/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 229 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Action Over Real Wasabi Snack Mix Claims AGA SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to May 6, 2022 ALPHABET INC: Files Certiorari Petition in Securities Suit AMARIN CORPORATION: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline ANAHEIM ARENA: Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney Discusses Ruling AVEENO ACTIVE: February 2, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BALTIMORE LIFE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022 BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Loses Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule BENEFITFOCUS INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Appealed BIG EASY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Extended to March 4, 2022 BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Certify Class in Landon Suit Denied BOB DEAN: Seeks Dismissal of Nursing Home Residents' Class Action BOISE SCHOOL: Zeyen Seeks Renewal of Bid for Class Certification CANADA CARTAGE: Court Okays $22.25MM OT Class Action Settlement CARVANA LLC: Car Buyers Sue Over Delayed Car Title Transfer CENTENE CORP: Duff Has Until June 9, 2022 to File Class Cert Bid CENTRUS ENERGY: Walburn Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal COLLECTION BUREAU: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Dec. 22 COMPUTER HAUS: Court Certifies 5 Classes in Jahagirdar Labor Suit CYBERPOWER INC: Va Pau Lo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks DRAFTKINGS INC: Robbins Geller Wins Class Action Lead Counsel Role EDISON INT'L: Parties in Woolsey Fire Litigation Pursue Talks ENSITE USA: Kentucky Court Consolidates 9 Identical Labor Actions ETSY.COM LLC: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Ranalli Class Suit EVOLUS INC: Response to Securities Complaint Due Jan. 18 FLORIDA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Unaffordable Bail Amounts FS MIAMI: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply Sought GEICO‌: Wright Seeks Dec. 20 Extension to File Class Status Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' "Shift to Park" Issue GEORGIA: March 28, 2022 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought GOOD DEAL: Dec. 2 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought HAWAI'I: Dubin Appeals Dismissal of Disciplinary Proceedings Case HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Powers Sue Over Personal Info Disclosure HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sells Data Without Consent, Begin Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ct. Tosses Bid to Extend Class Certification Hearing HYZON MOTORS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 29 Deadline HYZON MOTORS: Vincent Wong Reminds of November 29 Deadline ILLINOIS: Wolfe Seeks to Certify Putative Class INNOVAGE HOLDING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 13 Deadline INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL : Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Orantes Says INVITATION HOMES: Class Cert. Briefing Extension Sought in Rivera J. SCHLIFF: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation JOHN MULVANEY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 2, 2022 JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal in EDNY Shareholder Litig. Sought JPMORGAN CHASE: Litigation Over USD LIBOR Underway KANGMEI PHARMA: First Class-Action Suit Rules in Favor of Investors KEMPER CORP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses FLSA Class Action KROGER CO: Hartwich Appeals Judgment in Mislabeling Suit to 9th Cir KSF ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Products KSF ACQUISITION: Kuciver Files Mislabeling Suit Over SlimFast Goods LABORATORY CORP: Class Status Sought in Bouffard-Anderson Case LABORATORY CORP: Faces Tabacchino Labor Suit in N.Y. LYFT INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cunningham Suit Affirmed MCKESSON CORP: Talks Continue in Suits over Opioids Exposure MD 2437: Home Depot's Bid for Appeal Certification Granted MDL 2913: Jefferson Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Case MEDICAL FINANCIAL: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action META PLATFORMS: Ohio Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action METALS CO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline MINDBODY INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Securities Suit MISSOURI GAMING: Bid for Class Certification of ERISA Claim OK'd MOUNTAIN VIEW PIZZA: Hurt Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Ct. Resets Case Management Dates in Davis Sui NANO-X IMAGING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 6 Deadline NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought NEW SOUTH WALES: Suit Mulled v. NSW Police Over Strip-Searches NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Grants Bid for Judgment in French Suit NOVAVAX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline NOVAVAX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline NUVE MIGUEL CORP: Court Tosses Bid for FLSA Collective Action NYC FROYO PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diallo Suit Claims ON POINT SYSTEM: Rasberry Sues to Recover Final Paycheck ON24 INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline PACIFIC FERTILITY: Chart's Bids for New Trial & for Judgment Denied PG&E CORP: $10M Class Settlement in Vataj Suit Wins Final Approval PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: CPAP Recall Lawsuits to Be Consolidated PSMG INC: Thompson Sues Over Denied Overtime, Meal Breaks, Paystubs RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Bronstein Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline RTL FOODS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Howard Suit Alleges SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settlement Reached in Bennington Suit SALLY BEAUTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Goldstein Class Suit SNAP INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 10 Deadline SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Class Action Over Gypsum Mine Collapse SPARC GROUP LLC: Zuniga Slams Illegal SMS Ads TAISHAN GYPSUM: Parker Waichman Files Writ of Cert. in Amorin Suit TALOS ENERGY: Patel Appeals Stockholder Suit Dismissal TENCENT MUSIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 27 Deadline TIKTOK INC: Settles Consumer Privacy Class Action for $92 Million TLW ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Forrest Suit Alleges UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Employees File Discrimination Suit UNITED STATES: Kluge Suit Transferred to Court of Federal Claims UNITED STATES: Settles USCIS Lawsuit Over H-4, L-2 Lengthy Delays VF OUTDOOR: Denial of Class Certification in Valencia Suit Endorsed VIACOMCBS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Action Over Real Wasabi Snack Mix Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges 7-Eleven's private label Wasabi Delight Flavored Snack Mix is falsely labeled in that the product contains no actual wasabi. The 18-page lawsuit, citing the product's ingredients list, says that the only "wasabi" ingredients in the 7-Eleven snack mix are crunchy wasabi peanuts and wasabi green peas, which are flavored by wasabi powder and artificial wasabi flavor, respectively. According to the suit, the wasabi powder is made not from real wasabi -- a Japanese spice derived from a plant in the cabbage family -- but from maltodextrin and mustard seed. "According to the American Chemical Society, much of what is sold outside of Japan as 'wasabi' is a mix of horseradish, mustard seeds, and artificial dyes," the lawsuit reads. The popular Japanese snack historically consists of roasted or fried legumes -- peanuts, soybeans or peas -- coated with wasabi powder mixed with sugar, salt or oil, and eaten as a crunchy snack, the lawsuit says, stressing that "[t]hese wasabi snacks are made with actual wasabi." Per the suit, real wasabi "tastes bright and pungent" with a hit of heat that fades quickly, and is valued for its nutritive and antioxidant properties. Fake wasabi, the case relays, burns much hotter and longer given its horseradish and mustard components. The case contends that 7-Eleven, seeking to capitalize on the demand for wasabi snacks, has promoted and labeled its snack mix product in a manner that indicates the product is made with real wasabi. According to the complaint, the product's labeling as "Wasabi Delight Flavored Snack Mix," as well as the image of chopsticks holding a wasabi pea and description that the mix contains crunchy wasabi peanuts and green peas, relays to consumers that the product contains at least some wasabi. Per the case, federal and state regulations require a food labeled as "wasabi" to disclose the source of its characterizing flavor, i.e., whether it's made from real wasabi ingredients or from other sources. Consumers have grown accustomed to a product's front label disclosing the source of the food's flavor, such that the absence of any disclosure is taken to mean a product does not have artificial flavor, the complaint contends. Moreover, the lawsuit says the dye-added coloring of the snack mix's peas and peanuts "further[s] the false impression the Product contains some wasabi." "Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a product, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives," the filing argues. "By labeling the product in this manner, Defendant gained an advantage against other companies, and against consumers seeking to purchase a product that contained some wasabi and did not contain artificial wasabi flavor." [GN] AGA SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to May 6, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM ELGINDY and JULIANNE CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, and BCS COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-06304-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order exnteding the deadlines for class certification briefing as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Class certification Feb. 4, 2022 May 6, 2022 motion due: -- Class certification April 15, 2022 July 15, 2022 opposition due: -- Class certification June 10, 2022 Sept. 9, 2022 reply due: AGA Service Company provides travel services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30G4PYH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 - and - Stephen M. Raab, Esq. 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109 E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com The Defendants are represented by: Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq. Elizabeth J. Ireland, Esq. Janelle A. Li-A-Ping, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: gjenkins@winston.com eireland@winston.com jliaping@winston.com ALPHABET INC: Files Certiorari Petition in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alphabet Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled IN RE ALPHABET INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION ALPHABET INC., LAWRENCE E. PAGE, SUNDAR PICHAI, GOOGLE LLC, KEITH P. ENRIGHT, AND JOHN KENT WALKER, JR., Petitioners v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, OFFICE OF THE RHODE ISLAND TREASURER ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF RHODE ISLAND; LEAD PLAINTIFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent, Case No. 21-594. Response is due today, November 24, 2021. Petitioners Alphabet Inc., et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled IN RE ALPHABET INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION ALPHABET INC., Case No. 20-15638. The question presented is whether the "risk factors" disclosed in a securities filing must disclose only future risks or must also disclose whether a risk has come to fruition in the past? As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a technology company and certain of its executives. Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose a security flaw that risked exposing customer data on its social networking site to third-party developers without customer consent. The district court granted a motion to dismiss, determining that the complaint failed to allege any misrepresentation or omission and failed to adequately allege scienter. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of certain allegations that it held were too vague to be actionable. Plaintiffs' allegations concerned alleged security vulnerabilities at the company's social networking site which left users' private data potentially exposed to third-party developers. According to plaintiffs, the company had identified the issue and the company's legal department had even circulated an internal memorandum detailing the issue and warning that it would likely trigger regulatory attention and Congressional inquiries if disclosed. However, the company allegedly continued to make generic statements in its securities filings about the importance of maintaining customer privacy and the risks the company faced if customer privacy were not maintained, without disclosing the security issue and while stating that there had been "no material changes to our risk factors." The Court held that the company's statements that its "operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties" and that there had been "no material changes to our risk factors" were sufficiently alleged to be materially misleading in light of the alleged omission of the security issue. The Court emphasized that the company was alleged to have made multiple statements about the harms that could follow from the detection and disclosure of security vulnerabilities, including regulatory scrutiny, and the significant consequences that would result from their disclosure. The Court also noted the SEC had published guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity instances like the security issue the company faced, which further suggested the alleged misstatements were material. And the Court concluded that disclosures about risks that "could" or "may" unfold were sufficiently alleged to be misleading because a reasonable investor would not think those risks had already materialized, even though at the time the statements were made the risks allegedly already had materialized.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Alphabet Inc., et al., are represented by: Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq. Betty Chang Rowe, Esq. Stephen B. Strain, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 - and - Catherine E. Stetson, Esq. NEAL KUMAR KATYAL HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 E-mail: cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com - and - Katherine B. Wellington, Esq. Danielle Desaulniers Stempel, Esq. Michael J. West, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 AMARIN CORPORATION: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Amarin Corporation PLC. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Amarin Corporation plc (NASDAQ: AMRN) Class Period: December 5, 2018 - June 21, 2021 Deadline: December 20, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/amrn The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an increasingly high risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (2) once the District Court invalidated certain of Amarin's patents, there was little to no chance of reversing that ruling; (3) Amarin's litigation was preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; and (4) Amarin was downplaying the true threat the ongoing ANDA litigation posed to the Company's business and future prospects. [GN] ANAHEIM ARENA: Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney Discusses Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony J Oncidi, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed the ruling in Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Mgmt., LLC, 69 Cal. App. 5th 521 (2021). In 2017, Irean Amaro filed this wage and hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim against her employer; there already were two existing class actions asserting the same claims, which were filed in 2014 and 2016. After Amaro reached a global settlement in her lawsuit, which included the claims asserted in the two earlier-filed lawsuits, an employee from one of the two earlier lawsuits (Rhiannon Aller) intervened to object to the Amaro settlement. Ultimately, the trial court approved the settlement over Aller's objections. On appeal, Aller argued that the court's approval of the settlement was erroneous because the settlement agreement was overly broad. The Court of Appeal held that the release was overbroad in that it covered "potential claims. . . in any way relating" to the facts pled in the complaint, thus potentially including claims that may only be tangentially related to the allegations in Amaro's complaint. The Court further held, however, that the FLSA's written consent requirement does not apply to a release in a class settlement of state wage and hour claims. Finally, the Court held the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding the settlement was not the product of a collusive reverse auction (i.e., a process by which the defendant picks the most ineffectual class counsel with which to negotiate a weak settlement that precludes all the other class action claims). The Court held there is nothing "inherently wrong" with the settlement process that was followed in this case, which resulted in a settlement being reached that bypassed the plaintiffs from the earlier-filed lawsuits. Also, there was no evidence of unfairness to the class or misconduct to support a collusive reverse auction finding. See also Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 2021 WL 4472080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (PAGA plaintiffs from separate actions do not have standing to move to vacate a judgment that resulted from a settlement to which they were not parties; trial court properly denied plaintiffs' intervention request because the settlement was fair and adequate); Uribe v. Crown Bldg. Maint. Co., 2021 WL 4962724 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (intervenor had standing to challenge PAGA settlement; settlement should not have included unreimbursed cell phone expenses because PAGA notice did not encompass such a claim). Court Has Power To Strike PAGA Claims That Will Be Unmanageable At Trial Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021) Fred Wesson sued Staples under PAGA, seeking $36 million in civil penalties for Labor Code violations related to an alleged misclassification of its store general managers. At trial, Staples moved to strike Wesson's PAGA claim, arguing that the number of employees and the nature of the allegations made the PAGA action "unmanageable," which would violate Staples' due process rights. The trial court invited Wesson to submit a trial plan showing that his PAGA action would be manageable at trial, but Wesson insisted the trial court lacked authority to require that his claim was manageable. The trial court disagreed and granted Staples' motion to strike the PAGA claim on manageability grounds. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, further, that defendants are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate their affirmative defenses and a court's manageability assessment should account for them. [GN] AVEENO ACTIVE: February 2, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF AUTHORIZATION OF A NATIONAL CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC If you purchased an Aveeno product with "Active Naturals" on its label, you may be a member of a class action. Pour un avis en Francais, visitez-le www.aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca MONTREAL, Nov. 15, 2021 /CNW/ -- Consumer Law Group INC. announces a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about the marketing and sale of Aveeno Active Naturals Products in Canada. The Class Representative alleges that the advertisements and representations made by Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. (the "Defendants") related to the Aveeno Active Naturals Products misrepresent to consumers that their ingredients are natural. The Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and no court has concluded that there was any wrongdoing. Am I a Class Member? You are a class member if you bought at least one of the eligible Aveeno Active Naturals Products within Canada at any time on or before September 28, 2021. However, (i) those who purchased Aveeno Active Naturals Products for purpose of resale; (ii) those with claims for bodily injuries arising from the use of Aveeno Active Naturals Products; (iii) those who are related to the Defendants (such as their current or former officers, directors and employees or members of their immediate families); and (v) the Judge to whom the class action is assigned and any members of his immediate family, are excluded from the class. More information about the Aveeno Active Naturals Products involved in the settlement is available at www.aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca or by calling +1-855-680-0660. What Can I Get from the Settlement? A fund of US$ 675,000.00 converted into Canadian dollars (the "Settlement Fund") will be created to pay class members for a portion of the cost of the Aveeno Active Naturals Products they purchased, for notice and claim administration costs, Class Counsel's fees and expenses and escrow charges and taxes related to the Settlement Fund. The Defendants will also make changes to the labelling of the Aveeno Active Naturals Products. After the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, class members may submit a properly completed claim form to be eligible to receive a cash refund of up to CA$ 3.15 for each eligible Aveeno Active Naturals Product purchased, up to 20 products per household, without any proof of purchase. These awards may be subject to a pro rata adjustment, upward (up to a maximum of CA$126 per household) or downward, depending on the number of claims approved. A detailed notice and copies of the claim form are available at www.aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca or by calling +1-855-680-0660. What are my Options? If you are in agreement with the proposed settlement, you have nothing to do at this time. After the Settlement Agreement is approved, if you wish to make a claim, you MUST submit a claim form by March 11, 2022. You can complete a claim form online at www.aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca or you can obtain a claim form in electronic or paper format from the Settlement Administrator or from Class Counsel. If you do not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude yourself from the class (opt out) by January 3, 2022, if you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from this settlement if it is approved. You may also object to the settlement and the Court will consider your views. Your objection must be timely, in writing and you must provide evidence of your membership in the class. Please note that the Court cannot change the terms of the settlement. The Court will hold a hearing on February 2, 2022, at 9:30 A.M. in room 16.02 at the Montreal Courthouse located at 1 Notre-Dame St. East, Montreal, Quebec. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether to approve Class Counsel's fees and expenses. You may attend the hearing, and you may hire your own lawyer, but you are not required to do either. The Court will consider timely written objections and will listen to people who have made a prior written request to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will determine whether to approve the settlement. What if I Have Questions? This notice is a summary. A detailed notice, as well as the Settlement Agreement and other relevant documents can be found online at www.aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca. For more information, you may call or write to the Settlement Administrator at +1-855-680-0660 or Info@aveenoactivenaturalssettlement.ca or Class Counsel (Attn: Jeff Orenstein) at 514-266-7863 ext. 2 or jorenstein@clg.org Media Contact: Angeion Group Doulas S. Clauson Director, Communications (215) 563-4116 [GN] BALTIMORE LIFE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Griffin v. The Baltimore Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00476 (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Beth P Gesner entered an order regarding class certification deadlines as follows: -- Discovery Deadline December 20, 2021; -- Motions for Summary Judgment Jan. 17, 2022; and Deadline -- Class Certification Motions Jan. 31, 2022. Deadline Baltimore Life operates as an insurance company. 0 The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Loses Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' ex-parte application to extend the briefing schedule for their motion for class certification. This is the second request to extend the briefing schedule surrounding the class certification motion. When this court extended the briefing schedule surrounding the motion on October 20, 2021, the parties were cautioned that no further extensions would be granted. On November 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs Kristen Schertzer and Brittany Covell filed an Ex-Parte Application to Extend the Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs cite a myriad of issues including serving 30(b)(6) deposition notices, the need to depose Bank of America's expert, the need to review a large amount of transactional data they expect Bank of America to produce, and that preparing their Reply "involves a complicated and time-consuming process with respect to sealing issues." The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The bank was founded in San Francisco, and took its present form when NationsBank of Charlotte acquired it in 1998. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FwpGMZ at no extra charge.[CC] BENEFITFOCUS INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Mercer LLC, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Mercer Consulting Group, Inc. 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. On March 1, 2019, Benefitfocus conducted an SPO 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. The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's order dated September 28, 2021, and entered in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on October 6, 2021, denying their motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Benefitfocus, Inc., 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., GS Capital Partners VI GmbH & Co. KG, Mercer LLC, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Mercer Consulting Group, Inc., Mason R. Holland, Jr., Raymond A. August, Jonathon E. Dussault, Douglas A. Dennertine, Joseph P. DiSabato, A. Lanham Napier, Francis J. Pelzer V, Stephen M. Swad, Ana M. White, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Wedbush Securities, Inc., and First Analysis Securities Corporation, Case No. 2021-03944, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, filed on October 25, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Mercer LLC, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Mercer Consulting Group, Inc. are represented by: Mark A. Kirsch, Esq. Robert F. Serio, Esq. Jennifer L. Conn, Esq. Mylan Denerstein, Esq. Alyssa Kuhn, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 E-mail: mkirsch@gibsondunn.com rserio@gibsondunn.com jconn@gibsondunn.com mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com akuhn@gibsondunn.com BIG EASY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Extended to March 4, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOE VEGA RAMOS; ANA KAREN VALENZUELA SOTO; JOSE ADRIAN LEYVA; and ANA KAREN QUIROZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIG EASY FOODS OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C., and MELCHOR MAYA SOTO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01298-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Kay entered an order granting the Plaintiffs and Defendants' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Extend Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for certification of a Rule 23 class is reset to March 4, 2022, says Judge Kay. Big Easy wholesales foods. The Company distributes a range of food to retailers such as shrimps, smoked sausages, and boneless chickens. