, the parties add. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/327jJHR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E--mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com - and - Vanessa M. Ruggles, Esq. 1717 E. Vista Chino, Suite A7, PMB 117 Palm Springs, CA 92262-3569 Telephone: (760) 699-7215 Facsimile: (866) 606-6593 E-mail: VMRuggles@gmail.com - and - Raphael A. Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104 Telephone: (310) 940-2034 Facsimile: (310) 733-5644 E-mail: RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Nancy Nguyen, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action under 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following Class: a. Unpaid Time Class "all individuals who are or were employed by VF Outdoor, LLC, or its predecessor or merged entities in California as hourly, non-exempt employees, who were employed at one of VF Outdoor LLC's distribution centers in California, who did not sign an arbitration agreement with VF Outdoor LLC, and who were required by VF Outdoor LLC t to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks between August 26, 2015 and the present date;" b. Overtime Class "all individuals who are or were employed by VF Outdoor, LLC, or its predecessor or merged entities in California as hourly, non-exempt employees, who were employed at one of VF Outdoor LLC's distribution centers in California, who did not sign an arbitration agreement with VF Outdoor LLC, and who were required by the Defendant to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks and who work or worked in excess of eight hours in a day or forty hours in a workweek between August 26, 2015 and the present date;" c. Meal Period Class "all individuals who are or were employed by VF Outdoor, LLC, or its predecessor or merged entities in California as hourly, non-exempt employees, who were employed at one of VF Outdoor LLC's distribution centers in California, who did not sign an arbitration agreement with VF Outdoor LLC, and who were required by Defendant to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks and who work or worked shifts in excess of five hours between August 26, 2015 and the present date;" d. Rest Period Class "all individuals who are or were employed by VF Outdoor, LLC, or its predecessor or merged entities in California as hourly, non-exempt employees who work or worked shifts in excess of three and a half hours between August 26, 2015 and the present date who were employed at one of VF Outdoor LLC's distribution centers in California, who did not sign an arbitration agreement with VF Outdoor LLC, and who were required by Defendant to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks;" and e. Wage Statement Subclass "all individuals who are or were employed by VF Outdoor, LLC, or its predecessor or merged entities in California as hourly, non-exempt employees from between August 26, 2018 and the present date, who did not sign an arbitration agreement with VF Outdoor LLC, and who were required by Defendant to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks and who work or worked shifts in excess of five hours between August 26, 2015 and the present date;" 2. granting class certification of this action under Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and 23(b); and 3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Potter Handy, LLP to serve as counsel to the class, and authorize notice to the class of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(d)(2). VF Outdoor was founded in 2000. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of men's and boy's clothing. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30xIZ9w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (858) 375-7385 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com VIACOMCBS INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ViacomCBS Inc. ("Viacom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VIACA) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Viacom shares during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 28, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Viacom investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Viacom Securities Class Litigation The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley traded in Viacom shares while in possession of material non-public information that Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management, failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Viacom. Defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of shares of Archegos's doomed bets, including billions of dollars' worth of Viacom securities beginning on March 25, 2021, before the market learned of Archegos's collapse. As a result of these insider sales, defendants avoided billions of dollars in losses. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos but disposed of their Viacom shares to class members anyway before the news about Archegos was revealed and the price of Viacom's shares plummeted. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN] VIATRIS INC: Trial on Antitrust Suits Set for Jan. 24, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------- Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a trial on the remaining antitrust theory against the Company is currently scheduled to begin on Jan. 24, 2022. The Company has been named as a defendant in indirect purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these cases asserted violations of various federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, RICO as well as common law claims. A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated companies are also defendants in some of the class actions. Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. These lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts and, except for a small number, have either been dismissed or transferred into a MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and have been consolidated. The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17 states and a RICO class. On June 23, 2021, the Court granted – in substantial part –the Company's and former Mylan N.V. officer's motion for summary judgment by dismissing certain antitrust claims and the RICO claims, which included RICO claims asserted against the former Mylan N.V. officer. Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and to certify an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment decision with respect to the RICO claims were denied. On July 8, 2021, the Company filed a motion to decertify the class action with respect to the remaining antitrust theory, which concerns a patent settlement between Pfizer and Teva and other alleged actions regarding the launch of Teva's generic epinephrine auto-injector. A trial on the remaining antitrust theory against the Company is currently scheduled to begin on January 24, 2022. "Plaintiffs are asserting damages of approximately $1.0 billion on the remaining antitrust theory, which is subject to multipliers under certain state laws," the Company said. The Company believes that it acted lawfully, is continuing to defend itself vigorously, and intends to vigorously contest all remaining aspects of Plaintiffs' case, including their asserted damages. Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020 through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. VIZIO INC: Kavehrad Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Amir Kavehrad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vizio, Inc., Vizio Holding Corp., Case No. 30-02021-01225836 was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 12, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01868 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Vizio Inc. -- https://www.vizio.com/ -- is an American publicly-traded company that designs and sells televisions, sound bars, viewer data, and advertising.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Adams, Esq. RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP 1875 Jamboree Road 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (714) 641-5100 Fax: (714) 546-9035 Email: madams@rutan.