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0R2UX at no extra charge.[CC] BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: BMRN) Class Period: January 13, 2020 - September 3, 2021 Deadline: December 21, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/bmrn The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMN 307 was less safe than BioMarin had led investors to believe; (2) BMN 307's safety profile made it likely that the FDA would place a clinical hold on the Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (3) accordingly, the Company had overstated BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. [GN] BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Certify Class in Landon Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELISSA S LANDON, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC., BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-0994-bhl (E.D. Wis.), Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Background Between 2014 and 2015, two couples, Plaintiffs Melissa and Edward Landon, and Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare purchased timeshare interests from the Defendants (collectively Bluegreen). According to the Plaintiffs, in the course of selling these interests, Bluegreen violated the Wisconsin Timeshare Act by: (1) misrepresenting that the location of the timeshare did not matter; (2) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs were given Wisconsin timeshare cancelation rights; (3) failing to identify the actual seller and misrepresenting the actual seller; (4) misrepresenting that Plaintiffs were given a chance to read documents; and (5) offering same-day incentives in violation of the Act. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., is a vacation ownership company that sells vacation ownership interests (VOIs) and accompanying vacation points to over 68 vacation ownership properties. Unlike a traditional timeshare, in which the consumer purchases a designated week at a particular property, Bluegreen's Vacation Club uses a points-based system that affords owners the flexibility to stay in open units at any Bluegreen resort, and gives them access to almost 11,000 other hotels and resorts through partnership and exchange networks. Bluegreen's "points" are associated with real estate, mostly outside of Wisconsin. Bluegreen or affiliates known as Bluegreen Vacation Club Resorts (BVCs) own some of the real estate in question. But in about 20% of its sales transactions, Bluegreen merely contracts with Club Associates (unrelated entities) who are the actual owners of the subject properties. In 2017, for example, Bluegreen's network included 43 BVCs and 24 Club Associate Resorts. The Plaintiffs, the Landons and Hpare-Auxiers, executed agreements to purchase vacation ownership interests from Bluegreen after attending face-to-face sales presentations at Christmas Mountain Village in Wisconsin. At the time of purchase, the Plaintiffs were told they were acquiring vacation points and that those vacation points were a form of currency that permitted them to vacation at different Bluegreen resorts. The Owner Beneficiary Agreements (OBAs) that the Plaintiffs ultimately executed, however, confirm that the vacation points they purchased were actually associated with interests in real estate. The Plaintiffs only learned the location of the real estate associated with their vacation points after they agreed to purchase and signed a Purchase Proposal. Bluegreen did not ask prospective buyers where they wanted the real estate associated with their points to be located, nor did it disclose that the real estate might be located outside of Wisconsin. According to the Plaintiffs, about 20% of all Bluegreen customers actually rescind their timeshare purchases within five days. The OBAs that the Plaintiffs signed provided that "Wisconsin law gives the buyer the following cancelation rights" and explained that the buyer could cancel within five business days of signing the contract or receiving a public offering statement, whichever came later, by mailing written notice to Bluegreen. In addition to cancelation by mail, Bluegreen also allowed buyers to cancel by providing written notice of cancelation at the sale site. According to Mr. Auxier, he called the Christmas Mountain office the day after his purchase, and a Bluegreen representative told him that he could cancel in person at Christmas Mountain outside of the five-day window. But when he returned more than a month later, he was told he could no longer cancel. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Bluegreen and, on May 3, 2021, moved for class certification. In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of (a) any person (b) who purchased in Wisconsin, (c) from either Defendant, (d) one or more timeshares for property outside of Wisconsin, (e) on or after June 28, 2012 and on or before April 17, 2017. Discussion A party seeking class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 "bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all necessary prerequisites." This is not "a mere pleading standard." The party "must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule." In the case, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) and therefore must satisfy the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Under Rule 23(a), the moving party must demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification only if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. In the case, based on the record the Plaintiffs have presented to the Court, Judge Ludwig finds it clear that individual inquiries predominate, and the Plaintiffs' proposed classwide remedy nullifies any potential efficiency benefits of a class action. As a result, the Plaintiffs have failed to show commonality, predominance, and superiority, so their motion for class certification must be denied. Disposition Because the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate commonality, predominance, and superiority, Judge Ludwig denied their motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ht4amhtz from Leagle.com. BOB DEAN: Seeks Dismissal of Nursing Home Residents' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Steele Gaivin, writing for McKnights Senior Living, reports that the owner of seven Louisiana nursing homes embroiled in a class action lawsuit filed a motion in federal court on Nov. 12 asking the court to dismiss the claim. More than a dozen families are suing Bob Dean over residents' treatment as they evacuated ahead of Hurricane Ida. Employees moved 843 residents from the nursing homes, located throughout Louisiana, to their designated evacuation site, which was a warehouse that Dean owns in Independence, LA. The residents remained in the warehouse for five days, during which time the conditions allegedly deteriorated; several residents subsequently died. According to court records, the plaintiffs claim that the conditions were unsanitary and that residents slept on mattresses on the floor until the warehouse flooded and the state intervened. Dean consistently has denied any wrongdoing. "In an interesting twist in his motion to kill the lawsuits, Dean's attorneys cite a law used by the plaintiffs in most of the suits -- the Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights -- claiming it blocks them from collecting damages," local CBS affiliate 4WWL reported. Dean's attorneys say that he is protected by a provision in the law that allows patients/residents to seek an injunction but not monetary damages. "Because the shelter was emptied before the suit was filed, there is no justiciable issue for the Court to decide," Dean's attorneys wrote in court documents. In addition to the lawsuits, the state of Louisiana has revoked licenses and terminated state Medicaid provider agreements for seven properties. Dean is appealing the license revocations. [GN] BOISE SCHOOL: Zeyen Seeks Renewal of Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v. BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-BLW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order renewing their motion for class certification, as follows: 1. certifying the instant action as a class action; 2. defining the class and the class claims and issues; and 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school district in Boise, Idaho. The district was founded in 1865 under the auspices of Idaho Territory. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x01eQW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Jason Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW GROUP, PC 1488 Midway Avenue Idaho Falls, ID 83406 Telephone: (208) 497-0400 Facsimile: (208) 932-4380 E-mail: jason@woodlaw.net - and - Robert C. Huntley, Esq. R. HUNTLEY LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 2188 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: (208) 388-1230 Facsimile: (208) 388-0234 E-mail: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com CANADA CARTAGE: Court Okays $22.25MM OT Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb disclosed that on November 1, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement agreement between Canada Cartage and the representative plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, acting on behalf of over 7000 class members. Canada Cartage agreed to pay $22.25 million to settle the dispute. The settlement approval puts to an end eight years of hard fought litigation. Jonathan Lisus, Rahool Agarwal, Michael Currie, Vivien Milat, and Fabian Suárez-Amaya acted for the class. Read the decision here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc7376/2021onsc7376.html For class members who wish to learn more about the settlement, they can visit: https://www.canadacartageclassaction.com/ [GN] CARVANA LLC: Car Buyers Sue Over Delayed Car Title Transfer ----------------------------------------------------------- Dana Jennings and Joseph A. Furlong, on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Carvana, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 211100526 (Comm. Pleas Pa., November 5, 2021), seeks to redress and restrain common law violations and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Carvana is a licensed used car dealer in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs accuse Carvana of delaying the permanent transfer of car titles for months resulting in the Plaintiffs' inability to legally drive the cars they purchased or get adequate insurance coverage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 351-0200 Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com CENTENE CORP: Duff Has Until June 9, 2022 to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, et al., v. CENTENE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to amend dates in prior Rule 26(f) Report of Parties as follows: -- Disclosure of lay witnesses: February 14, 2022 -- Discovery deadline: March 31, 2022 -- Plaintiffs' expert report(s) May 18, 2022 and designation(s): -- Plaintiffs' class June 9, 2022 certification motion: -- Defendants' expert report(s) July 1, 2022 and designation(s): -- Defendants' response to class July 21, 2022 certification motion: -- Rebuttal expert report(s) August 1, 2022 and designation(s): -- Plaintiffs' reply regarding August 16, 2022 class certification motion: -- Expert discovery deadline: August 26, 2022 -- Dispositive motion deadline: To be determined Centene Corporation is a publicly traded and managed care company based in St. Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DzJw9h at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRUS ENERGY: Walburn Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that Plaintiffs in a class suit initiated by Jeffrey Walburn filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On September 3, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., nine other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site and eleven individuals in their personal capacity some of whom are current and former DOE employees were named as defendants ("Walburn Defendants") in a class action complaint filed by Jeffrey Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr., Kimberly M. Lawson, James A. Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs, Donald Slone, Vicki P. Slone, Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl R. Hartley, Heather R. Hartley, Vina Colley, Antony Preston, David B. Rose, Michael E. Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue Brogdon (deceased), Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and Jon Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals ("Walburn Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges that the named defendants conspired and concealed nuclear incidents in violation of the Price-Anderson Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and other state claims. The complainants seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief arising from economic losses, property losses, and non-economic damages resulting from toxic and radioactive releases from the Portsmouth GDP. On November 20, 2020, the Walburn Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add two individuals to the complaint as defendants in their individual capacity. One of those individuals is Daniel Poneman, Centrus' Chief Executive Officer. In the 78-page complaint, Mr. Poneman is referenced only twice, without any cited allegations against him; once in the caption and once referencing his position at the Company. The Company has notified its insurance carrier regarding the claim. On February 11, 2021, the Walburn Plaintiffs amended their complaint for a second time to replace two corporate defendants with two others (one of whom was a contractor to Enrichment Corp. and also to its predecessor prior to its privatization in 1998 and the other a former DOE contractor) and removed four named individual defendants from the complaint. On March 2, 2021, Walburn Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2021, the court put the case on hold until November 11, 2021, to give the Plaintiffs the opportunity to retain new counsel. The court conditionally granted the Plaintiffs' local counsel's request to withdraw as counsel and terminated the representation of the two other co-counsel. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. "On November 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice." the Company said. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. COLLECTION BUREAU: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Dec. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rivera v. Collection Bureau Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 9:21-cv-80711 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete class certification discovery. The parties shall complete class certification discovery on or before December 22, 2021, says Judge Cannon. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions. Collection Bureau provides receivable collection services.[CC] COMPUTER HAUS: Court Certifies 5 Classes in Jahagirdar Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE COMPUTER HAUS NC. INC., d/b/a/ CITYMAC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-33-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division: (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel; and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Action. I. Background The case is a putative class action concerning wage and hour claims raised by employees of CityMac alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws. The Plaintiffs assert a number of potential violations including failure to pay overtime and earned commissions, off-the-clock work, pay deductions for meal breaks not actually taken, and failure to timely pay final paychecks. The Defendants broadly deny the Plaintiffs' allegations. The Plaintiffs seek to certify five distinct classes for different states where CityMac had operations: North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. The Defendants oppose certification of the classes. Plaintiff Shailesh Jahagirdar began the action by filing a Complaint on Feb. 5, 2020, seeking unpaid wages and statutory penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. Defendants The Computer Haus, Inc. and Troy Curran broadly denied Mr. Jahagirdar's allegations, with the exception of a small amount of unpaid wages for 5.5 hours of work, in their Answer filed on March 6, 2020. Plaintiff Jahagirdar later amended his complaint to initiate a putative class action complaint alleging FLSA violations on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees across five states and moved to conditionally certify and collective action, both filed on May 14, 2020. In subsequent notices, additional parties consented to be added to the action. The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Collective Action by Order dated April 15, 2020. The parties then proceeded to discovery. After obtaining the Court's permission, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on Dec. 22, 2020, adding additional claims under the relevant laws of the five states in which Plaintiffs seek to certify classes and arising out of the same alleged conduct by the Defendants giving rise to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint including newly discovered additional parties on Feb. 12, 2021, after obtaining the Court's permission to do so by Order dated Feb. 2, 2021. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on March 10, 2021. The Court denied the Defendant's motion as to the state law claims and claims against T.S. Leasing, LLC, but granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss claims against Curran and Company and Curran Family Properties for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on July 13, 2021, after receiving permission from the Court to do so. The Defendants again broadly deny the Plaintiffs' allegations in their Answer filed July 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs moved to certify class and appoint class counsel on April 12, 2021. The Defendants moved to decertify collective action on Aug. 4, 2021. These motions are fully briefed and are ripe for ruling. II. Discussion In order to certify a class action, the Plaintiffs must satisfy Rule 23(a)'s four requirements and the requirements of one of Rule 23(b)'s types of class action. Judge Cogburn finds that the Plaintiffs have done so and that their proposed classes will be certified. III. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Cogburn granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and denied the Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Action. The case will proceed with respect to the claims of the Amended Complaint as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The classes for the Plaintiffs' claims are defined as follows: a. The North Carolina Class: All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of North Carolina at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case. b. The South Carolina Class: All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of South Carolina at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case. c. The Colorado Class: All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of Colorado at any time from two years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case. d. The Washington Class: All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of Washington at any time from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case. e. The Oregon Class: All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of Oregon at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case. Plaintiff Shailesh Jahagirdar is designated as the class representative for the North Carolina Class. Plaintiffs Allen Allen, Rakia Green, and Kamri Norris are designated as the class representatives for the South Carolina Class. Plaintiff Connor Johnson is designated as the class representative for the Colorado Class. Plaintiff Jordan Blais is designated as the class representative for the Washington Class. Plaintiff Andrew Free is designated as the class representative of the Oregon Class. L. Michelle Gessner and Nicole Katherine Haynes, who are the attorneys of record for the appointed class representatives, are authorized to serve as the class counsel to represent the class. The parties are directed to confer and jointly submit, within 30 days of the date of the Order, proposed class notice documents in conformance with Rule 23(c)(2), which the Court will consider before issuing notice to the class. As the matter is the type of matter that can be resolved by skilled attorneys, the parties are encouraged to engage in serious settlement discussions before submitting the class notice documents to the Court for approval. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bema25ts from Leagle.com. CYBERPOWER INC: Va Pau Lo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Va Pau Lo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cyberpower Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV41181 (Cal. Super., November 8, 2021), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, and complete and accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The lawsuit further seeks declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Cyberpower, Inc. operates as "Cyberpower PC," a computer manufacturer and distributor specializing in computer gaming hardware where Va Pau Lo worked as an hourly non-exempt warehouse worker from August 2020 to the present. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Blake R. Jones, Esq. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 496-4818 Fax: (310)510-6429 Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com blake@crosnerlegal.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Robbins Geller Wins Class Action Lead Counsel Role ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ivan Moreno, writing for Law360, reports that Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP has beaten out five other firms vying to serve as lead counsel in two proposed securities class actions against DraftKings over a merger partner's alleged black-market deadlings, according to a Nov. 12 order in Manhattan federal court. [GN] EDISON INT'L: Parties in Woolsey Fire Litigation Pursue Talks ------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International 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 some individual plaintiffs have, and opt to pursue trial outside of a settlement program. As of October 26, 2021, Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") was aware of at least 280 currently pending lawsuits, representing approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant. About 151 of the 280 lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE. At least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes. An initial trial for a limited number of plaintiffs, sometimes referred to as a bellwether trial, on certain fire only matters is currently scheduled for March 17, 2022. The bellwether trial date may be further delayed to provide SCE and certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Thomas and Koenigstein Fire litigation the opportunity to pursue settlements of claims under a mediation program adopted to promote an efficient and orderly settlement process. Some individual plaintiffs have, and others may, opt to pursue trial outside of the settlement program. As of October 26, 2021, SCE was aware of at least 348 currently pending lawsuits, representing approximately 7,000 plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey Fire naming SCE as a defendant. About 284 of the 348 lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE. At least two of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes. A bellwether jury trial previously scheduled for October 26, 2021 has been vacated to provide SCE and certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire litigation the opportunity to pursue settlements of claims under a mediation program adopted to promote an efficient and orderly settlement process. Some individual plaintiffs may opt to pursue trial outside of the settlement program. Edison International is a public utility holding company based in Rosemead, California. Its subsidiaries include Southern California Edison, and unregulated non-utility business assets Edison Energy. ENSITE USA: Kentucky Court Consolidates 9 Identical Labor Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TONYA GIVENS BROWN, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-00380-BJB-RSE (W.D. Ky.), Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted in part and denied in part EnSite's Motion to Consolidate. Background On June 12, 2021, Brown filed the lawsuit seeking unpaid wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws ("KWHL"). According to Brown, she was employed as a Chief Inspector by EnSite from approximately January 2014 through at least the time her Complaint was filed. During that time, Brown alleges she worked 10 to 12-hour days for periods of 10 to 14 days straight while earning a set day rate. She claims she did not receive overtime compensation for work performed beyond the standard 40-hour work week. Nine cases alleging nearly identical causes of actions were filed by the Plaintiff's counsel on the same day. Additionally, one class action complaint asserting many of the same causes of action was filed on June 28, 2021, approximately two weeks later. Like Brown, the plaintiffs in eight of the related matters assert FLSA and KWHL violations for nonpayment of overtime. Plaintiff Norris Albert asserts Rule 23 class allegations under the FLSA, KWHL, and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act ("OMFWA") related to nonpayment of overtime. On Aug. 4, 2021, EnSite filed its answer and moved to consolidate all 10 cases for pre-trial purposes. In September 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel filed three additional complaints against EnSite on behalf of plaintiffs Jack Buehner, Kevin Perkins, and Mark Baber. These complaints bring the same causes of action as the nine matters filed on June 12, 2021. Judge Edwards therefore considers sua sponte whether to consolidate these matters with those named in the Defendant's motion. The parties have relevant history predating the filing of Brown's complaint. In Doyle v. Ensite, the Plaintiff's counsel filed an FLSA collective action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a nationwide group of EnSite inspectors, including many of the plaintiffs in the thirteen similar matters (Doyle v. EnSite, Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-2941 (complaint attached as DN 17-10)). The representative plaintiff in Doyle v. EnSite alleged the same or substantially similar causes of actions as those in the individual matters filed in the Court. In Doyle, the parties stipulated to conditional certification, which the court granted. EnSite later moved to decertify the collective action. On April 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification related to the KWHL and OMFWA state law claims. EnSite moved for partial summary judgment the same day. On May 19, 2021, the court granted EnSite's decertification motion, and on May 21, 2021, plaintiff Doyle withdrew his Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff's counsel filed the 13 cases now at issue within months of decertification of the Doyle collective action. The Defendant now seeks consolidation for purposes of all pre-trial proceedings. The Plaintiff opposes consolidation largely because of the efforts EnSite took to decertify the collective action in Doyle, arguing that consolidation now would be tantamount to recertifying the class. In its reply, the Defendant distinguishes its argument for decertification in Doyle from its present argument for consolidation, noting that the two judicial processes are entirely unrelated Analysis EnSite moves the Court to consolidate the 10 similar cases pursuant to Rule 42(a). It argues that although there are general factual distinctions, consolidation is proper because the cases involve the same Defendant and common questions of law. EnSite does acknowledge that the Albert action contains legally distinct allegations related to its OMFWA claims. It further contends that consolidation would promote efficiency, avoid duplication of discovery and judicial efforts, and avoid inconsistent outcomes. Ms. Brown positions that EnSite is merely forum shopping because she believes its argument for decertification in Doyle contradicts its present argument for consolidation. She points to EnSite's admission in Doyle that material factual distinctions exist between the subsets of inspectors under which the various plaintiffs fall. Brown argues that consolidation now would effectively recertify the class after EnSite convinced the Texas court that the claims were "overwhelmingly individual" in nature. Finally, she contends that consolidation would result in delay, prejudice, and undue burden to the Plaintiffs. This is particularly true, Brown argues, for those who were members of the Doyle collective action, where some discovery already took place. A. Common Questions of Law or Fact Judge Edwards finds that the cases involve the same parties, EnSite and various inspectors. Twelve of the actions arise out of the same general series of events: Each Plaintiff was at some point employed by EnSite and paid a day rate without overtime. All 13 actions allege that EnSite's method of compensation violated the FLSA and KWHL. The Albert action arises out of similar events but brings additional claims arising under the OMFWA and does so on behalf of a collective group of inspectors. Although similar allegations are made in the Albert case related to nonpayment of overtime, there are several factual and legal distinctions between it and the other 12 matters. First, Albert brings his FLSA and KWHL claims in the form of a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Electrical Inspectors. Albert is the only case with collective claims. Additionally, he brings claims on behalf of himself and the same collective group under the OMFWA. Whether these Ohio claims can even be heard in this Court is for the District Judge to determine, but their presence further distinguishes the matter from the remaining 12. All 13 matters undoubtedly share at least some factual or legal issues. With these considerations in mind,Judge Edwards turns to whether specific risks of prejudice are overborne by the risk of inconsistent outcomes or savings of litigant and judicial resources achieved by consolidation. B. Efficiency versus Prejudice to Plaintiffs Ms. Brown argues that the plaintiffs will be unduly burdened if the cases are consolidated for pre-trial purposes. She also argues that the factual distinctions between the cases are significant enough to cause potential confusion during discovery. Having considered the risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs, Judge Edwards finds that consolidation for pre-trial purposes is warranted as to twelve of the 13 related cases, as there is likely to be extensive overlap in discovery. Any potential burden on the Plaintiffs in these matters is overborne by the various advantages of consolidation, including the commonality of legal and factual issues and the conservation of judicial resources. Although she finds consolidation to be appropriate for twelve of the matters, Judge Edwards opines that Brown's argument is well taken as to the Albert v. EnSite case. While there are factual and legal commonalities between Albert and the other cases, she finds that excluding it from consolidation would better serve the parties. The Albert class has yet to be certified, and its status as a collective action presents unique issues that could make coordinating discovery with the other cases difficult. In addition, the legal issues surrounding the OMFWA claims in Albert are entirely distinct from those of the other twelve cases and present discrete jurisdictional concerns. Accordingly, consolidation will be granted as to the twelve similar cases and denied as to Albert. Order For the stated reasons, Judge Edwards granted in part and denied in part Defendant EnSite's Motion. The cases Tonya Givens Brown v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No.: 3:21-cv-00380-BJB; John Cunningham v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00381-BJB; Richard Fleming v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00382-BJB; Roger Dale Groves v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00383-BJB; Philip Ray Miller v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00384-BJB; Dave Schoenbachler v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00385-BJB; Michael Townsend v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00386-BJB; John Wells v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00387-BJB; and Ronald Zingg v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00388-BJB are be consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Consolidation is denied as to Norris Albert v. EnSite USA Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00418-BJB, and it will proceed individually. The Court on its own initiative orders that the cases Mark Baber v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00591-BJB; Kevin Perkins v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00581-BJB; and Jack Buehner v. EnSite USA, Inc., Case No: 3:21-CV-00574, be consolidated with the nine similar cases. The District Judge will issue a separate order setting a Rule 16 Conference and requiring the parties to meet and create a litigation schedule pursuant to Rule 26(f). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nwm92kth from Leagle.com. ETSY.COM LLC: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Ranalli Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VINCE RANALLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETSY.COM, LLC, BRAVE NEW LOOK and OUTDOOR RESEARCH, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-88 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Etsy and Defendant Outdoor Research. I. Backgrounds Plaintiff Ranalli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73 P.S. Sections 201-1 et seq., the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEU), 73 P.S. Section 227, et seq, as well as common law claims of unjust enrichment, fraud, and misappropriation/conversion. The Plaintiff alleges in the putative class action that the Defendants violated the UTPCPL when they collected from him amounts equal to and purporting to be Pennsylvania sales tax on the sale of protective face masks, when they were not subject to Pennsylvania sales tax. It is alleged that face masks or coverings became exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax as of March 6, 2020, the date of Governor Wolf's Proclamation of Disaster Emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the COVID pandemic, non-medical face masks "were subject to sales tax because they were generally classified as ornamental wear or clothing accessories and the use for which consumers purchased nonmedical masks and face coverings was not for an exempt purpose." The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants "knew or should have known that, during the state of emergency, "medical supplies" such as face masks or covering are nontaxable" based on publicly available information on the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's website. He alleges that "charging consumers, like Mr. Ranalli and others similarly situated, sales tax on medical supplies and/or clothing and accessories-both of which are nontaxable-constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive practices in stark violation of the UTPCPL." Presently pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Etsy and Defendant Outdoor Research. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. II. Discussion A. Counts IV and VI: UTPCPL Plaintiff Ranalli alleges that Outdoor Research and Etsy violated three subsections of the UTPCPL: 201-(4)(v)2, (ix)3, and (xxi). Subsections (v) and (ix) "apply only to claims of false advertising" and require the plaintiff to show that "(1) a defendant's representation is false; (2) it actually deceives or has a tendency to deceive; and (3) the representation is likely to make a difference in the purchasing decision." Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint, and after consideration of the relevant case law, Judge Colville opines that the Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to plausibly state a claim as to any of these subsections. He finds that the UTPCPL does not apply to the Plaintiff's claims as the assessment of sales tax does not fall within the meaning of "trade or commerce." The "collection of sales tax by retailers, acting as agents of a state government, is an activity 'divorced from private profit' that does not occur 'in the conduct of any trade or commerce.'" Accordingly, Counts IV and VI will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. B. Count VII: PFCEUA (and UTPCPL) on behalf of class (v. All Defendants) Count VII alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEU), 73 P.S. Section 227, et seq. The PFCEUA prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices with regard to the collection of debts." Even if the Defendants could be considered as in the business of collecting "debts," this claim cannot survive because the PFCEUA is enforced through the remedial provision of the UTPCPL, a plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under the PFCEUA if he cannot state a claim for relief under the UTPCPL. In other words, if a plaintiff's UTPCPL claim fails, his PFCEUA claim fails as well. Because the Plaintiff's UTPCPL claim is dismissed, his PFCEUA claim will likewise be dismissed. C. Count VIII: Fraud (v. Outdoor Research) Outdoor Research moves to dismiss Count VIII, which alleges fraud. It argues that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Judge Colville opines that the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which can be said to plausibly support of his claim of fraud. He has merely alleged he was charged a sales tax and paid the sales tax. His allegations, otherwise, are nothing but legal conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted with respect to Count VIII. D. Count XI: Misappropriation/Conversion (v. All Defendants) The Defendants move to dismiss Count XI, which alleges misappropriation and/or conversion under Pennsylvania state law. Conversion is defined under Pennsylvania law as "the deprivation of another's right of property in, or use or possession of, a chattel, without the owner's consent and without lawful justification." Judge Colville holds that the Plaintiff's claim for conversion failed because, not only did he voluntarily part with his money, but once he paid the sales tax, regardless of whether the tax was imposed correctly, it became the property of the Commonwealth. There are no facts to plausibly support a claim that the tax was actually appropriated for the Defendants' own use, especially as they are legally required to hold said funds in trust for the Commonwealth. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of conversion under Pennsylvania law, and Count XI will be dismissed. E. Count X: Unjust Enrichment (v. All Defendants) The Defendants have moved to dismiss Count X, alleging unjust enrichment. Under Pennsylvania law, to establish a claim of unjust enrichment a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that: (1) a benefit was conferred on the defendant by plaintiff; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) acceptance and retention by the defendant of the benefits, under the circumstances, would make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for the value of the benefit. Judge Colville finds that it is clear that collection of the sales taxes was not for profit or revenue but rather for basic compliance with the law. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted with respect to Count XI, unjust enrichment. III. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Colville granted in full the Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Etsy and Outdoor Research. Any amendment is deemed futile and the Amended Complaint will be dismissed. An appropriate order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycut4hw9 from Leagle.com. EVOLUS INC: Response to Securities Complaint Due Jan. 18 -------------------------------------------------------- Evolus, 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 must move, answer or otherwise respond to a class action complaint by January 18, 2022. On October 16 and 28, 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Evolus shareholders Armin Malakouti and Clinton Cox, respectively, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts related to the Company's acquisition of the right to sell Jeuveau, the complaint against the Company filed by Allergan and Medytox in the U.S. International Trade Commission related to Jeuveau (the "ITC Action"), and risks related to the ITC Action. The complaints assert a putative class period of February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020. "The court consolidated the actions on November 13, 2020, under the caption In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-08647 (PGG)," the Company said. On September 17, 2021, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Under the court's November 13, 2020 order, the lead plaintiff must file a consolidated, amended complaint by November 16, 2021, and the Company must move, answer or otherwise respond by January 18, 2022. Evolus, Inc. operates as a medical aesthetics company. FLORIDA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Unaffordable Bail Amounts --------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Marrero, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that the ACLU of Florida has filed a class-action lawsuit against the state of Florida and sheriffs in Sarasota and Manatee counties, claiming that people are being held in county jails on unaffordable bail amounts in violation of their due process rights. The petition filed on Nov. 15 in the Second District Court of Appeal states that the 11 people listed as petitioners are being held in the Manatee and Sarasota jails not because a judge ordered them to be held pending trial -- a process called pretrial detention -- but because they can't afford to pay the bail amount set for them. The suit claims in each case, the state failed to clearly show that no alternative conditions of release were workable. That violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and is a "systemic problem," the 51-page petition states. "Many others are detained or will be detained in a similar fashion," the petition states. "The problem deserves a systematic solution." The petition asks the appeals court to certify the Manatee and Sarasota classes and to permit the respective class representatives and the ACLU Foundation of Florida to represent them. According to the petition, the proposed Manatee class includes roughly 75 people at any given time, and the Sarasota class includes about 40 to 50 people at any given time. The petition seeks an order requiring the respondents to justify the pretrial detention of each petitioner and class member through unaffordable bail. And it asks the appeals court to declare that unaffordable bail constitutes pretrial detention, and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the lower court to find that prosecutors establish "by clear and convincing proof" the need for such a bail amount. For the 11 petitioners and other class members whose motion to modify bail was heard before the appeals court issues a final order, the suit seeks an order directing the lower court to release them on nonmonetary bail conditions, an affordable bail amount or both. For class members whose bail motions are heard after a final order, the ACLU asks the appeals court to order the sheriffs to release them. A spokesperson for Sarasota Sheriff Kurt Hoffman said petitions like the one filed on Nov. 15 are handled by the Attorney General's Office, and that bail procedures and amounts are set by circuit judges, not sheriffs. A spokesperson for Manatee Sheriff Rick Wells said he will not be commenting because "no civil legal action has been taken involving" him. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody did not respond to an email seeking comment. The petition is the latest salvo against a cash bail system that has been a frequent target of social justice reformers and legal scholars, who say the system criminalizes poverty, bloats jail populations and disproportionately affects people of color. After their respective arrests, the Public Defender of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit filed motions on behalf of each defendant, stating the bail amounts were unaffordable and resulted in de facto pretrial detention, according to the petition. Lower court judges heard each defendant's motion, including testimony about their financial resources and inability to afford the bail that had been set. Prosecutors argued that the bail amounts were reasonable "in light of the accused persons' past criminal history and nature of the current charge(s)," the petition states. In each case, judges kept in place or imposed an unaffordable monetary bail, according to the lawsuit. The bail amounts ranged from $500 to $250,000. "Each Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law for the denial of the fundamental constitutional right to liberty," the suit states. "Absent intervention by this Court, they will continue to be detained in violation of the U.S. Constitution." After one of the defendants, George Whitfield, was arrested on charges of drug possession and paraphernalia, a Sarasota judge set bail at $2,000 "even after it was made aware that Mr. Whitfield cannot afford to pay it, is not a danger to his community nor a flight risk, and was employed at the time," according to an ACLU of Florida news release. In jail since Aug. 4, Whitfield has since lost his job. Whitfield is one of thousands of people who face "an impossible situation on a daily basis in Florida," Jerry Edwards, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida, said in the release. "People who are unable to pay these unaffordable bail amounts face the loss of their jobs, separation from their families, and are forced to sit in jail for days, months, or possibly years as their case moves through the system regardless of their guilt or innocence," Edwards said. That also adds up to higher costs for taxpayers who foot the bill for people to stay in jail, the ACLU said. [GN] FS MIAMI: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALETTA VAN BALDEREN, DAGOBERTO TURCIOS, SHIRLEY BOWRIN, ROSARIO MIRANDA, NATALIE ARIAS, LUZ ROJAS, NANCY LEGROS, CLAUDIA ARGUEDAS, JAIME RINCON, JAIME SIEFKEN, LUISA FORERO, MIRIAM CASTILLO, RAFAEL ANGEL-BELLO, EDGAR PORRAS, and all others similarly situated, v. FS MIAMI EMPLOYMENT INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-21842-JAL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, up to and including November 30, 2021, and any other relief deemed appropriate. On October 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. After several extensions of time, the Defendant filed its response to Plaintiffs' Motion on November 9, 2021. The deadline for Plaintiffs reply to the Certification Response is November 16, 2021. It is not possible to adequately reply to the Certification Response by November 16, 2021. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x1Tr53 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Alexandra C. Hayes, Esq. PERERA ALEMÁN 12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (786) 485-5232 E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com bayardo@pba-law.com brody@pba-law.com alex@pba-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley S. Nunneker, Esq. STOKES WAGNER, ALC 1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2615 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: anunneker@stokeswagner.com - and - Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esq. KIMBERLY A. GILMOUR, PA 4179 Davie Road, Suite 101 Davie, FL 33314 E-mail: gilmourlaw@aol.com GEICO‌: Wright Seeks Dec. 20 Extension to File Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA‌ ‌WRIGHT,‌ ‌individually‌ ‌and‌ ‌on‌ behalf‌ ‌of‌ ‌others‌ ‌similarly‌ ‌situated, ‌v. ‌ GEICO‌ ‌CASUALTY‌ ‌COMPANY,‌‌ Case No. 3:20-cv-00823-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amend‌ing ‌the‌ ‌deadlines‌ ‌set‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Court's‌ ‌Extended‌‌ Scheduling‌‌ Order‌‌, as follows: 1.‌ Discovery,‌ ‌including‌ ‌discovery‌ March‌ ‌31,‌ ‌2022‌ ‌ from‌ ‌experts,‌ ‌pertaining‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌‌ issue‌ ‌of‌ ‌class‌ ‌certification:‌ ‌ 2.‌ ‌ Expert‌ ‌reports‌ ‌for‌ ‌class‌ certification‌ ‌must‌ ‌be‌ ‌submitted‌ to‌ ‌opposing‌ ‌parties‌ ‌as‌ ‌follows:‌ ‌ Plaintiff(s):‌ ‌ December‌ ‌20,‌ ‌2021‌ ‌ Defendant(s):‌ ‌ February‌ ‌21,‌ ‌2022‌ ‌ 3.‌ ‌ Plaintiffs‌ ‌to‌ ‌file‌ ‌a‌ ‌Motion‌ ‌for‌ December‌ ‌20,‌ ‌2021‌ ‌ Conditional‌ ‌Class‌ ‌Certification‌ of‌‌ Collective‌ ‌Action‌ ‌and‌ ‌for‌ Notice‌ ‌to‌ ‌Prospective‌ ‌Class‌ Members:‌ ‌ 4.‌ ‌Deadline‌ ‌for‌ ‌Defendants‌ ‌to‌ ‌file‌ February‌ ‌21,‌ ‌2022‌ ‌ an‌ ‌opposition‌ ‌to‌ ‌any‌ ‌Motion‌ ‌for‌‌ Conditional‌ ‌Class‌ ‌Certification‌ of‌ ‌Collective‌ ‌Action:‌ ‌ 5.‌ ‌ Deadline‌ ‌for‌ ‌Plaintiffs‌ ‌to‌ ‌file‌ April‌ ‌1,‌ ‌2022‌ a‌ ‌reply‌ ‌to‌ ‌Defendants' ‌opposition:‌ ‌ This‌ ‌action‌ ‌is‌ ‌a‌ ‌putative‌ ‌class‌ ‌action‌ ‌alleging‌ ‌that‌ ‌GEICO‌ ‌failed‌ ‌to‌ ‌pay‌ ‌certain‌‌ fees‌ ‌as‌ ‌part‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌settlement‌ ‌of‌ ‌Plaintiff’s‌ ‌first‌ ‌party‌ ‌auto‌ ‌total‌ ‌loss‌ ‌claim.‌ ‌ On‌ ‌February‌ ‌18,‌ ‌2021,‌ ‌the‌ ‌Parties‌ ‌filed‌ ‌a‌ ‌Joint‌ ‌Status‌ ‌Report‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Parties' Planning‌ ‌Meeting‌,‌ ‌which‌ ‌this‌ ‌Court‌ ‌ordered‌ ‌on‌ ‌March‌ ‌4,‌ ‌2021‌.‌ ‌ GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30KvbZ2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy‌ ‌L.‌ ‌Judkins, Esq. Edmund‌ ‌A.‌ ‌Normand, Esq. NORMAND‌ ‌PLLC‌ ‌ 3165‌ ‌McCrory‌ ‌Place,‌ ‌Suite‌ ‌175‌ ‌ Orlando,‌ ‌FL‌ ‌32803‌ ‌ Telephone:‌ ‌(407)‌ ‌603-6031‌ ‌ Facsimile:‌ ‌(888)‌ ‌974-2175‌ ‌ Email: ed@ednormand.com‌‌ ‌ amy.judkins@normandpllc.com‌‌ ‌ ean@normandpllc.com‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ - and - Stephen‌ ‌J.‌ ‌Herman,‌ ‌Esq. Soren‌ ‌E.‌ ‌Gisleson,‌ ‌Esq. John‌ ‌S.‌ ‌Creevy,‌ ‌Esq. Charles‌ ‌M.‌ ‌King,‌ ‌Esq. HERMAN‌ ‌&‌ ‌KATZ,‌ ‌LLC‌ ‌ 820‌ ‌O’Keefe‌ ‌Avenue‌ ‌ New‌ ‌Orleans,‌ ‌LA‌ ‌70113‌ ‌ Telephone:‌ ‌(504)‌ ‌581-4892‌ ‌ Facsimile: ‌(504)‌ ‌561-6024‌ ‌ E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com‌‌ ‌ sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com‌‌ ‌ jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com‌ ‌ cking@hhklawfirm.com‌‌ ‌ ‌ - and - Christopher‌ ‌Gold,‌ ‌Esq. EDELSBERG‌ ‌LAW‌ ‌P.A.‌ ‌ 20900‌ ‌NE‌ ‌30th‌ ‌Ave.,‌ ‌Suite‌ ‌417‌ ‌ Aventura,‌ ‌FL 33180‌ ‌ Telephone:‌ ‌(305)‌ ‌975-3320‌ ‌ E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com‌‌ ‌ ‌ The Defendant is represented by: Kymberly‌ ‌Kochis‌, Esq. Alexander‌ ‌P.‌ ‌Fuchs‌, Esq. EVERSHEDS‌ ‌SUTHERLAND‌ ‌(US)‌ ‌LLP‌ ‌ The‌ ‌Grace‌ ‌Building,‌ ‌40th‌ ‌Floor‌ ‌ 1114‌ ‌Avenue‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Americas‌ ‌ New‌ ‌York,‌ ‌NY‌ ‌10036‌ ‌ Telephone:‌ ‌(212)‌ ‌389-5000‌ ‌ Facsimile:‌ ‌(212)‌ ‌389-5099‌ ‌ E-mail: kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com‌‌ ‌ alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com‌‌ ‌ ‌ - and - ‌ Stephen‌ ‌R.‌ ‌Barry‌, Esq. Daphne‌ ‌P.‌ ‌McNutt‌, Esq. W.‌ ‌Briggs‌ ‌Scott‌, Esq. BARRY‌ ‌&‌ ‌CO.,‌ ‌LLC‌ ‌ 612‌ ‌Gravier‌ ‌Street‌ ‌ New‌ ‌Orleans,‌ ‌La‌ ‌70130‌ ‌ Telephone:‌ ‌(504)‌ ‌525-5553‌ ‌ Facsimile:‌ ‌(504)‌ ‌525-1909‌ ‌ E-mail: sbarry@barrylawco.com‌‌ ‌ dmcnutt@barrylawco.com‌‌ ‌ bscott@barrylawco.com‌‌ ‌ GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' "Shift to Park" Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that General Motors has been hit with another class-action lawsuit over the well-known 'Shift to Park' issue that it has received widespread complaints about in the past. This latest Shift to Park lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. According to Car Complaints, the plaintiff in this suit says they are forced to constantly wiggle and move their vehicle's electronic shifter in order to get it to recognize the fact the shifter has been put in the 'Park' position. Like other 'Shift to Park' lawsuits, the plaintiff says the issue has caused them to become trapped in their vehicle, as the error message means the vehicle cannot be shifted into 'Park', preventing them from being able to safely exit the vehicle. Since this problem is not under recall, customers are allegedly forced to pay out-of-pocket for repairs contained in the TSBs, which in some cases includes a full transmission replacement. The replacement parts contain the same defect as the original factory parts, however, leaving owners with little recourse to prevent the 'Shift to Park' error message from appearing again in the future. In addition to the above-mentioned technical problems, this suit also says that plaintiffs' vehicles have now diminished in value as a result of the 'Shift to Park' error. Unlike some previous 'Shift to Park' lawsuits that have focused mainly on the GMC Acadia, this latest suit includes Illinois consumers and business entities that purchased or leased various Chevy vehicles. This includes the 2016-2019 Chevy Malibu, 2016-2019 Chevy Volt, 2018-2019 Chevy Traverse and 2019 Chevy Blazer. GM has issued Technical Service Bulletins in the past attempting to address the 'Shift to Park' issue in these vehicles, the most recent of which was published in September of 2019. A similar lawsuit containing the same Chevy vehicles was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan back in August. [GN] GEORGIA: March 28, 2022 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delshone Thomas and Gwendolyn Cheney, v. Georgia Department of Community Health; and Caylee Noggle, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Health, Case No. 1:21-cv-02558-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file their motion for class certification, as follows: Given that Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek documents and information relevant to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and given that additional discovery will likely inform Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as well, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification until March 28, 2022 (i.e. the date on which discovery in this matter will conclude). The discovery period in this matter commenced on October 19, 2021. Shortly after the discovery period began, on October 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs served an initial set of discovery on Defendants, including Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Among other things, Plaintiffs' first set of discovery seeks documents and information relevant to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is presently due on November 21, 2021. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nwZTy2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean J. Young, Esq. Andres M. Lopez-Delgado, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA, INC. P.O. Box 77208 Atlanta, GA 30357 Phone: (678) 981-5295 E-mail: syoung@acluga.org adelgado@acluga.org - and - Taylor Brown, Esq. Leslie Cooper, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7887 E-mail: tbrown@aclu.org lcooper@aclu.org - and - Adam Reinke, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: areinke@kslaw.com - and - Brent P. Ray, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 Facsimile: (312) 995-6330 E-mail: bray@kslaw.comc GOOD DEAL: Dec. 2 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elaine Dennis and Courtney White, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Good Deal Charlie, Inc., d/b/a Overstock Furniture & Mattress, Southeastern Liquidators LLC, Strategic Partner Holding, LLC and Cheap Sleep, L.L.C., Case No. 4:20-cv-00295-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting additional two weeks from the date of the deposition of Charles W. Adams, December 2, 2021, to file their Reply to Defendants' Responses in Opposition to their Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants filed their Responses in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on November 4, 2021, in accordance with the Order dated October 27, 2021, which was entered after Defendants requested an extension of time to file their Responses in Opposition. Pursuant to the Court's October 27, 2021 Order, Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Responses in Opposition to their Motion for Class Certification is due by November 19, 2021. The Defendant Overstock premised its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, in part, upon the declaration of its expert, Charles W. Adams. The Defendants Southeastern Liquidators LLC, Strategic Partner Holding, LLC, and Cheap Sleep, LLC adopted Overstock's arguments in their Responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. This is the first request Plaintiffs have made for an extension in which to file their Reply to Defendants' Responses in Opposition to their Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nt6CJf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Molly E. Brantley, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com meb@federmanlaw.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. David J. Worley, Esq. Alan R. Perry, Jr., Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 500 Sugar Mill Rd., Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404)205-8400 Facsimile: (404)205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com david@ewlawllc.com alan@ewlawllc.com The Attorneys for Defendant Good Deal Charlie, Inc. doing business as Overstock Furniture & Mattress, are:, are: William R. Grimm, Esq. Anne S. Maguire, Esq. BARROW & GRIMM PC 110 W. 7 th St., Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74119-10044 Telephone: (918) 584-1600 Facsimile: (918) 584-2444 E-mail: grimm@barrowgrimm.com a.maguire@barrowgrimm.com - and - Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. Matthew D. Alison, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLCC 9 E. 4th St. S., Suite 204 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone (918) 347-6169 E-mail: jason@aamodt.biz matthew@iaelaw.com The Attorneys for Defendant Southeastern Liquidators, LLC, are Amanda Michelle Lowe, Esq. John T. Richer, Esq. Mark Banner, Esq. Lauren M. Marciano, Esq. HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON (Tulsa) 320 S. Boston, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Telephone: (918) 594-0810 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 E-mail: alowe@hallestill.com jricher@hallestill.com mbanner@hallestill.com lmarciano@hallestill.com The Attorneys for Strategic Partner Holding, LLC, are Bobby Leon Latham, Jr., Esq. Brian L. Carter, Esq. Steven O. Kuperman, Esq. LATHAM, STEELE, LEHMAN, KEELE RATCLIFF, FREIJE & CARTER, P.C. 1515 E. 71 st Street, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 972-2000 Facsimile: (918) 970-2002 E-mail: blatham@law-lsl.com bcarter@law-lsl.com skuperman@law-lsl.com - and - Amber Griffin Shaw, Esq. HARRIS SHELTON HANOVER WALSH, PLLC 114 W. Liberty Ave., Suite 202 Covington, TN 38019 Telephone: (901) 476-7100 Facsimile: (901) 726-3984 E-mail: ashaw@harrisshelton.com - and - Henry B. Talbot, Esq. HARRIS SHELTON HANOVER WALSH, PLLC 6060 Primacy Parkway, Suite 100 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 435-0333 Facsimile: (901) 435-0333 E-mail: htalbot@harrisshelton.com The Attorney for Cheap Sleep, L.L.C. Roy Gean, III, Esq. GEAN, GEAN & GEAN 511 Garrison Avenue Fort Smith, AR 72901 Telephone: (479) 783-1124 Facsimiel: (479) 783-2440 E-mail: roygeaniii@geanlaw.com HAWAI'I: Dubin Appeals Dismissal of Disciplinary Proceedings Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs GARY VICTOR DUBIN, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing the lawsuit entitled GARY VICTOR DUBIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00175-JAO-KJM, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Gary Dubin, an attorney, and nearly 200 of his former clients ("Client Plaintiffs") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), challenge the constitutionality of Hawaii's attorney disciplinary process, and as related to the disciplinary proceedings against Dubin. The Plaintiffs claim that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") of the Hawai'i Supreme Court ("HSC") targeted the Hawai'i foreclosure defense bar -- and eventually Dubin -- leading to suspensions and disbarments. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs identify a host of perceived deficiencies with the disciplinary process, including conflicts of interest; fishing expeditions in search of ethical violations; consolidation of unrelated complaints; untimely disclosure of the nature of discipline sought; ODC staff's lack of training and frequent turnover; ex parte communications with members of HSC regarding additional complaints about Dubin, which purportedly prejudiced his disciplinary proceedings; denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a complainant; adoption of ODC's recommendation without any changes; issuance of new findings by HSC; ODC's lack of knowledge about foreclosure defense; and animosity toward Dubin. The Plaintiffs allege that despite ODC's efforts to create a false record of misconduct by committing due process violations, its petition for discipline was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence. In the end, the Disciplinary Board recommended, and HSC ordered, Dubin's disbarment, says the suit. Defendants HSC, Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, Associate Justices Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Michael D. Wilson (collectively, the "Justices") and Associate Judge Katherine S. Leonard and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the HSC, the Disciplinary Board of the HSC ("collectively, the “Disciplinary Entities"), Bradley R. Tamm, Clifford Nakea, Roy F. Hughes, Charlene M. Norris, and Andrea R. Sink (collectively, the "Disciplinary Individuals") sought dismissal of the Complaint on jurisdictional and immunity grounds. Defendant Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the HSC substantively joined in the request for dismissal and alternatively asked the Court to abstain. On September 30, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Verified Complaint for Declaratory Relief and for Actual and Punitive Civil Rights Damages and the Substantive Joinder in Defendants' Motion. The appellate case is captioned as Gary Dubin, et al. v. Supreme Court State of Hawaii, et al., Case No. 21-16863, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 4, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Christie Adams, et al. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 12, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 29, 2021; -- Transcript is due on December 28, 2021; -- Appellants Christie Adams, et al. opening brief is due on February 7, 2022; -- Appellees Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court, Roy F. Hughes, Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the Hawaii Supreme Court, Katherine S. Leonard, Sabrina S. McKenna, Paula A. Nakayama, Clifford L. Nakea, Charlene M. Norris, Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court, Mark E. Reckenwald, Andrea R. Sink, Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, Bradley R Tamm and Michael D. Wilson answering brief is due on March 8, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GARY VICTOR DUBIN, individually and on behalf of all Hawaii attorneys similarly situated, DBA Dubin Law Offices, et al., are represented by: Gary Victor Dubin, Esq. DUBIN LAW OFFICES 55 Merchant Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 537-2300 - and - Keith M. Kiuchi, Esq. KEITH M. KIUCHI, ALC 1001 Bishop St., ASB Tower Honolulu, HI 96813 Defendants-Appellees SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, in its legislative rule-making capacity and in its judicial capacity; THE HONORABLE MARK E. RECKENWALD, in his official capacity while serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii; THE HONORABLE PAULA A. NAKAYAMA, in her official capacity while serving as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii; THE HONORABLE SABRINA S. MCKENNA, in her official capacity while serving as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii; THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. WILSON, in his official capacity while serving as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii; THE HONORABLE KATHERINE S. LEONARD, in her official capacity while serving as appointed substitute Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii; OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT, in its individual capacity as a non-agency Special Master; DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT, in its individual capacity as a non-agency Special Master; LAWYERS' FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT, in its individual capacity as a non-agency Special Master; BRADLEY R TAMM, in his individual capacity while serving under color of law as both the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court and Fund Administrator of the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of Hawaii Supreme Court; CLIFFORD L. NAKEA, in his individual capacity while serving under color of law as Chairperson of the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court; ROY F. HUGHES, in his individual capacity while serving under color of law as a Hearing Officer of the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court; CHARLENE M. NORRIS, in her individual capacity while serving under color of law as Senior Disciplinary Counsel of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court; and ANDREA R. SINK, in her individual capacity while serving under color of law as an Investigator of the the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court, are represented by: Robyn B. Chun, Esq. AGHI - OFFICE OF THE HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 568-1180 HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Powers Sue Over Personal Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- Belinda Powers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hearst Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09198 (S.D. N.Y., November 8, 2021), seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief and an order awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit for violation of the South Dakota Right of Publicity Law. Hearst Communications is the publisher of Bicycling, Car and Driver, Cosmopolitan, Country Living, Elle, Elle Decor, Esquire, Food Network Magazine, Harper’s Bazaar, HGTV Magazine, House Beautiful, Marie Claire, Men's Health, Popular Mechanics, Prevention, Road & Track, Runner’s World, Town and Country, Veranda, Woman's Day and Women's Health magazines, as well as its flagship publication Good Housekeeping magazine. Plaintiffs allege that Hearst discloses its magazine subscribers' names and identities to data aggregators and appenders, which then provide Hearst with supplemental about each subscriber that they have separately collected. It then packages this information into its Data Brokerage Products that are licensed to its Data Brokerage Clients, all without seeking its customers' prior consent, written or otherwise, for any of these disclosures, and its customers remain unaware that their identities are being rented and exchanged on the open market. Powers is a citizen of South Dakota and subscribed to Hearst's "O, The Oprah Magazine." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: 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 HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sells Data Without Consent, Begin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN BEGIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-09224 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2021) alleges violation of the Ohio's Right of Publicity Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knowingly used the Plaintiff's and the other Class members' names on subscriber mailing lists that it sold and rented on the open market to data miners, data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, list brokers, aggressive marketing companies, and various other public parties willing to pay for them. The lists the Defendant publicly sold and rented identified by name, address, and other personal attributes Plaintiff and every other Ohio subscriber to its magazine publications, including Good Housekeeping and Woman's Day magazines, to which the Plaintiff subscribed. The Defendant's public use of the Plaintiff's persona on the mailing lists that it sold and rented and continues to sell and rent, including in connection with the Good Housekeeping and Woman's Day magazine subscriptions previously sold to Plaintiff, directly violated the Ohio's Right of Publicity Law. The Defendant sells and rents these subscriber mailing lists, on which the Plaintiff's and each Class member's name appears, along with other Personal Reading Information and the title of the publication to which each of them subscribed, without the Plaintiff's or any other Class member's consent. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. publishes a fashion magazine for women. The Company offers information and news related to fashion, beauty, hair, and relationships, as well as offers advertising, print, and digital subscription services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana Swartz, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ct. Tosses Bid to Extend Class Certification Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY O'RIORDAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-05970-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order denying stipulation to extend hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for class certification. Hyundai Motor America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFeDD8 at no extra charge.[CC] HYZON MOTORS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 29 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: AppHarvest, Inc. (APPH) Class Period: 5/17/2021 - 8/10/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 23, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-apph/ Hyzon Motors Inc. (HYZN, HYZNW) f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (DCRB, DCRBU, DCRBW) Class Period: 1/23/2021 - 9/27/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-hyzn/ ON24, Inc. (ONTF) Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the February 2021 Initial Public Offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 3, 2022 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-ontf/ Novavax, Inc. (NVAX) Class Period: 3/2/2021 - 10/19/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 11, 2022 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-nvax/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN] HYZON MOTORS: Vincent Wong Reminds of November 29 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Nov. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon") (NASDAQ: HYZN) between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 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/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=21240&wire=5 Allegations against HYZN include that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its "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. If you suffered a loss in Hyzon you have until November 29, 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] ILLINOIS: Wolfe Seeks to Certify Putative Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERVIN WOLFE, et. al., v. Illinois State's Attorney's Appellate Prosecutor's Office, et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02206-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a putative class. The Plaintiffs contend that they satisfy all prerequisite requirements for the certifying of a class. That the ongoing and continuous use of conflicted staff, resources, work product, etc., by the Defendants is only exacerbated with the passage of time and will be more difficult to mitigate if not addressed through one litigation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FunoOf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Reardon, Esq. 918 Sixth Street Charleston, IL 61920 Telephone: (217) 345-5291 E-mail: toddmreardon@outlook.com INNOVAGE HOLDING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming December 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired InnovAge Holding Corp. ("InnovAge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INNV) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). If you suffered a loss on your InnovAge investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/innovage-holding-corp/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In March 2021, InnovAge completed its IPO, selling approximately 18,995,901 shares of common stock at a price of $21.00 per share. On September 21, 2021, after the market closed, InnovAge revealed that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") had "determined to freeze new enrollments at [the Company's] Sacramento center based on deficiencies detected in [a recent] audit." The Company stated that these "deficiencies relate to failures to provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate services, manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use of specialists, among others." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.90, or nearly 25%, to close at $8.75 per share on September 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that 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) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; (3) that, as a result, there as a significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an audit of the Company's services; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired InnovAge common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than December 13, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL : Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Orantes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Evi Herrera Orantes, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. International School of Los Angeles - Lycee International De Los Angeles and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV41101 (Cal. Super., November 8, 2021), seeks redress for damages sustained as a result of improper meal periods, improper rest periods, unlawful wage deduction, non-reimbursement of business-related expenses, improper wage statements and unfair business practices under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. Defendants hired and employed Orantes as a non-exempt employee. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jake D. Finkel, Esq. Alexander Perez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL 3470 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 787-7411 Facsimile: (323) 916-0521 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, PMB 63688 W. Hollywood, CA 90069 Email: jake@lawfinkel.com alex@lawfinkel.com INVITATION HOMES: Class Cert. Briefing Extension Sought in Rivera ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INVITATION HOMES, INC. a Maryland corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and request that the Court extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Currently, Defendant's opposition brief to Plaintiff's Motion is due November 30, 2021, with Plaintiff's reply brief due December 20, 2021, and a hearing set for January 14, 2022. The Defense counsel principally responsible for drafting the opposition has informed Plaintiff's counsel of an unanticipated scheduling of seven additional hearing dates in an arbitration of an unrelated matter in November that was not foreseeable when the parties originally set the briefing schedule on this Motion. In light of this unexpected scheduling complication and the Thanksgiving Holiday, the Plaintiff's counsel has agreed to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion. The parties have agreed to extend the opposition and reply deadlines by two weeks, as follows: -- New opposition deadline: December 14, 2021 -- New reply deadline: January 18, 2022. -- Hearing date: as soon thereafter as the Court's schedule may accommodate. Invitation Homes is a single-family home leasing company. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qQEYb3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org The Defendant is represented by: Aaron T. Winn, Esq. Justin J. Fields, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744 2200 Facsimile: (619) 744 2201 E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com jfields@duanemorris.com J. SCHLIFF: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Schliff & Sons, Inc. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. J. Schliff & Sons, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09143 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J. Schliff & Sons, Inc. is a jewelry manufacturer in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal JOHN MULVANEY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 2, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONES, et al., v. MULVANEY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02132 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order setting class certification deadlines as follows: -- Expert rebuttal due by: Dec. 10, 2021 -- Notice of class certification Dec. 17, 2021 expert depositions and plaintiffsare permitted to reopen any Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, if necessary, due by: -- Parties to complete any expert Jan. 14, 2022 depositions on class certification and any reopened Rule 30(b)(6) depositions by: -- Joint status report due by: Jan. 21, 2022 -- Motion for class or conditional March 2, 2022 class certification due by: -- Opposition due by: April 11, 2022 -- Reply due by: May 9, 2022 The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal in EDNY Shareholder Litig. Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Defendants have moved to dismiss a shareholder class action pending before the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("Firm") and/or certain of its subsidiaries had entered into resolutions with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which, collectively, resolved those agencies' respective investigations relating to historical trading practices by former employees in the precious metals and U.S. treasuries markets and related conduct from 2008 to 2016. The Firm entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with the DOJ in which it agreed to the filing of a criminal information charging JPMorgan Chase & Co. with two counts of wire fraud and agreed, along with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, to certain terms and obligations as set forth therein. Under the terms of the DPA, the criminal information will be dismissed after three years, provided that JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC fully comply with all of their obligations. Across the three resolutions with the DOJ, CFTC and SEC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC agreed to pay a total monetary amount of approximately $920 million. A portion of the total monetary amount includes victim compensation payments. SDNY Precious Metals Price-Fixing Suit Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019, and the consolidated action is stayed through December 2021. In July 2021, the parties informed the Court that they have entered into a settlement to resolve the action. Canada Price-Fixing Suit In Canada, plaintiffs have moved to commence putative class action proceedings based on similar alleged underlying conduct for precious metals. In addition, several putative class actions were filed in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and Southern District of New York against the Firm, alleging manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures and options, and bringing claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment. The actions in the Northern District of Illinois have been transferred to the Southern District of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in October 2020 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint in April 2021. In May 2021, the parties informed the Court that they have entered into a settlement to resolve the action. EDNY Shareholders' Suit In October 2020, two putative class action complaints were filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Firm and certain individual defendants on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares during the putative class period alleging that certain SEC filings of the Firm were materially false or misleading in that they did not disclose certain information relating to the above-referenced investigations. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in January 2021. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in May 2021, which additionally alleged that certain orders in precious metals futures contracts placed by precious metals futures traders during the putative class period were materially false and misleading. Defendants have moved to dismiss. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. JPMORGAN CHASE: Litigation Over USD LIBOR Underway -------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 continues to defend against litigation over the use of benchmark rates, including U.S. dollar LIBOR. JPMorgan Chase ("Firm") has responded to inquiries from various governmental agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the British Bankers Association's ("BBA") London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies and the European Banking Federation's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR"). The Swiss Competition Commission's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the European Commission issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal is pending. USD LIBOR Litig. In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in various individual and putative class actions related to benchmark rates, including U.S. dollar LIBOR. In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA, the Firm has obtained dismissal of certain actions and resolved certain other actions, and others are in various stages of litigation. "The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted class certification of antitrust claims related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the defendants, including the Firm. In a consolidated putative class action related to the period that U.S. dollar LIBOR was administered by ICE Benchmark Administration, the District Court granted the motion by defendants, including the Firm, to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the plaintiffs have appealed," the Company said. In addition, in August 2020, a group of individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting antitrust claims, alleging that the Firm and other defendants were engaged in an unlawful agreement to set U.S. dollar LIBOR and conspired to monopolize the market for LIBOR-based consumer loans and credit cards. In November 2020 and May 2021, plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction each seeking to enjoin defendants from setting U.S. dollar LIBOR and to prohibit defendants from enforcing any financial instruments that rely on U.S. dollar LIBOR. The court held a hearing to address these motions in September 2021. Other LIBOR Suits The Firm's settlements of putative class actions related to Swiss franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate, and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate remain subject to court approval. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. KANGMEI PHARMA: First Class-Action Suit Rules in Favor of Investors ------------------------------------------------------------------- globaltimes.cn reports that in a historic verdict, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan, South China's Guangdong Province publicly released a ruling on a securities market manipulation case involving 12 individuals including Ma Xingtian, the former chairman and general manager of Kangmei Pharmaceutical, a drug maker that had massively inflated its financials, in what is being called one of the worst accounting scandals in A-share market history. Ma was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined 1.2 million yuan for the crime including manipulating the securities market, illegal disclosure or non-disclosure of important information, and bribery, according to the court, media reports. The former vice president of the company Xu Dongjin and 10 responsible individuals were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment and fined for participating in related securities crimes. The case was the latest signal that Chinese authorities continue to crack down on illegal securities activities in accordance with the law and will resolutely safeguard deepening reform and the healthy development of the capital market, experts said. In a separate trial in the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, Ma and five others, Guangzhou-based GP Certified Public Accountants, the auditor of Kangmei, and others were found jointly and severally liable, the court said in a statement on its website. Investors lost a combined 2.46 billion yuan ($385.26 million), the court said, citing estimates from professional agencies. Shanghai-listed Kangmei was ordered to cover the investors' damages. It was disclosed that the drug maker had inflated revenues, interest income, operating profits and cash in its financials, while the auditor had falsified records in its auditing report of the firm's fiscal reports, both constituting securities fraudulent statements, according to the decision. The Guangzhou court held a public hearing of the securities fraud class-action lawsuit in July after the case, initially accepted by the court at the end of 2020 as 11 investors sued Kangmei over falsified disclosures, was considered as a special representative action in April following an application earlier the same month from the China Securities Investor Services Center to act as a representative on behalf of select retail investors. "The first instance ruling came just slightly over half a year after an unprecedented class-action suit was considered applicable to the case, arguably indicating high efficiency and enabling average investors to reclaim [fraud-induced] losses in a convenient and practical manner," Hao Junbo, chief lawyer at the HAO Law Firm in Beijing, told the Global Times on Friday. In a statement shortly after the decision was announced, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) hailed the verdict of the case, the first special representative action in the country, as a vigorous measure to implement the country's revised securities law and a pioneering, iconic and milestone effort to safeguard investors' legitimate rights and interests. Hefty civil compensation would have "chief wrongdoers" take responsibility, read the CSRC statement, citing the $385.26 million payment to toughen penalties over violators and wrongdoers and strengthen deterrence against them. The securities regulator vowed to improve the class-action litigation mechanism and push for special representative action suits on a regular basis. With class-action ligations minimizing the cost of rights protection, it's expected that smaller investors tend to readily resort to the regime if they suffer losses from fraudulent information disclosure, market manipulation, among other violations, according to Hao. [GN] KEMPER CORP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses FLSA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in a recent case, a class of workers claim that they were expected/required to handle customer calls after the end of their shifts, during their break times, as well as performing additional off-the-clock tasks. The case is entitled Amador et al. v. Kemper Corp., and was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. The employees allege they worked 2-3 hours per week of this uncompensated time, The Complaint alleges, simply, that "Kemper knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate plaintiff and the putative class members for all hours worked and the proper amount of overtime each workweek on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time period." The lead plaintiff was a customer service representative, whose duties involved answering phone calls from insured people as well as brokers, reviewing their policies/billing history and then processing payments and/or resolving the inquiries and customer issues. The employees allege they were compelled to be at their computers and ready to service the customers at the instant their shift commenced; they claim, however, it can take a half-hour to log on to the computer and access the appropriate programs. They assert in the Complaint there is also a lengthy process to sign off at the end of the shift or for lunch/coffee breaks. They charge that this reduces their allotted break times. They also claim they had to forego their lunches or other breaks if call volume was high, or risk facing discipline. The plaintiff also claims the workers were not compensated for fixing allegedly frequent computer issues and equipment problems. The lead plaintiff also alleges the employees were forbidden from hanging up on anyone and had to finish every call, even if a call took them beyond their assigned end time, after which they had to perform the shutting down process, which also took time. As the Complaint asserts, "regardless of the length of the calls, plaintiff and the putative class members were directed to clock out at the end of their shift before finishing any after call notes that needed to be entered, and then perform a lengthy shutdown process." The Takeaway These working time cases can creep up on an employer and sometimes it is difficult to ascertain whether preliminary or postliminary activities are compensable. Employers need to be aware, however, that if they require or compel employees, explicitly or implicitly, to come in early in order to be "ready" when their shift actually begins, that is a recipe for disaster. Have the workers come in but pay them for the time. [GN] KROGER CO: Hartwich Appeals Judgment in Mislabeling Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Reynolds Hartwich filed an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants in the lawsuit entitled REYNOLDS HARTWICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO. and RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, a division of the Kroger Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01253, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 21, 2020, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants' advertisements, marketing representations, and placement of their pain reliever and fever reducer products for children that contain acetaminophen are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Ralphs Grocery is a division of the Kroger Company, and sells a brand of pain reliever and fever reducer under the "Kroger" label, including Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger and Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger, two well-known brand-name Over The Counter medications. According to the complaint, the products contain an active ingredient known as acetaminophen, which can be dangerous, and perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses. The potential risks associated with an acetaminophen overdose terrifies parents and caregivers and causes them to be extra careful when buying medicine for their children. Defendants exploit this fear by misleading consumers. Kroger purposely distributes and packages Infants' Products with distinctive lettering of the word "infants'" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's Products with distinctive lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label. Accordingly, Defendants distribute, market, and sell the Products in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot safely take Children's Products. Furthermore, Defendants market and sell Infants' Products to consumers, such as Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than Children's Products, despite the fact that the Products contain the same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts. On October 1, 2021, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was ordered to take nothing against Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rules 54-2 and 54-3, Defendants are entitled to recover their costs incurred in this action, the Court ruled. The appellate case is captioned as Reynolds Hartwich v. Kroger Co., et al., Case No. 21-56218, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Nov. 4, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Reynolds Hartwich Mediation Questionnaire was due November 12, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 3, 2021; -- Transcript is due on January 3, 2022; -- Appellant Reynolds Hartwich opening brief is due on February 8, 2022; -- Appellees Kroger Co. and Ralphs Grocery Company answering brief is due on March 11, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant REYNOLDS HARTWICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 680 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com Defendants-Appellees KROGER CO., and RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, a division of the Kroger Company, are represented by: Jacob Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. Andrew Row, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 865 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 E-mail: jharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com KSF ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Kuciver filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division against KSF Acquisition Corporation for allegedly lying about clinical studies that show their SlimFast products help people lose weight. In the complaint, Kuciver pointed to SlimFast's slogans: "Clinically Proven - Lose Weight & Keep It Off" and "4hr Hunger Control," which imply that there are verified studies proving these claims, and cited that acknowledged that "weight loss appeals to the many Americans who are considered overweight." Therefore, claiming that their product is "clinically proven" to provide results is misleading, in the plaintiff's view. The complaint argues this is because the defendant did not organize randomized and relevant controlled studies, and that the clinical studies actually conducted are "from products introduced many years ago, which are no longer sold" and the weight loss efficacy of SlimFast products "has not [been] clinically tested." Furthermore, the defendant is alleged to have tested a certain diet, a "high carbohydrate diet with no resemblance to today's products, which are higher in fat, protein, and contain fewer carbohydrates." Also, "over 20% participants' weight was regained at the end of one-year." The plaintiff is suing on the counts of a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breaches of express warranty, and implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff is seeking class certification, a preliminary and permanent injunction, monetary, statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. [GN] KSF ACQUISITION: Kuciver Files Mislabeling Suit Over SlimFast Goods ------------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Kuciver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KSF Acquisition Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2021), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability under various states' consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. KSF Acquisition Corporation manufactures, packages, labels, markets and sells meal replacement foods such as shakes, bars and snacks under the "SlimFast" brand. Kuciver claims that KSF has not clinically tested the weight-loss efficacy of their products despite placing the label "Clinically-proven." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Tel: (516) 268-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com LABORATORY CORP: Class Status Sought in Bouffard-Anderson Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 request for class status in the consolidated Bouffard-Anderson lawsuit remains pending. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. "On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations," the Company said. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories. LABORATORY CORP: Faces Tabacchino Labor Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings has been named as a defendant in the Tabacchino labor class action lawsuit, 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 October 14 2021, a putative class action lawsuit, Tabacchino v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, alleging claims for a failure to properly pay service representatives compensation for all hours worked and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Code, as well notice and recordkeeping claims under the New York Labor Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, equitable and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories. LYFT INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cunningham Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, MARTIN EL KOUSSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; VLADIMIR LEONIDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LYFT, INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER, Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees. MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARTIN EL KOUSSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; VLADIMIR LEONIDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants v. LYFT, INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER, Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-1544, 20-1549, 20-1567, 20-1373, 20-1379 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an Order: (i) reversing the district court's order denying Lyft's motion to compel arbitration; and (ii) affirming the district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief. I. Background The Plaintiffs are Massachusetts-based rideshare drivers who use the Lyft application and platform to find passengers. They claim that Lyft misclassifies them as independent contractors, rather than employees. They seek relief on their own behalf and on behalf of other drivers who worked for Lyft in Massachusetts, although a class has not been certified. Lyft, a ridesharing company, uses a smartphone application to allow customers to hail drivers. In order to work for Lyft as a driver, "an individual must register, download the application, and agree to Lyft's Terms of Service." The Terms of Service spell out how a driver qualifies to use the platform to connect with riders and how fares are set, collected, and apportioned. Lyft considers its drivers "independent contractors" and does not provide them with sick leave benefits. Although drivers may drive as much or as little as they want, and may also reject ride requests, Lyft retains the right to deactivate drivers who violate the Terms of Service or fall below Lyft's "star rating or cancellation threshold." In 2018, Lyft updated its Terms of Service. Drivers could not continue using Lyft to pick up riders until they signaled their acceptance of the updated Terms of Service by clicking the "I accept" button. Those revised terms stated, in relevant part, that "these provisions will, with limited exception, require you to submit claims you have against Lyft to binding and final arbitration on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member. As a driver or driver applicant, you have an opportunity to opt out of arbitration with respect to certain claims." Drivers could also follow a hyperlink directly to the section in the updated Terms of Service containing the arbitration provision. The agreement also includes a "Prohibition of Class Actions and Non-Individualized Relief." Finally, the agreement provides that "disputes regarding the scope, applicability, enforceability, revocability or validity of the Class Action Waiver may be resolved only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by an arbitrator." Plaintiff Melody Cunningham has been driving for Lyft since June 2013. Plaintiff Frunwi Mancho has been driving for Lyft since January 2016. Both clicked the "I accept" button on the updated Terms of Service in 2018 and neither opted out of the arbitration agreement. Both Mancho and Cunningham used the Lyft platform to pick up passengers, some of whom were traveling to or from Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts. Mancho also occasionally drove passengers across state lines, including from Haverhill, Massachusetts to Salem, New Hampshire, and from Logan Airport to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Cunningham did not drive any passengers across state lines. Lyft contends that nation-wide, "approximately 98% of rides provided by drivers using Lyft and similar ridesharing platforms take place entirely within the boundaries of a single state." From Sept. 17, 2016 to April 7, 2020, "fewer than 2% of all rides given by drivers for Lyft in the United States crossed state lines. And during that same period, fewer than 0.5% of rides on the Lyft platform that began in Massachusetts crossed state lines. Instead, those rides were short and localized." In 2018, for example, "on average, drivers using rideshare platforms in Massachusetts gave rides that lasted under 16 minutes and traveled fewer than 5 miles." Interstate travel by drivers who use the competing Uber platform is similarly rare, as "only 2.5% of all trips fulfilled using the Uber Rides marketplace in the United States between 2015 and 2019 started and ended in different states." The Plaintiffs do not quibble with Lyft's numbers. Instead, they train their focus primarily on a different set of numbers, based on trips to and from Logan Airport. They assert that Lyft and Uber "represent about 40% of the traffic at Logan Airport during peak times" and "provide literally millions of rides to and from Logan airport every year." The Plaintiffs add that "a whopping 62% of Massachusetts Lyft riders have used Lyft to get to the airport." II. Discussion The First Circuit first addresses the issue of compulsory arbitration. The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies unless the Plaintiffs fit within an exemption for "a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Central to the appeal is section 1 of the FAA. Section 1 "exempts employment contracts of certain categories of workers from the Act's coverage." In Circuit City, the Court rejected the contention that the residual phrase covered all employees arguably involved in commerce. Instead, it read the residual phrase as covering only "transportation" workers. No party to the case contends that the contracts at issue are not "contracts of employment of transportation workers." Pointing to the fact that the Supreme Court in Circuit City referred to the movement of goods, Lyft does contend that because Lyft drivers generally transport persons, not goods, the residual phrase does not encompass them. As it turns out, the First Circuit need not address this contention. Rather, it turns its attention to Lyft's principal contention that these transportation workers are not among a class of transportation workers who are "engaged in interstate commerce" within the meaning of section 1. The Plaintiffs do not challenge the premise that they must be among such a class of transportation workers in order to claim the benefit of the exemption. Instead, they claim that members of the class of transportation workers to which they belong are engaged in interstate commerce for two reasons: (1) Because they take passengers to and from Logan Airport for trips to and from other states and countries; and (2) Because some Lyft drivers sometimes take fares across state lines. The First Circuit holds concludes that Lyft drivers are not among a class of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of section 1 as narrowly construed. They are among a class of workers engaged primarily in local intrastate transportation, some of whom infrequently find themselves crossing state lines, and are thus fundamentally unlike seamen and railroad employees when it comes to their engagement in interstate commerce. Because the First Circuit finds that the FAA applies, it need not examine the role of the Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act. Thinking that the case would remain in the district court rather than be rerouted to arbitration, the district court entertained and denied the Plaintiffs' requests for a preliminary injunction. Now that it has determined that the FAA applies, the First Circuit finds that it is clear that the dispute between these parties will be for the arbitrator to decide. In normal course, that would be the end of it, and the First Circuit would not need to consider the merits of the Plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their injunctive requests. Assuming (incorrectly) that arbitration was not required, the district court nevertheless denied the Plaintiffs' requested injunction, for failure to establish any immediate threat of irreparable injury. Reviewing that denial for legal error or abuse of discretion, the First Circuit has little to add to that cogent analysis. The Plaintiffs offer no actual evidence of any harm to themselves that is of a type considered irreparable by an award of damages. They devote their argument instead to a claim that the public interest calls for an injunction so as to provide higher payments to other Lyft drivers, whose behavior in the absence of such payments may harm the public. While the public interest is certainly a factor to be considered in connection with a motion for injunctive relief, the First Circuit can hardly say that the denial of such a motion in the absence of a showing of irreparable harm is either legal error or an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not even moved to certify a class, and they can point to no Massachusetts statute that gives them standing to sue on behalf of other persons not within a certified class. Finally, the Plaintiffs also contend that the district court ought to have accorded less weight to the irreparable harm prong, under the theory that harm should be measured on "a sliding scale, working in conjunction with a moving party's likelihood of success on the merits." However, the Plaintiffs direct the First Circuit to no authority suggesting that this would permit an injunction on a showing of no irreparable harm at all. Further, in arguing that a court could properly issue a preliminary injunction in this rare context, the Plaintiffs themselves point out that "preventing irreparable harm is the animating purpose of interim relief provided pending arbitration." The Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways, arguing in one context for a reduced emphasis on irreparable harm while acknowledging that this prong is the "animating purpose" of the very remedy they seek. III. Order For the forgoing reasons, the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and affirmed the decisions denying the Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4n445etc from Leagle.com. Elaine J. Goldenberg, with whom Jeffrey Y. Wu -- Jeffrey.Wu@mto.com -- Benjamin G. Barokh -- Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com -- Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler, Rohit K. Singla, Justin P. Raphael -- Justin.Raphael@mto.com -- Adele M. El-Khouri -- Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, James D. Smeallie -- jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- David J. Santeusanio -- david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com -- Andrew E. Silvia -- Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com -- Michael T. Maroney -- michael.maroney@hklaw.com -- and Holland & Knight LLP were on brief for the Appellants. Ben Robbins and Martin J. Newhouse, on brief for New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae. Steven P. Lehotsky , U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Archis A. Parasharami , and Mayer Brown LLP, on brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus curiae. Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- with whom Anastasia Doherty -- adoherty@llrlaw.com -- Adelaide H. Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Anne R. Kramer -- akramer@llrlaw.com -- and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., were on brief for the Appellees. Hugh Baran, on brief for National Employment Law Project, Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, Justice at Work, and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, amici curiae. MCKESSON CORP: Talks Continue in Suits over Opioids Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ McKesson Corporation 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 parties continue to engage in negotiations to resolve class action lawsuits brought on behalf of children with neonatal abstinence syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids in utero. The Company is named in approximately 350 state court cases pending in 38 states plus Puerto Rico, along with 4 cases in Canada. These include actions filed by 26 state attorneys general, and some by or on behalf of individuals, including wrongful death lawsuits, and putative class action lawsuits brought on behalf of children with neonatal abstinence syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids in utero. Trial dates have been set in several of these state court cases. For example, trial in the case brought by the Washington attorney general is scheduled for November 15, 2021; trial in the case brought by the Rhode Island attorney general is scheduled for January 17, 2022; and the case brought by Dallas County, Texas, is scheduled to be trial-ready by February 7, 2022. Trial in the case brought by the Alabama attorney general was postponed until April 18, 2022, and the parties continue to engage in settlement negotiations. McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care management tools. MD 2437: Home Depot's Bid for Appeal Certification Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., v. LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC, Civil Action MDL No. 13-2437, Case No. 18-cv-5305 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Home Depot's Motion for Certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Background Home Depot's Motion for Certification requests the Court certifies for appeal its Aug. 20, 2021 Order -- which granted Defendant Lafarge's Daubert motion to exclude an economic expert retained by Home Depot -- so Home Depot may petition the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal. The Court's Memorandum & Order fully sets forth the factual background and the reasons upon which it relied to justify its exclusion of Dr. Robert Kneuper as Home Depot's expert economist. The Court excluded Home Depot's for several reasons, two of which were: (i) because Dr. Kneuper improperly based his expert opinions on conclusions that were contrary to findings and rulings the Court had made earlier in the multidistrict litigation; and (ii) because he relied on facts that were not established in the prior proceedings, and in some instances on facts that were contrary to other established facts. Although Dr. Kneuper's ultimate conclusions superficially appeared to be the usual and normal opinions of an economist appearing for a plaintiff in an antitrust case, the reasons he gave for these conclusions took him out of the realm of economics, and as the Court noted in its Memorandum Opinion, Dr. Kneuper turned himself into a "attorney-juror-judge." Home Depot had been a class member participating in a large settlement which was finalized before Home Depot filed its complaint in the Northern District of Georgia on June 11, 2018. Home Depot opted out of the class, but only did so as to Lafarge only; it remained apart of the class as to all the remaining Defendants. Then, Home Depot filed the present action against Lafarge, and it was transferred to the undersigned by the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on Dec. 10, 2018. Once the case was transferred to the Court, Home Depot did very little, and nothing of significance, to initiate any discovery of its own although there was no bar to it doing so. Discussion The 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) sets out a three-part test for certification for interlocutory appeal: (1) whether the motion to be appealed involves a controlling question of law; (2) whether there is a substantial ground for the difference of opinion with respect to resolution of the issue to be appealed; and (3) whether an immediate appeal from the district court's decision could materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. A. The Court's Order Decided a Controlling Question of Law Judge Baylson notes that the principal controlling question of law is whether a tag-along party's expert may ignore prior rulings that were issued by the MDL transferee judge before the tag-along party joined said MDL? The question is not raised by normal cases where all parties are present from the very start of the case, and the question warrants Third Circuit review. B. There is Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion Judge Baylson acknowledges that although some language in TMI supports Home Depot's position, its procedural history is considerably different from the present action. TMI was not a class action, and its decision was heavily predicated on the fact that the different group of plaintiffs never had the opportunity to be heard on the earlier summary judgment. Home Depot did have this opportunity to be heard as part of a class but chose instead to opt-out as to Lafarge and file its own action. Home Depot's delayed filing triggers this unique procedural situation that the undersigned believes the Third Circuit should review: Whether Home Depot's decisions to opt-out of the class settlement as to Lafarge and to delay filing its own lawsuit until 2018 shield it from "issue preclusion" and "law of the case" applicability. Regardless of the differences between TMI and the present action, Judge Baylson believes the TMI decision demonstrates a difference of opinion regarding "issue preclusion" and "law of the case" applicability in an MDL. C. An Immediate Appeal of this Court's Order Will Materially Advance Termination of this Litigation Judge Baylson believes that the Third Circuit undertaking an interlocutory review of the Court's Order will, in the language of 1292(b), "materially advance the termination of the litigation" for three reasons. First, it will directly impact the Court's ruling on Lafarge's pending motion for summary judgment. Second, it will directly impact the trial judge's management of the case after transfer. Once the case is returned to the Northern District of Georgia, the Court's application of "issue preclusion" and "law of the case" principles may, unless reversed by the Third Circuit if Home Depot's appeal is successful, impact the expert opinions and legal issues to be presented at trial. And third, Third Circuit review of this Court's Order will also undoubtedly affect settlement discussions. Although Judge Baylson understands granting the Appeal will result in some delay in pretrial proceedings, he will advance the ultimate termination of the case. He says, the discovery in the case is entirely concluded. The Court's Memorandum Opinion details extensive pretrial proceedings, many of which were held before Home Depot filed its case in the Northern District of Georgia. Jugde Baylson has no knowledge of why Home Depot delayed its filing and posits that perhaps its delay was strategic. Regardless, he holds that Third Circuit decision will expedite the case's termination by streamlining the Court's analysis of Lafarge's pending summary judgment motion, by narrowing evidentiary issues and the number of experts who may testify at trial, and by impacting the parties' settlement discussions. D. Additional Reasons to Allow this Appeal First, Judge Baylson finds that Home Depot's strategy presents serious implications. If the Third Circuit affirms the Court's Order, judges and parties will know MDL litigants can be bound by rulings issued prior to their entry into the MDL. Second, he says the growth of multidistrict ligation is a practical factor warranting Third Circuit appellate review of the Court's Order. Third, having served on the JPML by appointment by the Chief Justice, the rulings a single transferee judge makes during MDL consolidation can have tremendous impact on hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of separate cases. Lastly, with fewer MDLs stayed pending interlocutory appeal, the judicial economy MDLs were designed to maximize can be restored. E. Recent Third Circuit Decisions in MDL Cases Applying "Law of the Case" Principles Although not cited by the parties, Judge Baylson notes for the benefit of the Third Circuit its prior decision In re Asbestos Products Liability Litig. (No. VI), 921 F.3d 98, 106-107 (3d Cir. 2019). This decision, he says, analyzed a waiver of personal jurisdiction argument. The Third Circuit reversed on abuse of discretion grounds a decision by District Judge Robreno issued in a very complicated asbestos litigation (In re Asbestos Prod. v. Coffin Turbo Pump, et al., 2:02-md-00875) in which he was the MDL transferee judge. Judge Baylson brings In re Asbestos to the attention of the Third Circuit, not because it is substantively analogous to the issues presented, but because it shows that the Third Circuit, in other situations, weighed in on decisions by an MDL transferee judge in the midst of ongoing MDL proceedings. In addition, Judge Baylson brings In re Pharm. Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432, 439-42 (3d Cir. 2009) to the attention of the Third Circuit. In the case, Judge Robreno of the Court entered an order concerning arbitrability. Subsequently, the case was transferred for pretrial proceedings under U.S.C. Section 1407 to Judge Fullam, a former Judge of the Court, who reversed Judge Robreno's Order. On Appeal, without noting whether there was appellate jurisdiction, the Court ruled that Judge Fullam's Order must be reversed because Judge Robreno's decision was "the law of the case." Benefit provides another example of appellate intervention, additional guidance is still needed from the Third Circuit on the specific issues presented by the appeal. Conclusion As stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, there is little if any precedent for its decision to rely on its prior rulings in the MDL to strike Dr. Kneuper's expert opinions. Although Judge Baylson disagrees with Home Depot's argument that the Court's Order was incorrect, Home Depot does correctly recognize the novelty of this Court's Order, particularly within the context of MDL. Home Depot is also correct that the issues decided by the Court were controlling issues of law, that substantial ground for difference of opinion on those issues exists, and that an appellate decision will likely advance the termination of this litigation. For the foregoing reasons, Home Depot's Motion is granted. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r7f2ej3 from Leagle.com. MDL 2913: Jefferson Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Jefferson County Schools, Jefferson County, State of Alabama, Plaintiff, v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI), James Monsees, Nicholas Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani, Adam Bowen, Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-08703 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, "In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products Liability Litigation" and assigned to Judge William H. Orrick. The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc. has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases. Jefferson County Schools is a unified school district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Alabama. It accuses JUUL of causing more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Defendants are sued for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 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. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation, product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs. Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] Jefferson County Schools is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Tel: (334) 269-2343 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com MEDICAL FINANCIAL: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISHUNA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEDICAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02443-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class: "All individuals in the United States to whom, during the Class Period, the Defendant sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt, where the letter stated "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request this office within 30 days after receiving this notice this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor"." Medical Financial is part of the Activities Related to Credit Intermediation Industry. A copy of the Parties's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30GGHoR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Manuel H. Newburger, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 7320 N. MoPac Expy., Suite 400 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 649-4022 Facsimile: (512) 279-0310 E-mail: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com - and - Louis Jay Miller, Esq. MENDELSON LAW FIRM Post Office Box 17235 Memphis, TN 38187 Telephone: (901) 763-2500 Facsimile: (901) 763-2525 E-mail: jmiller@mendelsonfirm.com META PLATFORMS: Ohio Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- LawStreet reports that the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System sued Meta Platforms Inc., formerly known as Facebook Inc., last Friday asserting that false statements made by the social media company caused it to lose more than $100 billion in shareholder value and suffer substantial reputational harm. The lawsuit targets the company and its senior executives for misleading investors about three separate categories of Meta's business until an employee-turned-whistleblower's Congressional testimony brought the truth to light. The Northern District of California filing asserts that Meta, which generated most of its $86 billion in revenue in 2020 by selling advertisement placements to marketers, broke the public's trust in order to make money. The company repeatedly misrepresented "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," the complaint says. According to the filing, Meta investors learned the truth when whistleblower Frances Haugen produced internal documents showing that the defendants were aware that "Facebook's platforms facilitate dissent, illegal activity, and violent extremism, and cause significant harm to users, especially children," but refused to remediate the issues. The complaint seeks to certify a class of people and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Facebook Class A common stock between Apr. 29, 2021 and Oct. 21, 2021, inclusive. It states two claims for relief against the company under Section 10(b) and against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is not the first of its kind. In late October, a disgruntled shareholder took aim at Meta on the basis of similar accusations. That lawsuit also contended that the company lied about the quantity of its monthly active users in certain markets and by correlation, its growth. The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System is represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and additional counsel the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio. [GN] METALS CO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against TMC the metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp. for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 4, 2021, and October 5, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 27, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. TMC overpaid for the acquisition of Tonga Offshore Mining Limited ("TOML"), which was owned by insiders. The Company created a false scale of operations by artificially inflating exploration expenditures associated with Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI"). The Company's claim of 100% interest in NORI was dubious based on prior disclosures to the International Seabed Authority ("ISA" or the "Authority") that NORI was owned by two Nauruan foundations. The Company failed to fully commit its private investment in public equity ("PIPE") financing, meaning it would not have the cash available for large scale production efforts. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about TMC, investors suffered damages. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com URL: http://www.schallfirm.com Contact Information: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] MINDBODY INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08331-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered a stipulated scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification Discovery by December 15, 2021 Defendants (including fact depositions and depositions of any experts whose opinions are relied upon in support of Plaintiffs' class certification motion -- Defendants' Class Certification December 22, 2021 Opposition; Defendants' Expert Reports; Any Daubert Challenge to Plaintiffs' Experts: -- Completion of Class Certification January 12, 2022 Discovery by Plaintiffs (including depositions of any experts whose opinions are relied upon by Defendants in opposing Plaintiffs' class certification motion): -- Plaintiffs' Class Certification February 3, 2022 Reply; Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Challenge; Cross Daubert Challenge to Defendants' Experts: -- Defendants' Reply in Support of March 10, 2022 its Daubert Challenge of Plaintiffs' Experts; Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert Challenge: -- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Its March 24, 2022 Cross Daubert Challenge to Defendants' Experts: -- Completion Fact Discovery January 14, 20221 (including fact depositions): Mindbody is a San Luis Obispo, California-based software-as-a-service company that provides cloud-based online scheduling and other business management software for the wellness services industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DoJcdz at no extra charge.[CC] MISSOURI GAMING: Bid for Class Certification of ERISA Claim OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA R. LIPARI-WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE MISSOURI GAMING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06067-SRB (W.D. Mo..), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Claim; 2. certifying the following Class and Sub-class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), and (b) (3): (1) Nationwide ERISA Class -- Failure to Provide Notice of a Reasonable Alternative Standard: "All participants in Defendant's group health plan for plan years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 who had a tobacco surcharge deducted from their wages;" and (2) Nationwide ERISA Sub-Class—Failure to Provide a Reasonable Alternative Standard or Notice of the Same: "All participants in Defendant's group health plan for plan years 2019 and 2020 who had a tobacco surcharge deducted from their wages. The parties shall meet and confer to agree on the proposed notice to potential class members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The parties shall also meet and confer to agree upon a new proposed amended scheduling order in light of this Order. The notice and proposed amended scheduling order shall be filed within 14 days of the filing of this Order. The Court will contact the parties to schedule a hearing regarding the notice and scheduling changes, the Court says. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant, participated in the Plan, and paid the tobacco surcharge. On March 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendant. Count VII of the Third Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint alleges that the tobacco surcharge violates ERISA and that Defendant thus breached its fiduciary duty to participants. The Missouri Gaming Company was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business includes operating sports, amusement, and recreation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FwEXx4 at no extra charge.[CC] MOUNTAIN VIEW PIZZA: Hurt Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- LaRae Marie Hurt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mountain View Pizza Company, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00119 (D. Mont., November 9, 2021), seeks overtime compensation, all required remuneration, non-discretionary bonuses, final injunctive and/or declaratory relief, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mountain View Pizza owns and operates multiple Papa John's franchises throughout Montana where Hurt worked as a delivery driver. Mountain View took a tip credit from Hurt when she was making deliveries and made her use her own car for deliveries. She claims that the delivery fee she gets is not enough to cover her vehicular expenses. She also claims that she occasionally worked hours over 40 in a week, and in these weeks she did not receive a sufficient overtime premium because of the unreimbursed mileage expenses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric E. Holm, Esq. HOLM LAW FIRM, PLLC 12 North 35th Street Billings, MT 59101 Phone: (406) 252-2900 Fax: (406) 794-0802 Email: eric@holm-law.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Ct. Resets Case Management Dates in Davis Sui ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis, et al., v. Multnomah County, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02041 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the parties' joint request to reset case management deadlines as follows: -- Discovery is to be completed by: March 15, 2022 -- Class certification motion to be June 13, 2022 filed by: -- Response is due by: June 28, 2022 -- Reply is due by: Aug. 29, 2022 The nature of suit states civil rights -- other civil rights. Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon.[CC] NANO-X IMAGING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming December 6, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities between June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Nano-X investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/nano-x-imaging-ltd/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On August 19, 2021, Nano-X revealed that it had "received a request for additional information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the 'FDA') concerning the Company's last 510(k) submission of its multi-source device, Nanox.ARC." The 510(k) submission was placed on hold pending the Company's response. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.25 per share, or 9.5%, to close at $21.43 per share on August 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in the action alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Nano-X's 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (2) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (3) as a result, Nano-X had overstated the Nanox. ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 6, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and CODY MCCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518 (S.D.W.Va.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order further extending the class certification briefing schedule for a brief period, such that the following schedule will apply: -- Plaintiff's motion for class December 10, 2021 certification due: -- Nationwide's opposition to January 10, 2022 class certification due -- Plaintiff's reply in support January 24, 2022 of class certification due Nationwide Property operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nwcotN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent K. Kesner, Esq. Ernest G. Hentschel, II, Esq. KESNER & KESNER, PLLC P. O. Box 2587 Charleston, WV 25329 E-mail: bkesner@kesnerlaw.com ehentschel@kesnerlaw.com - and - Robert V. Berthold, Jr., Esq. Robert V. Berthold, III, Esq. Berthold Law Firm, PLLC P.O. Box 3508 Charleston, WV 25335 E-mail: rvb@bertholdlaw.com rvb3@bertholdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Marc E. Williams, Esq. J.L. Brydie, Esq. Shaina D. Massie, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 949 Third Avenue, Suite 200 Huntington, West Virginia 25701 E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com jl.brydie@nelsonmullins.com shaina.massie@nelsonmullins.com - and - Michael H. Carpenter, Esq. Jennifer A. L. Battle, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS AND LELAND LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 North High Street Columbus, OH 43215 E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com battle@carpenterlipps.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Suit Mulled v. NSW Police Over Strip-Searches -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Gramenz, writing for Canberra Times, reports that NSW Police could face a large compensation bill if a class action lawsuit alleging unlawful searches took place at a popular music festival is successful. Hundreds of people who attended Splendour In The Grass from 2016 to 2019 in northern NSW may have been unlawfully searched, according to law firm Slater & Gordon and the Redfern Legal Centre. "This groundbreaking class action will seek redress for the many people subjected to invasive and traumatic searches," Redfern Legal Centre principal solicitor Alexis Goodstone said on Nov. 16. The legal centre and Slater & Gordon claim they have evidence "systemic and unlawful police searches" were carried out. NSW Police Minister David Elliott said he would wait to see what the lawsuit says before becoming concerned about any potential payouts. An investigation by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission last year reported NSW Police performed unlawful strip searches at the 2018 Splendour, including on a 16-year-old girl. The LECC also found police were not properly trained to uphold search laws and failed to ensure privacy and dignity for people being searched. The commission recommended record keeping be enhanced to improve accountability. Slater & Gordon senior associate Ebony Birchall said an unlawful police search is an assault and therefore gives rise to compensation claims. "We believe that hundreds of people who were searched by police at Splendour may have been subject to unlawful searches and therefore may be entitled to compensation," Dr Birchall said. Some festival-goers were allegedly directed to remove clothing, strip naked and allow officers to visually inspect their body cavities, including attendees who were under 18. Festival co-founder Jessica Ducrou said organisers "had no insight into NSW Police search processes" at the event. "We support our patrons who wish to come forward to call out and help stop unlawful conduct," she said in a statement. Slater & Gordon cited the case of a woman who alleges she was searched twice in one day at the festival in 2017. "The whole experience was extremely traumatising, especially due to the way the police presumed I was guilty and the way I was both spoken to and physically handled," said the woman, who was 23 when the search occurred. [GN] NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Grants Bid for Judgment in French Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM J. FRENCH, SANDRA M. FRENCH, Plaintiffs v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NORTHWESTERN LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE CO, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1090-bhl (E.D. Wis.), Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. I. Background If the phrase "tax-qualified, guaranteed renewable, comprehensive, long-term care insurance policy" were any more impenetrable, it might be mistaken for an excerpt from Finnegan's Wake. But this Joycean jumble of surplus adjectives means a great deal to the millions of -- predominantly elderly -- Americans who rely on such policies for medical support. Take, for example, Plaintiffs William and Sandra French. In 2007, they purchased long-term care insurance policies from the Defendants collectively NML). Although neither Plaintiff required daily assistance at that point, they anticipated long, happy lives, and wanted to lock in reasonable premiums early. They reveled in the belief that they had done so, until May 2018 when, after 11 years of punctual payments, NML increased their annual rates by over $4,000. In August 2007, while living in Texas, the Plaintiffs purchased tax-qualified, guaranteed renewable, comprehensive, long-term care insurance policies (QLTCI) from Defendant Northwestern Long-Term Care Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. Before selling a new QLTCI policy in Texas, an insurer must submit a Rate Filing to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). The TDI reviews the submission, which includes an Actuarial Memorandum, Actuarial Certification, the policy form, and other relevant materials, to determine if the proposed policy and its design comply with governing law. The QLTCI policies that Plaintiffs purchased were issued on policy form "RS-LTC.