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Swiss Prosecutors to Drop Emissions Criminal Probe ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Swiss federal prosecutors are set to drop a nearly five-year criminal investigation into Volkswagen's (VOWG_p.DE) diesel emissions scandal after concluding they did not have a strong enough case to file charges, they said on Nov. 9. The Office of the Attorney General said it had informed the German carmaker and its Swiss dealership arm this month "that it considers the investigation to be complete and intends to drop the case," it said in a statement, confirming a report by broadcaster SRF. The defendants and private plaintiffs can still review the case file and submit more evidence before the case is closed officially, it said. VW admitted in September 2015 it had installed secret software in hundreds of thousands of U.S. diesel cars to cheat exhaust emissions tests and make the cars appear cleaner than they were, and that as many as 11 million vehicles could have similar software installed worldwide. Swiss prosecutors opened criminal proceedings after a court ruled they must conduct their own investigation into hundreds of complaints lodged in Switzerland. The case centred on the potential damage to around 175,000 customers who bought or leased VW group vehicles with diesel motors that at least some VW officials must have known had been manipulated. SRF said Swiss plaintiffs could still claim damages through civil law, noting VW has already paid out billions abroad. "But without official culprits, such proceedings in Switzerland are very costly and difficult for individuals," it added. [GN] VR LEO USA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VR LEO USA INC.; B&B TOYMAKER, INC.; PATTY S. LUI; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 21STCV40747 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 4, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants as staff. VR LEO USA INC. owns and operates as a wholesale toy and virtual reality company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Denis, Esq. Ethan E. Rasi, Esq. DENIS & RASI, PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (714) 242-4557 Facsimile: (213) 443-9601 W.W. GRAINGER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.W. Grainger, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09442 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. W. W. Grainger, Inc. -- https://www.grainger.com/ -- is an American Fortune 500 industrial supply company founded in 1927 in Chicago by William W. Grainger.[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 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 28, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA RODRIGUEZ and BREANA STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07045-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte entered an order as follows: Event Court Order -- Motion for Class Certification March 28, 2022 -- Opposition to Motion for Class May 10, 2022 Class Certification -- Reply Motion for Class June 20, 2022 Certification -- Hearing on Motion for Class July 8, 2022 Certification -- Initial Expert Disclosures July 29, 2022 Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCdGS8 at no extra charge.[CC] WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 3, 2022 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA RODRIGUEZ and BREANA STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00784-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting motion to amend certain dates in the case schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by March 3, 2022. -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by May 5, 2022 and the Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be filed by June 2, 2022. -- All fact discovery shall be completed by May 3, 2022 and all expert discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2022. -- Dispositive motions, if any (see Local Rule 56(c)), shall still be filed by July 28, 2022. -- The telephonic status conference is still scheduled for May 10, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. Walmart 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. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ChYe3y at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN CO: Judge Grants in Part Motion for Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on November 2, 2021, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment in a securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against a retail drugstore chain (the "Company") and two of its former senior executives. Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No. 15-cv-03187 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2021). Plaintiff alleged defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's earnings before interest and taxes ("EBIT") projections and its ability to meet it. The Court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that one of the alleged misstatements was a non-actionable forward-looking statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") safe harbor, that defendants proved the truth of certain alleged misstatements, but that triable issues of material fact remained with respect to a number of other alleged misstatements. The Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding one of the individual defendant's intent to deceive, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the falsity of that defendant's statements and is therefore a question for the jury. According to the complaint, a substantial component of the Company's business involved sales of generic drugs. The profit margin of these sales depended on the difference between the cost of the generic drug and the reimbursement by various third parties, such as insurance companies. For a number of years prior to the alleged misstatements, generic drugs had allegedly followed a deflationary trend and the Company, in an effort to protect its margins and on the assumption that generic drug prices would continue to decline, allegedly contracted with third parties to set a maximum rate of reimbursement for the generic drugs it sold. The Company also announced in 2012 that it was entering into a two-step merger with another retail drugstore chain, in which the Company acquired 45% of the target company's stock and gave the Company the option to acquire the remaining 55% approximately three years later if the Company's shareholders approved. Against this backdrop, the Company allegedly set forth long-range goals for FY16, which reflected the expected benefits of the new partnership with the target, including generating $1 billion in combined synergies and between $9.0 - $9.5 billion in EBIT. According to plaintiff, the deflationary trend in generic drug prices that precipitated the merger and the Company's announcement of its long-range financial goals for fiscal year 2016 began to shift in 2013. Plaintiff alleged that the Company's executive officers misrepresented the extent of the impact this shift had on the Company's ability to meet its fiscal year 2016 EBIT target of $9-9.5 billion. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants made the following misstatements: (i) statements made by one of the individual defendants during a March 25, 2014 second quarter earnings call that the Company remained focused on delivering the EBIT target; (ii) a statement by one of the individual defendants in March 2014 that "the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin was dramatically slower rate of new generic introductions year over year;" (iii) the Company's similar statements in a March 2014 Q2 10-Q filing; (iv) statements by one of the individual defendants at an April 17, 2014 investor conference about generic drug price inflation and its impact along with reimbursement pressures by third-party payers; (v) statements by one of the individual defendants between May 14-15, 2014 that Company management believed the EBIT target was achievable; and (vi) a statement made by the individual defendants during a May 16, 2014 conference call that the Company had not seen unusual trends in generic drug price inflation. The Court first turned to defendants' motion for summary judgment on loss causation grounds. The Court summarized that the parties' loss causation arguments focused on plaintiff's loss causation expert's opinion that the corrective disclosure at issue was made on August 6, 2014. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that the corrective disclosure occurred during a June 2014 earnings call when the Company withdrew its projection for fiscal year 2016's EBIT, stating that the "goal was not attainable and that generic inflation and reimbursement pressures significantly affected the goal." According to defendants, "under an efficient market theory, this earlier disclosed information was already incorporated into the share price before the August 6 disclosures" that plaintiff argued constituted the corrective disclosure. Plaintiff contended that the August 6 disclosures acted as the corrective disclosure, because it was the first time the Company revised its fiscal year 2016 EBIT goal, which the Company decreased from $9-$9.5 billion to $7.2 billion -- a $1.8 billion drop from its prior goal. The Court held that there was a "triable issue of fact of whether the August 6 disclosure revealed new information concerning the extent and seriousness of Walgreens missing its FY16 EBIT goal." The Court further observed that defendants' argument for the earlier corrective disclosure date "does not take into account that the relevant truths can leak out over time through a series of partial disclosures" and "does not acknowledge that the market may not have realized the significance of [the Company] missing the FY16 EBIT target until the actual shortfall" was announced in August. Accordingly, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in relation to loss causation and observed that the parties' criticism of the designated loss causation experts and their reports "are best left" for the upcoming Daubert motions. Turning next to defendants' alleged misstatements, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to (i) the alleged March 25, 2014 statement that the Company remained focused on delivering the EBIT target despite progress not meeting expectations thus far, (ii) the alleged March 25, 2014 statements on the earnings call asserting that "the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin was [the] dramatically slower rate of new generic introductions year over year" and similar commentary in the Company's SEC filing, and (iii) the alleged statements made at the April 17, 2014 investor conference that the Company has always experienced a degree of reimbursement pressure. Specifically: Regarding the alleged statements on March 25, 2014 that the Company's progress towards its "adjusted operating income goal of $9 billion to $9.5 billion [was] . . . below . . . initial expectations" and they were still focused on delivering it, the Court held that the statement was forward-looking under the PSLA because "it expressly concerns future economic performance" and noted that statements in the relevant SEC filings included cautionary statements that "explain that the principal risks included drug pricing changes and reimbursement pressures." Given defendants' cautionary statements in its filings, the Court held the individual defendant's statements were "firmly . . . within the PSLRA's safe harbor provision." Concerning the alleged statement on the March 25, 2014 earnings call asserting that "the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin was dramatically slower rate of new generic introductions year over year" as well as the Company's March 27, 2014 Q2 2014 filing which stated in part"[r]etail pharmacy margins were negatively impacted by a significant reduction in the number of brand to generic drug conversions and lower market driven reimbursements," the Court found that defendants provided evidence showing that "the lower number of new generic conversions in 2Q14" compared to the prior year reduced the Company's adjusted gross margin at least 1.4%, which plaintiff "failed to refute." The Court further noted that "[the] fact that generic drug inflation and reimbursement pressures impacted the pharmacy margin does not render false the fact that the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin in 2Q14 compared to 2Q13 was the slower rate of new generic introductions." Lastly, regarding the alleged statement at the April 17 investor conference call that the Company "always experience[s] some level of reimbursement pressure," the Court held that plaintiff "failed to present evidence that the impact of reimbursement pressures on gross margin percentage in 2Q14 was not 'routine'" finding that defendants "presented unrebutted evidence that reimbursement pressures were ongoing within the industry and that it took place every year." The Court next turned to three alleged misstatements that it found presented a genuine issue of material fact and therefore were not subject to adjudication at summary judgment. Specifically: The Court held that statements made by one of the individual defendants at a April 17, 2014 conference that generic drug price inflation "was really kind of a one-time phenomenon" and that that there were no "unusual" reimbursement pressures by third-party payers, conflicted with record evidence that the executive knew by mid-April "that generic drug manufacturers had taken an aggressive industry-wide pricing action . . . creating price inflation above historical and expected levels." Defendants argued that such alleged statements were not actionable because they were the executive's honestly held opinion, citing to Omnicare, 575 U.S. 175 (2015). The Court found, however, that there is a "triable issue of fact" of whether that executive honestly believed his statements. The Court held that the May 14-15, 2014 alleged statements that Company management believed the fiscal year 2016 EBIT target was achievable were not protected forward-looking statements under the PSLRA, finding that plaintiff's arguments that the falsity of those statements were known when they were made, and that the executive "had actual knowledge that his statement was false or misleading" and therefore raised a triable issue of fact, namely when did the Company know it could not attain the FY16 EBIT goal. The Court also held that the alleged statement at a May 16, 2014 conference that the Company had not seen unusual activity regarding generic drug pricing raised triable issues regarding who made the statements and presented factual issues regarding falsity and scienter that must be presented to the jury. The alleged statements at issue were memorialized in an analyst report summarizing "key takeaways" Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Janus Capital Group, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), defendants argued that plaintiff cannot prove that either individual defendant made this alleged statement. But while acknowledging that the report does not reference which individual defendant made the alleged statement, the Court found that "Janus teaches" that "'in the ordinary case, attribution within a statement or implicit from surrounding circumstances is strong evidence that a statement was made by -- and only by -- the party to whom it is attributed.'" Having found that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with respect to certain of the foregoing statements, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendants raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding a finding of scienter as a matter of law. The Court concluded its opinion by "remind[ing]" the parties and citing opinions of the Seventh Circuit holding that arguments made for the first time in reply and "cursory arguments made in footnotes" are waived, especially where parties were permitted to file oversized briefs. [GN] WALGREEN CO: Washtenaw ERS' Partial Bid for Summary Judgment Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON, and WADE MIQUELON, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a); and (ii) denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Background Lead Plaintiff Industriens Pensionforsikring, A/S brings the shareholder class action lawsuit against Defendants Walgreen, former Walgreens CEO Gregory D. Wasson, who was also on the company's Board of Directors during the relevant time period, and former Walgreens CFO Wade Miquelon for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walgreens is a retail drugstore chain headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, that sells prescription and non-prescription drugs, along with general merchandise. Prior to its merger with Boots Alliance GmbH ("Alliance") in December 2014, Walgreens stock was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol WAG. In July 2014, an investment manager purchased shares of Walgreens stock on behalf of Plaintiff pension fund. On Dec. 29, 2014, the vast majority of Walgreens shareholders (97%) voted in favor of step two of the merger with Alliance and the transaction was completed on December 31, 2014. Walgreens Boots Alliance stock trades under the ticker symbol WBA on the NASDAQ. The class period runs from March 25, 2014 until Aug. 5, 2014. The Plaintiff asserts that certain public statements made by Walgreens during this time period violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) and that Wasson and Miquelon are liable for those violations as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. These public statements include two "forward-looking" statements: (1) Miquelon's remarks at the March 25, 2014 second quarter earnings call that Walgreens remained focused on delivering the FY16 EBIT target of $9 billion to $9.5 billion; and (2) Miquelon's May 14-15, 2014 statements that management believed the FY16 EBIT target remained achievable as memorialized by a May 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs report. Other statements plaintiff challenges are: (1) Wasson's or Miquelon's statement that Walgreens has not seen anything unusual in relation to generic drug price inflation made at the May 16, 2014 conference call with Morgan Stanley; (2) Wasson's statements made at the April 17, 2014 conference call with J.P. Morgan about the impact of generic price inflation and reimbursement pressures by third-party payers; (3) Miquelon's statement made during the March 25, 2014 second quarter earnings call that "the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin was dramatically slower rate of new generic introductions year over year;" and (4) Walgreens' similar statement in its March 27, 2014, second quarter 10-Q filed with the SEC that "retail pharmacy margins were negatively impacted by a significant reduction in the number of brand to generic drug conversions and lower market driven reimbursements." During this litigation, the SEC issued an administrative cease-and-desist order against Walgreens, Wasson, and Miquelon under Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC found the Defendants "acted negligently in failing to adequately disclose to investors the material increase in risk to the company's ability to achieve the FY16 EBIT Goal." Without admitting or denying the findings, Walgreens, Wasson, and Miquelon consented to the entry of the SEC cease-and-desist order. The SEC also required Walgreens to pay a $34.5 million penalty, and Wasson and Miquelon to each pay a $160,000 penalty. Discussion Before the Court are the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). To establish violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a plaintiff must eventually prove (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by defendant, (2) scienter, (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance on the misrepresentation or omission, (5) economic loss, and (6) loss causation. A. Loss Causation Judge Coleman first turns to the parties' arguments concerning loss causation. Loss causation "requires a plaintiff to show that a misrepresentation that affected the integrity of the market price also caused a subsequent economic loss." She denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in relation to loss causation. The parties' criticisms of the designated loss causation experts and their reports are best left for the upcoming Daubert/Federal Rule of Evidence 702 motions, at which time the parties will have the opportunity to fully develop their arguments. The Court will then consider these criticisms in the proper context and legal framework. B. Forward-Looking Statements Next, the Defendants contend that two forward-looking statements the Plaintiff argues are false and misleading are not actionable due to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") safe harbor provision. The first forward-looking statement the Plaintiff challenges is Miquelon's remark made during the second quarter earnings call on March 25, 2014. The second forward-looking statement plaintiff challenges concerns Miquelon's May 14-15, 2014 remarks memorialized in a Goldman Sachs report dated May 23. The Plaintiff maintains these statements are not forward-looking because their truth or falsity were known at the time they were made. Among other things, Judge Coleman holds that the Plaintiff's argument raises a triable issue of fact, namely, when did Walgreens know it could not attain the FY16 EBIT goal. She says, this hotly disputed question of fact also implicates the Plaintiff's argument that the safe harbor provision does not apply because Miquelon had actual knowledge that his statement was false or misleading, along with the Plaintiff's related arguments that there are no disputes as to any material facts concerning falsity or scienter regarding these statements. Because there are genuine disputes as to these material facts, Judge Coleman denies both the Defendants' and the Plaintiff's summary judgment motions concerning Miquelon's mid-May 2014 remarks made during the Goldman Sachs investor call. C. Other Public Statements Judge Coleman next considers the statements made during a May 16, 2014 Morgan Stanley conference call with Wasson and Miquelon that were memorialized in a report summarizing "key takeaways." In support of their argument, the Defendants present evidence that the Morgan Stanley associate analyst's notes taken during the call did not indicate who discussed generic price inflation. Judge Coleman opines that the Defendants have presented insufficient evidence that this statement is not attributable to Miquelon or Wasson as a matter of law. Turning to the parties' substantive arguments, the Plaintiff contends that there are no disputes as to the material facts concerning falsity or scienter in relation to the May 16 Morgan Stanley statements. The Defendants explain that what the May 16 Morgan Stanley statement really meant was Walgreens had not seen any unusual activity regarding generic inflation "compared to the rest of the industry." Based on these arguments, the parties are asking the Court to weigh the evidence, draw inferences from the evidence, and make credibility determinations, which is not the Court's role at summary judgment. Accordingly, the issues of falsity and scienter as to the May 16, 2014 Morgan Stanley statements are factual questions for the jury to decide. Next, Judge Coleman examines Wasson's statements made on an April 17, 2014 conference call hosted by J.P. Morgan. The Plaintiff highlights Wasson's statements "we think that it was a one-time phenomenon" and "[w]e think it was probably an anomaly." In the present motion, the Defendants argue that Wasson's statements are not actionable because they were his honestly held opinions. As to Wasson's generic price inflation statements, Judge Coleman holds that whether Wasson honestly believed his statements or whether there was a reasonable basis to make them are factual questions for the jury. Turning to Wasson's statement on reimbursement pressures, Judge Coleman opines that Wasson's testimony raises a disputed issue of material fact as to his honest belief in his statements. Whether the jury believes Wasson's testimony is a credibility issue for trial. Because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the falsity of Wesson's statements, the Plaintiff's argument that it has established Wasson's intent to deceive as a matter of law fails. Judge Coleman next turns to Miquelon's statement made during the March 25, 2014 second quarter earnings call that "the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin was dramatically slower rate of new generic introductions year over year." The Defendants maintain these statements are accurate based on evidence in the record that there was a lower number of generic conversions in 2Q14 than 2Q13 directly affecting the pharmacy margin. Because the Plaintiff has failed to refute the Defendants' evidence, Judge Coleman holds that the Defendants have established -- as a matter of law -- the truth of the statement that the lower number of generic conversions in 2Q14 compared to 2Q13 was the most significant factor affecting the pharmacy margin during that time period. As such, she grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to these March 2014 statements. The Plaintiff also takes issue with Miquelon's statement that "we always experience some level of reimbursement pressure" as objectively false when Miquelon made the statement in mid-March 2014 about 2Q14. The Plaintiff, however, has failed to present evidence that the impact of reimbursement pressures on gross margin percentage in 2Q14 was not "routine," but instead points to documents that do not reflect the entire quarter. Moreover, the Defendants have presented unrebutted evidence that reimbursement pressures were ongoing within the industry and that it took place every year. Judge Coleman grants the Defendants' summary judgment motion in this respect. Accordingly, the remaining actionable statements in thie shareholder class action lawsuit include: (1) Wasson's statements made at the April 17, 2014 conference call with J.P. Morgan about the impact of generic price inflation and reimbursement pressures by third-party payers; (2) Miquelon's May 14-15, 2014 statements that management believed the FY16 EBIT target remained achievable as memorialized by a May 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs report; and (3) Wasson's or Miquelon's statement that Walgreens has not seen anything unusual in relation to generic drug price inflation made at the May 16, 2014 conference call with Morgan Stanley. On a final note, Judge Coleman reminds the parties that arguments made for the first time in reply briefs and cursory arguments made in footnotes are waived, especially when, as in the case, the Court granted the parties' motions to file oversized briefs. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' summary judgment motion and denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mct2edna from Leagle.com. WALT DISNEY: Workers to Appeal OC Judge's Ruling in Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Biesiada at voiceofoc.org reports that Disneyland workers plan on appealing an Orange County Superior Court judge's new decision this week that ruled the company didn't fall under an Anaheim law requiring higher minimum pay for workers. The workers' lawsuit ran nearly two years since it was filed in late 2019, alleging that Disneyland had failed to follow a new minimum wage law approved by the voters in 2018 that required any businesses receiving a city subsidy to pay workers $17 an hour, with annual $1 increases. Randy Renick, the attorney representing the Disney employees who launched the class action, said they're already planning on appealing the judge's ruling. "We think the judge's ruling is wholly inconsistent with the intent of the voters. The voters were clear that when a corporation takes a public benefit such as Disney did here for more than $300 million they should pay their employees a living wage," he said in a Friday morning phone interview. The current state minimum wage is $14 per hour, and Disney pays its employees at a minimum rate of $15 an hour. While Disney doesn't explicitly receive a subsidy from the city, a set of 1997 city-issued bonds worth $510 million altogether paid for by Anaheim taxpayers helped cover a new parking structure and build new infrastructure improvements at California Adventure along with other projects throughout the city. The Walt Disney Company did not return requests for comment on Friday morning. Despite the bonds being over 20 years old, the city still gives up millions every year to cover the interest and payments. Disney also runs the parking structure and keeps all the profits it generates while leasing it from Anaheim for $1 a year. According to a Voice of OC review of Anaheim's budget, the city spent $32.8 million this year alone and over $125 million on those 1997 bond payments alone since the 2018-19 fiscal year according to the city's budget records. All of the hotel and sales tax from any Disney properties built from 1995 to 2009 goes straight to paying for those bonds, along with 20% of hotel taxes throughout the city according to the city budget. "All this was paid for with what Disney would have otherwise paid in taxes," Renick wrote in the original class action complaint from 2019. "Almost all of Disney's transient occupancy, sales and real property taxes go to payments on the bonds." "Disney got a rebate of the best kind: it got its taxes back before it paid them." But in a decision issued this week, Orange County Superior Court Judge William Claster said while Disney benefited from the 1997 bonds, they didn't rise to the level of being a subsidy without an explicit tax rebate. "The court is confronted with a narrow question: whether any of the agreements identified by the parties gives the Disney Defendants a right to a rebate of their taxes. Whether the city of Anaheim 'subsidized'. . . . is not a issue," Claster wrote. "For the reasons set forth above, the Disney Defendants do not receive a "City Subsidy' as defined." In a statement to Voice of OC, city spokesman Mike Lyster said the parking structure and other investments from the 1997 bonds were a "public-private partnership reflecting mutual interest in Anaheim's economy." "It has been a great return on investment for our city, residents and neighborhoods," Lyster said. "It validates what we already knew and have said - the city of Anaheim does not provide any rebate or subsidy to Disney."[GN] WASHINGTON FEDERAL: Court Sets Trial, Pre-Trial Dates in Hartnett ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD C. HARTNETT and JULIE A. HARTNETT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK, Case No. 2:21-cv-00888-RSM-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order setting trial date and pretrial schedule as follows: Event Date -- Jury Trial before Chief Judge Oct. 10, 2023 Ricardo S. Martinez on: -- Deadline for joining additional Dec. 6, 2021 parties: -- Deadline for amending pleadings: Jan. 10, 2022 -- Motion for Class Certification Dec. 15, 2022 deadline: -- Response to Motion for Class 30 days after filing Certification of motion Washington Federal is a bank based in Seattle, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30lA8aA at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON: Mandatory Payroll Tax Opponents File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel La Corte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that opponents of a mandatory payroll tax to fund Washington state's new long-term care program filed a class action lawsuit on Nov. 9 in federal court seeking to stop the January start of the payroll premium for most employees in the state. The suit, filed with the federal court for the Western District of Washington, was filed on behalf of three businesses in the state and six individuals. None of the individuals purchased a private, long-term care insurance plan before Nov. 1, the deadline to qualify for an exemption. Under the program, called WA Cares Fund, workers will pay a premium of .58% of total pay per paycheck, meaning an employee with a salary of $50,000 will pay $290 a year. Starting Jan. 1, 2025, people who need assistance with at least three "activities of daily living" such as bathing, dressing or administration of medication, can tap into the fund to pay for things like in-home care, home modifications like a wheelchair ramp and rides to the doctor. The benefit also covers home-delivered meals, and reimbursement to unpaid family caregivers. The lifetime maximum of the benefit is $36,500, with annual increases to be determined based on inflation. "The state simply does not have the power to mandate an employee benefit," Richard Birmingham, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, said in a written statement announcing the lawsuit. As of Nov. 4, the Employment Security Department had received more than 344,000 applications for an exemption, and just over 140,000 had been approved. Agency spokesman Nick Demerice said that people seeking an exemption are being told that as long as they submit their exemption request by Dec. 1, ESD is guaranteeing that it will be processed it before the end of December. Even though a private policy had to be purchased before Nov. 1 to opt out, people have until Dec. 31, 2022 to apply for an exemption -- which means they may pay a year of the premium unless they opt out before the payroll deduction starts. No rebates are offered for any premiums already paid, and once a person receives an exemption, they are not able to opt back into the state program, even if they change jobs. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee said the office had not yet seen the lawsuit. Officials at the Employment Security Department and the Department of Social and Health Services, also named in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment. According to AARP of Washington, 70% of residents 65 and older will require some type of assistance to live independently. To be eligible for the state benefits, workers will have had to have paid the premium working at least 500 hours per year for three of the previous six years in which they're seeking the benefit or for a total of 10 years, with at least five of those paid without interruption. The benefit is not portable, so people who pay into the program but later move out of state will not be able to access it, and it only covers the taxpayer, not a spouse or dependent. The benefit also isn't available to those who work in Washington and will pay the deduction but live in neighboring states, like Oregon. One of the named plaintiffs, Melissa Johnston, lives in Eagle Point, Ore., and works in Vancouver, Wash., and said in a written statement that she has no plan to retire in Washington. "And yet the state is requiring that I buy a long-term care insurance product that can only be used if I retire in Washington—it just doesn't make any sense," she wrote. Among the arguments made by the suit is that the WA Cares Fund violates a federal law that forbids the state from passing any law that requires employees to participate in a plan that provides sickness or medical benefits. It also says that the disparate treatment of people paying the tax but not receiving benefits if they are not a Washington resident violates the Equal Protection and the Privileges and Immunities clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the fact that people who are within 10 years of retirement will pay into the fund but not receive benefits is a violation of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the suit contends. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Must Face Immigrant Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge on Nov. 10 rejected Wells Fargo's argument that it can't be sued for making non-citizens apply for checking accounts in person while it lets U.S. citizens apply online. Wells Fargo had asked U.S. District Judge James Donato to dismiss a claim related to online enrollment for new checking accounts in a lawsuit brought by two Russian nationals. Alexandr Maystrenko and Ekaterina Maistrenko, a married couple from Russia who are living in California while their asylum applications are under review, claim the bank denied their online requests for a credit card, personal loan and checking account based on their immigration status. They claim Wells Fargo maintains a policy of limiting those services to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. When Maystrenko applied online for a checking account in San Diego last year, he received a response from the bank stating, "We apologize, but at this time we cannot open accounts online for non-resident citizens aliens. For more information, or to apply in person, visit your local Wells Fargo branch." Wells Fargo argued that because Maystrenko never tried to apply in person, that specific claim should be dismissed from the suit. The plaintiffs called that argument "absurd," insisting that California's civil rights law, the Unruh Act, does not permit companies to exclude other protected groups -- such as racial minorities or females -- from a more convenient application process. "Plaintiffs maintain it would be absurd and be contrary to the text and purpose of the Unruh Act to require an African-American consumer, a gay or lesbian consumer, or a disabled person, after a bank's website application process excluded them from a bank's financial service based on their race, sexual orientation, or disability, would be required to travel to a bank's branch and apply in person for that bank's financial service in order to have standing for an Unruh Act claim," the plaintiffs' lawyer wrote in an opposition brief. To support its argument, Wells Fargo relied on a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland last year dismissing a claim in a similar lawsuit, Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA. Tigar wrote that no law or authority gave the plaintiffs in that case "a legally protected interest" in opening an account online rather than in person. But on Oct. 24, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision, finding the plaintiffs adequately alleged a concrete injury and therefore have standing to sue. The unpublished opinion found the bank's practice of allowing U.S. citizens to apply for checking accounts online but denying immigrants that benefit gave rise to a plausible violation of civil rights laws. "The fact that Plaintiffs would have ultimately obtained the same checking account given to U.S. citizens does not vitiate the alleged discriminatory injury: that BBVA imposes on non-U.S. citizens a requirement to apply in person that it does not impose on others," the three-judge panel wrote in a five-page decision. In a ruling issued on Nov. 10, Donato acknowledged the unpublished opinion establishes no precedent, but he found the three-judge panel's reasoning persuasive nonetheless. The judge had been waiting for the appeals court to rule on that dispute since last spring. "The results are now in, and the circuit court reversed Chattopadhyay on the standing point," Donato wrote in a six-page ruling on Nov. 10. "In pertinent part, the circuit court concluded that Article III standing is established when a plaintiff alleges that a bank allows United States citizens to apply for accounts and services online, but requires noncitizens to appear in-person at a branch." Wells Fargo suggested that it may have denied Maystrenko's application for a different reason -- such as a lack of creditworthiness -- but Donato said that is a factual dispute that must be resolved at a later stage of litigation. Wells Fargo had also argued that Equal Credit Opportunity Act regulations give banks the right to consider an applicant's immigration status when deciding whether to extend credit. Judge Donato found those regulations irrelevant to the claim at issue -- whether Wells Fargo has a policy of denying banking services in whole or in part based on immigration status. The bank further suggested that legitimate business reasons justify its policies regarding banking services for non-citizens. Donato found those considerations only apply when a California civil rights claim involves a category not specifically protected under the statute or added by judicial precedent. "Here, citizenship and immigration status are enumerated in the Unruh Act," Donato wrote. "To the extent that Wells Fargo invokes 'public policy' reasons for dismissal of the Unruh Act claims, it offers no policy that might reasonably embrace discrimination in banking services based on alienage." The Maystrenkos' lawyer, Alfred Rava of San Diego, welcomed the judge's ruling. "My clients and I are very pleased with the district court's well-reasoned order denying Wells Fargo's motions to dismiss," Rava said in an emailed statement. A Wells Fargo spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling but said the bank "is committed to serving all its customers regardless of their nationality or citizenship status." Last year, Wells Fargo paid $18.7 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it illegally denied student loans and other lines of credit to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients based on their immigration status. [GN] WESTERN RANGE: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended in Castillo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO; ALCIDES INGA RAMOS; RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ; and those similarly situated, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION; ELTEJON SHEEP COMPANY; MELCHOR GRAGIRENA; MOUNTAIN PLAINS AGRICULTURAL SERVICE; and ESTILL RANCHES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-CLB (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman entered an order granting stipulation to extend defendant Western Range Association's opposition to motion for class certification and plaintiff's reply to same. The parties stipulate to: 1. Extend Defendant Western Range Association's Deadline to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification currently due on November 12, 2021 to and including November 22, 2021; and 2. To extend Plaintiff's deadline to file its Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification to and including December 9, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YURP0A at no extra charge.[CC] WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement in Class Suits to be OK'd by Jan. 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Stipulation of Settlement in five separate class action suits is expected to be approved by the court in January of 2022. Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five separate class-action lawsuits against WOW, certain individual defendants, and the private equity sponsors and underwriters of the May 2017 initial public offering. The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act. The three actions filed in New York have been consolidated as Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018. The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court, have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the Kirkland action. The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants made or caused misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and Prospectus ("Offering Materials") issued in connection with the Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed. Prior to an anticipated trial in 2022 or 2023, the parties undertook mediation on November 6, 2020 which, in turn, resulted in a soon-to-be-filed Stipulation of Settlement with the court. Upon approval of the Court to the Stipulation of Settlement (which is expected in January of 2022), the Company will be dismissed entirely without any admission of wrongdoing in exchange for a payment of substantially less than that sought by plaintiffs, with the funding of such payment to be provided substantially from the Company's primary D&O carrier. WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high-speed data, cable television, and digital telephony services to residential and business services customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc. in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WISE MEDICAL: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to File Class Cert. Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA FORTIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WISE MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01467-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension to respond to plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional certification up to and including December 3, 2021. The Defendant says that it does not make this request for purposes of undue delay. Rather, the Defendant seeks this request to accommodate its counsel's current workload as well as the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday and associated travel. Further, given that Plaintiff has no objection to this request, neither party will suffer any prejudice or incur any additional expense by virtue of this short extension. In addition, this is the first extension Defendant has sought with respect to Plaintiff's Motion, the Defendant adds. Wise Medical Staffing Inc provides medical staffing solutions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqZUtA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Anthony P. McNamara, Esq. Nancy M. Barnes, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 566-5578 Facsimile: (216) 566-5800 E-mail: Nancy.Barnes@ThompsonHine.com - and - Anthony P. McNamara, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 352-6657 Facsimile: (513) 241-4771 E-mail: Anthony.McNamara@ThompsonHine.com WOOD GROUP: Ruiz FLSA Suit Moved From D. Colorado to S.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled HERON RUIZ and ROZALDA RUIZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01977, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on November 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-03720 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated welders overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Wood Group USA, Inc. is a provider of energy services, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com XCEL ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to File Reply Brief in Arandell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, ARANDELL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs v. XCEL ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC., Plaintiff v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 07-cv-76-wmc, 09-cv-240-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker issued an Opinion: a. denying the Defendants' request to file a reply brief; b. granting the Defendants' motion to compel only as it relates to the source of the damages numbers identified in the Plaintiffs' supplemental disclosures; and c. denying the Defendants' motion in all other respects. Background In these two consolidated class action lawsuits, the Plaintiffs allege price fixing in natural gas sold by the Defendants to industrial and commercial users between 2000 and 2002. Both cases were part of an MDL action for 12 years, during which time the MDL court coordinated pretrial proceedings and made a number of rulings regarding dispositive issues. In late 2019, the cases were remanded to the Court for trial and the final resolution of certain issues, including class certification and the Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the MDL court's summary judgment ruling regarding settlement releases. The Court entered a scheduling order on Nov. 27, 2019, setting briefing deadlines for outstanding issues and a date for trial. Pursuant to the scheduling order, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for reconsideration, which are currently before the Court and will be addressed by Judge Conley in a separate order. Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2020, the Defendants requested that the Court orders the Plaintiffs to supplement their Rule 26(a) disclosures regarding their alleged damages on the ground that publicly-available information and the Plaintiffs' counsel's representations during a Aug. 6, 2020 settlement hearing raised questions about whether the Plaintiffs already have been fully compensated for their claims and are adequate representatives of the putative classes. However, because the Plaintiffs promised to supplement their disclosures, the Court denied the Defendants' motion without prejudice to the Defendants renewing their motion at a later date if necessary. Having found the Plaintiffs' Oct. 15, 2020 supplemental disclosures deficient, the Defendants renewed their motion to compel in November 2020. Before the Court are that motion and the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of their motion. Opinion In their October 2020 supplemental Rule 26(a) disclosures, the Plaintiffs make clear that they are asserting two theories of recovery for the Defendants' alleged antitrust conspiracy: (1) the full-consideration remedy under Wisconsin Statute Section 133.14, which allows an aggrieved plaintiff to recover "any payment made upon, under or pursuant to a contract or agreement" that "is founded upon, is the result of, grows out of or is connected with [an antitrust] violation" under Wis. Stat. Section 133.03; and (2) treble actual damages under Wisconsin Statute Section 133.18, based on purported overcharges resulting from the alleged antitrust conspiracy. The Plaintiffs identified a full consideration remedy with respect to each Defendant and two different treble damage totals for each Defendant -- one based on the expert report of Drs. Harris and Dwyer and another based on the expert report of Dr. Bateman. According to the Plaintiffs, Harris and Dwyer analyzed treble damages from a "bottom up" micro perspective that models the market "but for" the Defendants' price-fixing misconduct and calculates the distortion to price caused by each price-fixing act. On the other hand, Dr. Bateman's model uses a "top down" macro perspective to capture the cumulative effect of the Defendants' price-fixing. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' disclosures are deficient because the latter generally failed to: (1) differentiate how much each individual plaintiff seeks to recover in full consideration from each defendant; (2) disclose the calculations used to generate any of their disclosed numbers; and (3) identify the specific documents supporting their totals. They contend that even if a class is certified, the Plaintiffs have an obligation to provide individual damages computations under Rule 26(a). Therefore, the Defendants ask that the Court orders the Plaintiffs to disclose: 1. The amount, calculation, methodology, and supporting documents for the full-consideration recovery that each named Plaintiff seeks from each Defendant, including the specific contracts each Plaintiff seeks to void; and 2. The calculations and supporting documents for the Plaintiffs' treble damages, including the specific model or index that the Plaintiffs applied to their respective purchases to calculate each individual Plaintiff's treble damages. For their part, the Plaintiffs argue that additional disclosure is unnecessary because they will be seeking full consideration and treble damages on a class-wide basis. They also argue that even though defendants style their motion as one to compel Rule 26(a) disclosures, it is actually a backdoor attempt to reintroduce and relitigate substantive or merits arguments that the Defendants lost in the MDL court, or to introduce new, untimely matters that the Defendants failed to raise in the past 12 years. The Defendants vehemently oppose the Plaintiffs' argument and have asked to file a reply brief to correct what they characterize as the Plaintiffs' "factual misstatements and erroneous legal positions." Judge Crocker opines that the Defendants raise fair points with respect to the source of the damage amounts and the Plaintiffs' individual damage calculations, but those arguments only go so far. After reviewing the parties' submissions, he agrees that the Defendants' stated reasons for most of the requested information appear to relate to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims -- including their pending motion for class certification -- and in some instances, seek to relitigate issues that have been resolved by the MDL court. Although the Defendants disagree and ask to explain their position in a reply brief, further argument will not be helpful at this point. The issues raised by defendants go well beyond the scope of a motion to compel and should be addressed -- if necessary or appropriate by Judge Conley, after he issues rulings on the Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and class certification. For now, Judge Crocker will order the Plaintiffs to supplement their Rule 26(a) disclosures to identify the source of the damage figures that they identified for each Defendant. The Plaintiffs have not made clear exactly where the figures for their full consideration relief came from or how they were calculated. With respect to the treble damages amounts, the Plaintiffs generally refer to the models used by their experts and the extensive disclosures and documents produced in the past 12 years, but they have not explained whether their experts made these calculations or whether they appear elsewhere in the record. Judge Crocker will give the Plaintiffs until Dec. 3, 2021 to provide this information. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Crocker denied the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply brief, dkt. 260 in case no. 07-cv-76 and dkt. 147 in case no. 09-cv-240. Judge Crocker granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel, dkt. 253 in case no. 07-cv-76 and dkt. 140 in case no. 09-cv-240: a. Not later than Dec. 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs will supplement their Rule 26(a) disclosures with respect to the source of their damage calculations, in accordance with the order. b. The motion is denied in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fkx4w7a from Leagle.com. XTO ENERGY: Ct. Enters Amended Case Management Order in Kriley -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY and TINA KRILEY, THOMAS A. MICHEL and CAROL L. MICHEL, GERALDINE C. WIEFLING, and CHARLES E. WADDINGHAM II and CAROL G. WADDINGHAM, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an amended case management order as follows: -- Fact Discovery due by: May 18, 2022; -- Expert Discovery due by: Oct. 11, 2022; -- Alternative Dispute Resolution Oct. 31, 2022; (ADR) due by: -- Motion for class certification Dec. 5, 2022; due by: -- Response to Motion due by: Nov. 11, 2023; -- Reply due by: Feb. 1, 2023; -- Mid-Discovery Status Conference Nov. 9, 2022 set for: -- Hearing on Motion for Class Feb. 28, 2023 Certification set for: XTO Energy is an American energy company, principally operating in North America, specializing in the drilling and production of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3chHVJe at no extra charge.[CC] YOSSI MILO GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yossi Milo Gallery, Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Yossi Milo Gallery, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09417 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yossi Milo Gallery -- https://www.yossimilo.com/ -- is dedicated to providing a platform for an influential community of artists working in all media, including photography, painting, sculpture, video and works on paper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com ZEN333 INC: Lin Files FLSA Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zen333 Inc., et al. The case is styled as Heidi Lin and Xin Lin, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Zen333 Inc. doing business as: Zen Asian Fusion, Chen Zhou also known as: Cindy Alfredson, Rong A Zhou, Mei Zheng, individually Case No. 2:21-cv-03744-BHH (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Zen Asian Fusion -- https://zenasianrestaurant.com/ -- is a hip Asian restaurant serving sushi & Asian-fusion cuisine boasts a large bar with happy hour.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW LLC 652 Rutledge Avenue, Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 588-5587 Fax: (843) 593-9334 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net [*] McMillan LLP Attorneys Discuss Federal Court DRAM Case Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- David W. Kent, Samantha Gordon and James B. Musgrove, Esq., of McMillan LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that class actions, like Hollywood movies, popular music and cheeseburgers, are an American export that, somewhat surprisingly, have taken the world by storm. So much so that, at least in respect of competition or antitrust claims, it has proven much easier to certify a class action in Canada than in the United States itself. Over the last decade or so, Canadian courts have lowered the bar for competition law conspiracy class actions. Such cases have generally been certified in Canada, even when parallel claims have failed in the United States. So, the very recent failure of the high profile Federal Court DRAM case to achieve certification is a matter of note. DRAM is a memory chip used ubiquitously in electronics. A proposed class proceeding was commenced in the Federal Court of Canada against the three manufacturers said to account for virtually all of the worldwide supply of DRAM. The allegations were, in their essence, that these manufacturers conspired to limit the supply of DRAM, by reducing their capacity increases, in order to cause increased prices for DRAM. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used public statements to signal supply decisions and reaffirm a commitment to conspire. The Federal Court, in a decision released November 5, denied certification and gave useful guidance with respect to aspects of conspiracy law and the certification of conspiracy class actions (outside Quebec). First, as to the law, the Court clearly reaffirmed that an agreement is an essential element to a conspiracy under s. 45 of the Act. Parallel conduct without an underlying agreement is not a conspiracy. An agreement requires a meeting of the minds, and therefore two-way communication is an essential aspect of a conspiracy. As a corollary, the Court reconfirmed that "conscious parallelism" is not unlawful. In highly oligopolistic markets, competitors may adopt a comparable pricing policy without an agreement to do so. Unilateral, parallel conduct without collusion does not constitute an illegal conspiracy, as there is no meeting of the minds or agreement. A market participant "signalling" information about their own conduct or interpretation of the market in a public statement, such as earnings calls or at conferences, is not in itself an unlawful agreement; it is merely a unilateral communication. Second, as to certification itself, what was notable was the Court's willingness to carefully and critically analyze the plaintiffs' materials and to take seriously its gatekeeper role. Certification cannot be "reduced to . . . a narrow scope and stripped down to . . . an empty and trivial exercise". The Court concluded both that the plaintiffs had not alleged a valid claim, on the face of their pleading, and also that they had failed to demonstrate a sufficient "basis in fact" for the existence of the alleged conspiracy. The Court noted that the plaintiffs must plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and the relief sought. A conspiracy claim must provide material facts including the parties to the conspiracy, their relationship, the agreement, the purpose of the conspiracy, any overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy and any injury to the plaintiff. While a court must accept as true the material facts as pleaded, it need not accept bold conclusory legal statements. Mere allegations of 'enticing a conspiracy' are vague, general and not sufficient. Indeed, the Court found the Statement of Claim was a 'fishing expedition' with respect to the alleged conspiracy. Likewise, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of a basis in fact for a conspiracy – it must be grounded in "some" evidence, not bare assertions or speculation. While an agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, the Court confirmed that there must be at least some evidence of communication between the parties in order to infer an agreement. There must be an offer or invitation and some conduct from which acceptance may be inferred. The decision recapitulated the court's duty to carefully consider the evidence. The matter of broadest significance in the decision is likely the affirmation that certification is not a pro-forma rubber stamping exercise: A competition law class action based on an alleged conspiracy under section 45 of the Act cannot be allowed on the basis of a pure speculation or wishful thinking about the existence of an agreement, on a lack of some minimal evidence of unlawful conduct. [. . . ] In my view, to allow the Plaintiffs' proposed class action to go forward on the basis of the record before me regarding the alleged agreement would set a dangerous precedent that would open the door to file section 36 claims on the sole basis of apparent anti-competitive effects accompanied with unfounded allegations and speculation regarding the collusive conduct of the alleged conspirators. [. . .] [t]he certification stage nonetheless remains an important gate-keeping mechanism which must operate as a "meaningful screening device" and which shall not be treated as a "mere formality" [. . .] When, as is the case here, there is a dearth of material facts and an absence of minimal evidentiary basis required to support the alleged illegal conduct at the very heart of a proposed class proceeding, it is the Court's role, even at the procedural stage of certification, to filter out such untenable, unfounded and speculative claim. The Federal Court in the DRAM case has restated, clearly, the need for a careful review of the record to ensure that the plaintiff has met the necessary burden. This is a promising development. [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 ***