(1101)." NML filed that form and its associated premium rate schedules, and the TDI initially approved them for sale on March 28, 2002. The first page of the policy stated: "This long-term care policy is guaranteed renewable for life upon timely payments of premiums for the life of the Insured and can neither be cancelled nor have its terms, other than premiums, changed by the Company. Premiums may be changed by class." The premium rates as approved by the TDI differentiated among policyholders based on age, benefit period, and other appropriate factors. In 2016, NML filed a request with the TDI for a premium rate increase on the RS-LTC. (1101) policy series. The 2016 Rate Increase was approved by the TDI on Feb. 9, 2018. NML sought a substantial average rate increase of 86%, but the TDI, following its review of NML's submissions, approved only a 62% average rate increase. The TDI requested—and NML provided—an implementation plan and final rate schedules for the 2016 Rate Increase, which included the applicable percentage increases by benefit period and age. On May 2, 2018, NML advised the Plaintiffs that, effective Aug. 8, 2018, each Plaintiff's Annual Premium of $6,679.30 would increase by $4,285.70. This increase was in accordance with the 2016 Rate Increase approved by the TDI and as per the implementation plan NML provided to the TDI. According to the Plaintiffs, this substantial rate increase represented the final step in a decades-long scheme whereby NML collected premiums from forethoughtful customers, with no intention of fulfilling its corresponding obligations. They contend that the rate increase was designed to drive policyholders off their plans and relieve NML of its duty to provide the benefits those policyholders had paid for over the years. Consequently, the Frenches hired counsel and filed the class action lawsuit. NML answered, denying the Plaintiffs' claims and raising the Filed Rate Doctrine as an affirmative defense. It then moved for judgment on the pleadings based on this defense. After firing their lawyers, the Plaintiffs responded to NML's motion pro se, and the motion is now fully briefed. II. Analysis The Plaintiffs bring four claims. The first three are common law claims for: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud. The Plaintiffs' fourth claim is for alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive, Unfair, and Prohibited Practice in the Business of Insurance Act. The Plaintiffs seek to certify national classes on the first three claims and a Texas subclass on the fourth. NML argues the Texas Filed Rate Doctrine precludes all four claims. A. Texas Law Governs the Court's Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims NML argues that Texas law applies to all of the Plaintiffs' claims because Texas has the most significant relationship to the Plaintiffs' insurance policies. Judge Ludwig agrees. The QLTCI policies were issued and delivered in Texas, where the Plaintiffs resided at the time. The Plaintiffs received them on a Texas policy form that had been filed with and approved by TDI. And the increased premium rates that prompted this suit only existed because of TDI assent. Therefore, under Wisconsin choice-of-law principles, Judge Ludwig must apply Texas law. B. Under Texas Law, Rates that Are Filed and Approved by a State Agency May Not Be Challenged in Court NML argues that the Filed Rate Doctrine, as adopted under Texas law, bars all four of the Plaintiffs' claims. The doctrine serves two purposes. First, it "prevents regulated companies from engaging in price discrimination between customers ('nondiscrimination')." Second, it "preserves the exclusive role of regulatory agencies in approving rates" and keeps "courts, which are far less competent to perform this function, out of the rate-making process ('nonjusticiability')." The first principle deputizes the regulator to protect the consumer from the regulated company; the second protects the regulator from the courts. Courts have recognized that the Filed Rate Doctrine applies to bar challenges to insurance rates. First Judge Ludwig holds that the Plaintiffs' claims fall directly within the ambit of the Filed Rate Doctrine. Second, he holds that the Plaintiffs' arguments against application of the Filed Rate Doctrine are unavailing. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs cannot evade the Filed Rate Doctrine by alleging one or more misrepresentations; (iii) the IRS Code did not forbid the TDI from approving NML's rate increase; (iii) the Plaintiffs' attempt to trump the Filed Rate Doctrine with the Sierra-Mobile doctrine is unavailing; and (iv) even if the Plaintiffs are not directly challenging NML's premium rates, the filed rate doctrine bars their claims. III. Conclusion Jduge Ludwig concludes that lawyers and judges, perhaps more so than any other classes of professionals, possess the unique ability to persuade themselves of their expertise on matters in which they have scarcely meddled. The Filed Rate Doctrine is a self-imposed check on a court's instinct to usurp the role of the regulator. The case presents the perfect opportunity for such judicial modesty. Judge Ludwig will not accept the Plaintiffs' invitation to second-guess the TDI. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' attempt to clothe their filed rate challenges in other garb is ineffective. Having reviewed the record and considered the law, Judge Ludwig finds that the Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, he granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), and dismissed the case. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/z5avxsws from Leagle.com. NOVAVAX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until January 11, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Novavax, Inc. (NasdaqGS: NVAX), if they purchased the Company's securities between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Novavax and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-nvax/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by January 11, 2022. About the Lawsuit Novavax and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On August 5, 2021, the Company disclosed another delay in filing the Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for its COVID-19 vaccine product candidate, NVX-CoV2373, from the third quarter of 2021 to the fourth quarter of 2021. On this news, Novavax's stock price fell $46.31 per share, or 19.61%, to close at $189.89 per share on August 6, 2021. Then, on October 19, 2021, Politico reported that anonymous sources stated that manufacturing issues could delay regulatory authorizations and approvals for NVX-CoV2373 until the end of 2022. On this news, Novavax's shares plummeted $23.69 per share, or 14.76%, to close at $136.86 per share on October 20, 2021. The case is Sinnathurai v. Novavax, et al., 21-cv-02910. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contacts: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 [GN] NOVAVAX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Novavax, Inc. ("Novavax" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NVAX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-02910, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Novavax securities between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Novavax securities during the Class Period, you have until January 11, 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. Novavax is a biotechnology company that focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases and address health needs. The Company's product candidates include, among others, NVX-CoV2373, which is in development as a vaccine for COVID-19. Prior to the start of the Class Period, Novavax announced that it planned to complete Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") submissions for NVX-CoV2373 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the second quarter of 2021. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or 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 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. On May 10, 2021, The Washington Post reported that Novavax's EUA "filing was delayed by manufacturing regulatory issues, until June at the earliest, according to four people who had recently been briefed on the [C]ompany's plans." Later that day, during after-market hours, on a call that Novavax hosted with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's first quarter 2021 financial and operational results (the "1Q21 Investor Call"), Novavax confirmed that it was unlikely to seek an EUA for NVX-CoV2373 in the U.S. until July 2021 at the earliest-i.e., the third quarter of 2021. Following publication of The Washington Post article, Novavax's stock price fell $15.50 per share, or 8.81%, to close at $160.50 per share on May 10, 2021. Moreover, following the Company's 1Q21 Investor Call, Novavax's stock price continued to fall an additional $22.32 per share, or 13.91%, to close at $138.18 per share on May 11, 2021. Then, on August 5, 2021, Novavax issued a press release reporting its financial results and operational highlights for the second quarter of 2021. Among other news, Novavax reported that it expected to file for NVX-CoV2373's EUA in the fourth quarter of 2021, rather than the third quarter of 2021. On this news, Novavax's stock price fell $46.31 per share, or 19.61%, to close at $189.89 per share on August 6, 2021. Finally, on October 19, 2021, Politico published an article entitled "'They rushed the process': Vaccine maker's woes hamper global inoculation campaign". The Politico article reported, in relevant part, that Novavax "faces significant hurdles in proving it can manufacture a shot that meets regulators' quality standards" with respect to NVX-CoV2373. The Politico article cited anonymous sources as stating that Novavax's "issues are more concerning than previously understood" and that the Company could take until the end of 2022 to resolve its manufacturing issues and win regulatory authorizations and approvals. On this news, Novavax's stock price fell $23.69 per share, or 14.76%, to close at $136.86 per share on October 20, 2021. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] NUVE MIGUEL CORP: Court Tosses Bid for FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITO HERNANDOZ SANTOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. NUVE MIGUEL CORP. d/b/a KEY FOODS, LUIS H. URGILES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01335-JPO-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for an order: (1) conditionally certifying the FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) approving Plaintiff's proposed form and manner of notice to potential opt-in members to the collective action; and (3) requiring the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with a list containing contact information of all individuals employed by Defendants for the last six years. The Plaintiff filed this action against a supermarket and its owner, claiming violations of wage and hours laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendant Luis H. Urgiles owns and operates Defendant Nuve Miguel Corp., which does business as the supermarket Key Foods, located at 755 Amsterdam Avenue in New York City. From June 2006 until about May 2020, Santos was employed at Key Foods as a stock person in the produce department. According to Santos, Defendants shaved time off of Santo's hours worked by having him work through part or all of lunch and for a short time after clocking out. As a result, Santos claims he was not paid for all time he worked and did not receive overtime pay as he should have for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Santos further claims that all other non-managerial employees of Defendants were subject to the same treatment. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dx9sCp at no extra charge.[CC] NYC FROYO PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diallo Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAIRIOU DIALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYC FROYO PARTNERS LLC d/b/a 16 HANDLES; and BRUCE COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09222 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, accurate wage statements, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Diallo was employed by the Defendants as staff. NYC FROYO PARTNERS LLC d/b/a 16 HANDLES is engaged as a fast food establishment business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com -and- Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com ON POINT SYSTEM: Rasberry Sues to Recover Final Paycheck -------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Rasberry, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. On Point System & Management Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06195 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2021), seeks to recover applicable minimum wage and spread of hours pay for working shifts of over 10 hours, and redress for failure to properly pay wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor laws. On Point provides janitorial services, laundry services, security watch services to facilities throughout New York where Rasberry was employed as a porter/cleaner from approximately May 2021 through the end of July 2021. Rasberry alleges that On Point failed to pay her final paycheck and failed to compensated her on a bi-weekly basis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 ON24 INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against ON24, Inc. ("ON24") (NYSE: ONTF). The action charges ON24 with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's February 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). As a result of ON24's materially misleading statements made in connection with the company's registration statement and prospectus, investors have suffered significant losses. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 3, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: February 3, 2021 through November 3, 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 ON24'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT ON24 markets products and services based upon webcasting, virtual event and environment technology via an AI powered platform that enables businesses to scale engagement, conversions, and pipeline to drive revenue growth. On February 3, 2021, ON24 conducted its IPO at $50 a share, selling 8.6 million shares of stock and generating nearly $430 million in new capital. On August 11, 2021, for the quarter ended June 30, 2021, ON24 reported a net loss of $2.5 million, compared to a net income of $5.3 million for the same period in the prior year. Following this news, ON24's stock price fell $10.00 per share, or 30.95%, and closed at $22.31 on August 11, 2021. Since then, ON24's stock has continued to plummet, and as of November 3, 2021, the company's stock has declined over 60% from the IPO price. WHAT CAN I DO? ON24 investors may, no later than January 3, 2022, 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 ON24 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 [GN] PACIFIC FERTILITY: Chart's Bids for New Trial & for Judgment Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: No. 3:18-cv-01586 (A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., and I.J.), Case No. 18-cv-01586-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Chart Industries' motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law. I. Introduction Plaintiffs A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., and I.J. filed a putative class action alleging products liability and failure to recall claims against Chart Industries. Following the Court's denial of class certification, the named Plaintiffs proceeded to trial on their individual claims. After the jury returned a verdict in their favor on all claims and awarded damages of more than $30 million, Chart filed the now pending motions for a new trial and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Having considered the briefs and having had the benefit of argument on Nov. 4, 2021, the Court denies the motions. The jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and none of the reasons advanced in favor of Chart's motion for a new trial provide a basis to set aside the jury's verdict, allocation of fault, or award of noneconomic damages. II. Discussion A. Chart's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Chart insists that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' claim that Chart negligently failed to recall or retrofit its TEC controller. Chart's argument is two-fold: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence, in the form of expert testimony, that a reasonable manufacturer under the same or similar circumstances would have recalled or retrofitted the controller; and (2) the Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence that a governmental agency issued a recall directive. Neither argument is availing, Judge Corley holds. First, Chart's contention that the Plaintiffs' negligent failure to recall or retrofit claim requires proof of what other manufacturers would do is legally unsupported. Chart has failed to cite any authority suggesting that this general rule is not equally applicable to the Plaintiffs' negligent failure to recall or retrofit claim. The causation issue presented at trial was not beyond a lay jury's common experience. Second, Chart's insistence that a governmental agency's directive to recall is required is unpersuasive. Judge Corley finds that Chart has not cited any California authority for the proposition that the Court should look to the Restatement of Torts for assessment of the Plaintiffs' product liability claims. Nor has Chart cited to authority suggesting that a governmental directive is required to trigger a duty to recall or retrofit. Finally, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Chart negligently failed to retrofit or recall the controller. It was within the jury's common understanding to conclude that a reasonable manufacturer under similar circumstances would have recalled the controller. Accordingly, Chart's motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied. Substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Chart negligently failed to retrofit or recall the controller. B. Motion for New Trial Chart insists that it is entitled to a new trial because of (1) erroneous evidentiary rulings; (2) to cure the error in submitting Plaintiffs' negligent failure to recall claim to the jury; (3) attorney misconduct; (4) issues with the allocation of fault; and (5) the noneconomic damages are excessive. First, Judge Corley finds that Chart has not shown either that the Court's evidentiary rulings were in error or that even if they were that they tainted the jury's verdict. Second, Chart's argument dovetails with its motion for judgment as a matter of law and fails for the same reasons it fails in that context. Substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Chart negligently failed to retrofit or recall the controller. Third, Judge Corley finds that (i) the counsels' comments on video deposition testimony did not prejudice Chart given that the Court sustained the objection and did not rise to the level of misconduct warranting a new trial, (ii) while the counsel may have strayed outside the line in her rebuttal closing, the misconduct was not such that it prejudiced Chart or influenced the jury's verdict, (iii) Chart has not provided a basis on which the Court could conclude as a matter of law that the damages are excessive, and (iv) the jury awarded different amounts of non-economic damages for each Plaintiff, indicating that it carefully considered the evidence as to each Plaintiff. III. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley denied Chart's motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law. Her Order disposes of Docket Nos. 936, 937. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2xyaxt from Leagle.com. PG&E CORP: $10M Class Settlement in Vataj Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTOPHER VATAJ, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06996-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award. I. Background The Plaintiffs bring the securities class action against Defendants PG&E and certain of its officers and directors regarding representations that the Defendants made about PG&E's safety protocols following PG&E's bankruptcy and in the wake of several California wildfires caused by PG&E equipment. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E securities" on the New York Stock Exchange between Dec. 13, 2018, and Oct. 28, 2019. According to the complaint, the truth about the Defendants' safety measures was revealed after PG&E mishandled rolling power outages in September and October 2019. The Plaintiffs contend that PG&E cut power to millions of Californians for extended periods while providing little notice and insufficient information to stakeholders to prepare in advance. They explain that PG&E's de-energizations drew intense criticisms from California's elected representatives. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission launched an investigation into the de-energizations. As a result, PG&E's stock prices fell. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act on 1934, and Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78b-1, 78t(a). On Feb. 3, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to appoint (1) Iron Workers Funds and Robert Allustiarti as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and (2) Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as co-lead counsel. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended class action complaint on April 17, 2020. The individual Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Before briefing was complete, however, the parties mediated this action before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (ret.) on April 23, 2020. Although the parties did not reach a settlement that day, they continued discussions with the mediator's assistance. After the parties exchanged numerous offers and counteroffers, the mediator proposed that the parties settle the claims asserted in this action for $10 million. The parties accepted the mediator's proposal, and filed a notice that they had reached a settlement in principle. They then worked to finalize the settlement. Following the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval, and in response to the Court's concerns about the scope of the release, the parties filed a supplemental brief in support of their motion, which included revised language. With these changes, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, fully executed on March 9, 2021. The key terms are as follows: a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of PG&E on the New York Stock Exchange between Dec. 13, 2018, and Oct. 28, 2019, both dates inclusive. b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant agreed to make a $10 million non-reversionary payment. The gross Settlement Fund also includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, any additional payment to the Plaintiffs as class representative, and payments to class members. The cash payments to the class will be based on a "recognized loss formula" for each share of PG&E common stock, which will account for factors including when the PG&E common stock was purchased or otherwise acquired during the class period; the amount of stock acquired; and whether such stock was sold, and if so, the timing and proceeds of the sales. Each class member must submit a Proof of Claim to the settlement administrator to be eligible for a payment from the Settlement Fund. c. Cy Pres Distribution: Following the final approval hearing, it came to the Court's attention that the parties' proposed cy pres recipient, the Investor Justice Clinic at the University of San Francisco School of Law, is currently "on pause" due to lack of funding. The parties therefore propose the Investor Justice and Education Clinic ("IJEC") at the Howard University School of Law in Washington D.C. as an alternate cy pres recipient. The Plaintiffs further confirmed with the IJEC's supervising attorney that the clinic is operational. The parties submitted a revised stipulation and agreement of settlement, reflecting this change. If six months after the initial distribution of funds any funds remain in the Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, such funds will be re-distributed to class members who have cashed their checks and who would receive at least $20 from such re-distribution. If any funds still remain in the Settlement Fund six months after such re-distribution, then the balance will be contributed to the IJEC. d. Release: Under the settlement agreement, all class members will release: Any and all claims, including Unknown Claims, damages, actions, obligations, attorneys' fees, indemnities, subrogations, duties, demands, controversies, and liabilities of every nature, at law or in equity, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, matured or unmatured, whether arising out of or relating to the period prior to or after the date of the Initial Complaint that any Releasing Persons in their capacity as a shareholder of PG&E (a) asserted in the Initial Complaint, the Complaint, or the Action; or (b) could have been asserted in any forum that arise out of, are based upon, or are related in any way directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the allegations, transactions, facts, matters or occurrences, representations or omissions involved, set forth, or referred to in the Initial Complaint, the Complaint, or the Action and that relate to the purchase, acquisition, sale, disposition or holding of PG&E common stock during the Class Period e. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will mail class notices within 14 days of the Court's order granting preliminary approval to all the class members who can be identified with reasonable effort by the Claims Administrator, advising them of the Settlement and of the availability of documentation on the settlement website. The settlement administrator will also publish a summary notice via a newswire with national distribution, within 21 days of the Court's order granting preliminary approval. And finally, the settlement administrator will post the key case and settlement materials on the following website: www.pgesecuritiessettlement.com. f. Incentive Award: The named Plaintiffs may apply for an incentive award of no more than $5,000. g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the gross settlement fund, or $2.5 million, as well as costs not to exceed $100,000. II. Analysis A. Final Settlement Approval After considering and weighing the above factors, Judge Gilliam finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the settlement Class Members received adequate notice. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted. B. Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Incentive Award In its unopposed motion, the Class Counsel asks the Court to approve an award of $2.5 million in attorneys' fees and $82,046.46 in costs. The Class Counsel also seeks a $5,000 incentive award for each of the three Named Plaintiffs. Judge Gilliam finds that an attorney who has created a common fund for the benefit of the class is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs from that fund. The Class Counsel is thus entitled to recover "those out-of-pocket expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying client." Judge Gilliam finds that the counsel's requested expenses are reasonable and grants the request. He accordingly awards 25% of the $10 million Settlement Amount, or $2.5 million to the Class Counsel in attorneys' fees and $82,046.46 in costs, for a total of $2,582,046.46. The Class Counsel represents that the named Plaintiffs closely participated in every aspect of the case and kept apprised of developments in the case and regarding PG&E. Mr. Allustiarti, for example, explains that he spent significant time reviewing documents in the case, working with counsel, and staying apprised of case and company developments. Judge Gilliam concludes that given the circumstances of the case and the quality of the settlement achieved, the requested incentive awards are justified and reasonable to compensate the Plaintiffs for their efforts. III. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted the motion for final approval of class action settlement and the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award. He awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $2.5 million and costs in the amount of $82,046.46. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date of the Order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis in the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rjh9bk9p from Leagle.com. PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: CPAP Recall Lawsuits to Be Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Raphael, writing for Crowell Moring, reports that each year, thousands of products -- from cosmetics to motor vehicles to children's toys -- are taken off the market over defects that pose potential safety concerns. Product recall announcements can generate a lot of publicity and quickly lead to class action or mass action lawsuits. Although a product recall does not automatically make a manufacturer liable, a quick and effective response can make all the difference. Product recalls are not necessarily "silver bullets" that defeat all civil claims, but a voluntary recall can serve as a strong defense in such suits, regardless of whether plaintiffs are claiming personal injury or only economic damage. Earlier this year, Dutch medical equipment company Philips Respironics, experienced this first hand as consumers have filed more than a hundred putative class action lawsuits against the company following its recall of sleep apnea machines (i.e. continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machines) and ventilators. On June 14, Philips publicly announced a recall of several different models of CPAP and BiPAP breathing machines because it discovered that the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam found in the machines could break down, be inhaled or ingested by users, and increase their risk of cancer and other injuries. Philips first publicized these adverse effects in its Q1 2021 Quarterly Report, which was published seven weeks earlier, on April 26, 2021. In the weeks and months that followed the June 14 recall, putative class action lawsuits emerged in droves, seeking compensation for injuries, risks and disrupted use. Among other things, these lawsuits allege that Philips knew about the serious risk of injury caused by its devices long before it warned the public about potential hazards in April and finally issued a recall in June. According to the complaints, patients using these devices complained to Philips about black particles in their machines for years. These devices have been distributed around the world since July 2009 and the recall affects roughly 3-4 million devices. In response to the growing number of CPAP recall lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the United States, a new "class-action" CPAP multi-district litigation (MDL) was formally created in early October. Now, over a hundred lawsuits will be consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). Stay tuned for further updates as this case progresses and on this interesting intersection between product recalls and class action lawsuits. [GN] PSMG INC: Thompson Sues Over Denied Overtime, Meal Breaks, Paystubs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert Thompson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PSMG, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV41318 (Cal. Super., November 9, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendant's failure to pay for all hours worked and pay the minimum wage rate. The complaint also seeks compensation for missed break, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. PSMG, Inc. does business as "Pacwest Security Services" where Thompson was employed in December 2018 as a nonexempt site supervisor until his separation in September 2020. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Jeanne Sarmiento, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Jeanne@Jameshawkinsaplc.com RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Bronstein Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. f/k/a Lund Enterprises Corp. (OTC: RECAF, LGDOF) Class Period: February 28, 2019 - September 7, 2021 Deadline: December 27, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/recaf The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ReconAfrica's plan for using unconventional means for energy extraction (including fracking) in the fragile Kavango area; (2) that ReconAfrica would begin unlicensed drilling tests; (3) that ReconAfrica would illegally use water for well testing; (4) that ReconAfrica would illegally store used water in unlined pools; (5) that ReconAfrica would skirt Namibian law and hire an inadequate and inappropriate consultant; (6) that, as a result, ReconAfrica risked future well, drilling, and water-related licenses in Namibia and Botswana; (7) that, as opposed to its representations, ReconAfrica did not reach out nor provide adequate information (including in relevant local languages) through accessible means to those to be impacted by its testing and potential energy extraction; (8) that ReconAfrica's interests are in the Owambo Basin, not the so-called Kavango Basin; (9) that ReconAfrica has continuously engaged in stock pumping; and (10) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. [GN] RTL FOODS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Howard Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTL FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-03656 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Howard was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. RTL FOODS, LLC owns and operates multiple Pizza Hut franchises in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settlement Reached in Bennington Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Therrien at Bennington Banner reports that a $34 million agreement has been reached to settle a class-action suit in U.S. District Court over PFOA contamination in Bennington area wells and elevated levels in the blood of residents, the plaintiffs announced Thursday morning. The proposed settlement calls for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics to pay a total of $34.15 million to compensate property owners for PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination and to provide continued medical monitoring for those who have higher than normal background levels of PFOA in their blood. Saint-Gobain was the last owner of two former ChemFab Corp. plants in town that are considered the source of the once commonly used industrial chemical, which was spread through exhaust stacks over a wide area, then worked into the soil and groundwater. 'SIGNIFICANT COMPENSATION' "This settlement provides significant compensation and medical monitoring to the Bennington community affected by the PFOA contamination, and we strongly support it," said James Sullivan, who is acting as a spokesperson for the named suit plaintiffs and class representatives. "We especially want to initiate the medical monitoring program as soon as possible." PFOA has been associated with kidney, testicular and other cancers, ulcerative colitis, thyroid diseases, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Levels of PFOA in the blood are also known to decline slowly over many years. "There are something in the range of 2,400 properties in the property [suit] class, consisting of over 8,000 individuals," Emily Joselson, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said in an email. "The exposure class is smaller because many in the property class were on town water, and so most of them didn't consume PFOA-contaminated water." She added, "We estimate that around 500 people got [state] Department of Health blood tests when they were offered back in 2017-18, indicating elevated levels of PFOA in their blood. More, who weren't tested back then, but who drank water likely contaminated with PFOA, will be eligible for free blood testing in the first 90 days of the Medical Monitoring Program." Up to $6 million is provided in the agreement for a medical monitoring program. COURT APPROVAL NEEDED The court first must approve the settlement, including the method proposed for allocating the money, before the settlement funds will be available and the medical monitoring program is established, Sullivan, Joselson and attorney David Silver, also representing the plaintiffs, said in a release. Under the settlement agreement, compensation to the property class will be supervised by a court-approved special master, with amounts for individual property owners proposed to be based on several factors, including the value of the property before the contamination was discovered and whether the owners drank from a PFOA contaminated well. The medical monitoring program, also supervised by a court-approved administrator, will provide free testing and monitoring for certain medical conditions. The program will be based at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center using local physicians, but arrangements will also be made for eligible class members who have moved away. It is expected that the court will review the settlement documents and schedule a court date for a final approval hearing. Judge Geoffrey Crawford is presiding. Peter Clark, communications manager with Saint-Gobain, said in an email, "After nearly two years of ongoing discussion, Saint-Gobain is pleased to reach a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Vermont class-action lawsuit." He added, "Since we first learned about the presence of PFAS in Bennington, Saint-Gobain made it clear we would take a leadership position on the issue, even though our Bennington plant has not been in operation since 2002. We believe these settlements and the extensive remediation work already completed are indicative of that commitment." State Sens. Dick Sears and Brian Campion, both Bennington Democrats, have taken a leading role in legislative efforts to address this and similar environmental contamination issues. "It has been a tumultuous five years since the discovery of PFOA in the drinking water of so many Bennington and North Bennington residents," said Sears, who lives in the state-identified contamination area. He added that "we remain mindful that many of our constituents in Pownal have not had their [similar PFOA] situation resolved, so the work continues." Contamination was detected in wells in Pownal around a former Warren Wire/General Cable Corp. factory. Sears said of efforts in the Legislature, "Senator Campion and I are once again introducing a bill to make medical monitoring a liability of the polluter, not the taxpayer or citizen who has been harmed." Campion said he is "very pleased that the class-action suit is settled, and I hope it brings some relief to our constituents who, by no fault of their own, had their lives turned upside down by having their water and soil contaminated by PFOA." The settlement, in addition to the completion of the water line extensions, "is very good news for our region, but the work isn't over," he said. "We need to make the lives of those impacted in Pownal whole, while also taking steps to prevent future pollution." Town Manager Stuart Hurd said in an email, "I am happy that a settlement has been reached. Although I haven't seen a copy, it appears to address the concerns raised by those who filed suit." PRIOR AGREEMENT Saint-Gobain also has agreed over the past three years to two consent agreements with the state Agency of Natural Resources to provide more than $50 million to extend Bennington and North Bennington water system lines to properties with wells contaminated with PFOA and to cover other expenses borne by the state in dealing with the pollution. The water line extension projects are now completed, with municipal water service extended to some 445 properties. In all, about 21 miles of water mains and 15 miles of service lines were added to municipal water systems as part of the corrective action funded by Saint-Gobain. Gov. Phil Scott, environmental officials and local officials and lawmakers are expected to mark completion of that work at 11 a.m. at the water system pump house on Chapel Road in Bennington. TOWARD A SETTLEMENT In a joint declaration concerning the proposed settlement filed with the court, Joselson, Silver and attorney Gary Davis, representing the plaintiffs, outlined some of the steps that led to a preliminary agreement with the company. They said John Schraven, an experienced mediator who was recommended by the court and accepted by the parties, was named settlement master for the case in April 2017. Following certification of the suit as a class-action and other decisions on motions regarding aspects of the case, the court's first settlement conference was held in January 2020, the attorneys wrote, and the parties then began negotiations with Schraven's assistance. Negotiations continued in 2021, they said, until the parties reached an agreement in principle on July 9. Further negotiations led recently to the proposed settlement agreement with Saint-Gobain. The plaintiffs' attorneys said the agreement would involve the establishment of a court-supervised medical monitoring program funded by Saint-Gobain up to a total of $6 million over 15 years. The details of the program have been developed by the plaintiffs' medical monitoring expert, Dr. Alan Ducatman. With the court's approval, the program will be administered by C. Gentle III, who has experience in administering medical monitoring programs, they wrote. The class representatives in the suit included Sullivan, Leslie Addison, Ronald Hausthor, Gordon Garrison, Ted Crawford, Linda Crawford, Billy J. Knight, and William S. Sumner, who died Aug. 21 after a brief illness, the attorneys wrote. The representatives "have been fully engaged in this litigation," according to the filing, and the attorneys proposed they receive an incentive award of $10,000 per person, with that amount also going to Sumner's estate. COATING OPERATIONS After purchasing the business in 2000, Saint-Gobain closed the last Bennington ChemFab plant in 2002 and shifted the fabric coating operations to a New Hampshire facility. Fiberglass and other fabric materials were coated at the ChemFab sites with liquid Teflon and dried at high temperature, with venting through the tall roof stacks. The contamination in hundreds of Bennington wells was revealed in testing that began in 2016, after similar contamination was documented in nearby Hoosick Falls, N.Y. Since the early 2000s, PFOA and other chemicals in the PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) group have been detected in groundwater and other water supplies near industrial sites around the nation and world. It is suspected that almost every human on the planet has at least a trace of PFAS in their blood. The chemicals were used for decades since the 1940s in a wide range of consumer and industrial applications, including in non-stick cooking utensils and waterproofing and tape products. ChemFab was known worldwide for producing the coated fiberglass used in athletic stadium domes, such as the Carrier Dome in Syracuse and the Pontiac Silverdome. The discovery of widespread contamination and an association between PFOA and certain diseases and conditions was brought to national attention about 20 years ago largely because of a suit brought by Cincinnati-based attorney Rob Bilott on behalf of thousands of residents of West Virginia and Ohio living around DuPont plants whose water had been contaminated with PFOA or other PFAS chemicals. Bilott's involvement in what became a class-action suit later served as the basis for "Dark Waters," a 2019 film starring Mark Ruffalo as the attorney. Bilott also appeared at a conference on PFOA contamination held at Bennington College in 2017. Also in the past few years, former Oldcastle Theatre Company Producing Artistic Director Eric Peterson wrote a play about a PFOA crisis in a fictional town that resembles Bennington. His "Water, Water Everywhere" premiered at the Bennington theater in 2019. And a documentary by Hoosick Falls native Victor Pytko examines PFOA pollution sites in the village and in several communities in two other states. [GN] SALLY BEAUTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Goldstein Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AILEEN GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-4583 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Background Plaintiff Goldstein brings the putative class action against Defendant Sally, asserting statutory consumer protection violations and common law claims, and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Defendant is a Texas-based company, incorporated in Virginia, that sells certain beauty products and operates beauty supply stores worldwide, including in New York State. Those beauty products include hair care supplies, such as shampoo and conditioner, and other similar items. These products are sold in various sizes, including in large-volume bottles. The front-facing label of each bottle identifies the volume of product that the bottle contains. On each of those labels, the volume of the bottle's contents is displayed in both its Imperial measurement (ounces) and metric measurement (liters), e.g., one-liter bottles are labeled "33.8 FL OZ./1 LITER," and certain other bottles, which are slightly smaller, are labeled "946 mL/32 FL OZ." The Plaintiff does not allege that the bottle labels inaccurately represent the volume of product that any of the bottles contains. Instead, her complaint revolves around promotional events that the Defendant holds at least twice a year. During these events, called "Liter Sales," the Defendant sells various products at discounted prices. It advertises these Liter Sales in its stores and online. In at least some of these advertisements, the phrase "LITER SALE" is displayed, along with images of various products, including images of products sold in one-liter bottles and/or images of products sold in 946-milliliter bottles. The Plaintiff also observes that, although the bottle labels accurately reflect the volume of the bottles' contents, some of the shelf tags for 32-ounce bottles are improperly labeled "33.8 OZ." The crux of Plaintiff's allegations is that the Defendant's Liter Sales, and its advertising for those sales, unlawfully mislead and take advantage of consumers by promising them discounted one-liter bottles and delivering discounts on both one-liter and 946-milliliter ones. The Plaintiff, a New York citizen, has purchased products sold by the Defendant during Liter Sales and hopes to purchase them again in the future. The Plaintiff filed a complaint on Sept. 26, 2020, asserting five claims: (1) violation of New York State consumer protection laws; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (4) fraud; and (5) unjust enrichment. She seeks monetary and injunctive relief. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim on June 4, 2021. On June 25, 2021, the Plaintiff served its opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and, on July 7, 2021, the Defendant served its reply and filed the fully briefed motion. Discussion The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A. New York Statutory Consumer Protection Laws The Plaintiff first claims that the Defendant's conduct in connection with the Liter Sales violates the New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") Section 349 and 350. Section 349 prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in New York State." Similarly, Section 350 proscribes "false advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state." Viewing these allegations in light of the context, Judge Garaufis holds that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into thinking that the Defendant's promotional Liter Sale would suggest that a bottle that is plainly labeled "946 mL" actually contained one liter of product. Nor would a reasonable consumer be misled by shelf tags when the pertinent information is prominently displayed on the product itself. That conclusion is particularly apparent where the one-liter and 946-milliliter bottles are in close proximity, such that their labels may be directly compared to each other. And, further, it would be unreasonable to construe an advertisement for a "LITER SALE" in a store to constitute a promise that only liter-sized items were on sale in that store. A reasonable consumer, when confronting various options, would look at the bottle to decide which product to purchase. In doing so, they would see (a) the kind of product contained (e.g., shampoo or conditioner); (b) any details about the specific purposes for that product (e.g., if it is for color-treated hair, curly hair, or any other kind of hair); and (c) the volume of product it contains (e.g., 946 milliliters or one liter). Such a consumer, in that context, would interpret a Liter Sale to provide discounts on liter-sized items, and they would not be surprised to find that other items are discounted as well. Thus, Judge Garaufis holds that the Plaintiff's Section 349 and 350 claims are dismissed. B. Negligent Misrepresentation The Plaintiff next asserts a negligent misrepresentation claim against the Defendant. To adequately plead negligent misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must allege "(1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information." The Defendant argues that the negligent misrepresentation claim must be dismissed because, inter alia, the Plaintiff has not pleaded the existence of a special relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff argues (1) that a special relationship existed, based on Defendant's special knowledge and experience in the sale of consumer goods, or, alternatively, (2) that the existence of such a relationship is a factual inquiry that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true and construing all inferences in her favor, however, she has not pleaded sufficient facts to support a finding that any relationship beyond an ordinary commercial one existed. The Plaintiff acknowledges that the Defendant distributes and sells products to a general market, and does not allege any representations or statements inducing reliance that Defendant made specifically to her. Thus, the Plaintiff has merely alleged the kind of general commercial relationship that does not give rise to liability for negligent misrepresentation in New York. Accordingly, her negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed. C. Breach of Warranties The Plaintiff also asserts a claim for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and breach of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq. 1. Express Warranty The Defendant argues for dismissal of the express warranty claim because the Plaintiff has not identified any "express representations -- that is, a literal affirmation of fact or promise about the specific thing the Plaintiff alleges to be untrue." Construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff, the Complaint appears to allege, in sum, that the promotional statements in the Defendant's advertising for its Liter Sales were express warranties about the volume of product contained in each bottle on which she and others relied. Judge Garaufis finds that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that an express warranty existed. As explained, the Liter Sales promoted discounts on liter-sized as well as other-sized bottles. Also as explained, the size label on the bottle controls, when viewed from the perspective of the reasonable consumer. Further, the phrase "Liter Sale" does not convey the kind of specificity required for this claim. Because the Defendant did not expressly warrant that, during a Liter Sale, only liter-sized products would be discounted, the Plaintiff's express warranty claim fails. 2. Implied Warranty of Merchantability "The implied warranty of merchantability is a guarantee by the seller that its goods are fit for the intended purpose for which they are used and that they will pass in the trade without objection." This inquiry "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners." The Plaintiff alleges, not that the products were unfit for their common use, but that they could not pass in commerce without objection. Her evidence of that claim seems to be, exclusively, that she has objected. That threadbare and conclusory allegation is insufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Thus, her implied warranty of merchantability claim also fails. 3. Magnuson Moss Warranty Act The MMWA grants relief to a consumer 'who is damaged by the failure of a warrantor to comply with any obligation under a written warranty.' The Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any "written warranty," defined by the statute as "any written affirmation of fact or written promise that affirms or promises that the product is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time." Accordingly, Judge Garaufis holds that the Plaintiff's MMWA claim also fails. D. Fraud The Plaintiff next alleges that the Defendant's conduct constitutes common law fraud. Under New York law, a claim for fraud requires a false misrepresentation of a material fact. Judge Garaufis holds that the Plaintiff has not alleged a material misrepresentation; therefore she cannot satisfy the heightened particularity standard required to plead fraud. Thus, the Plaintiff's fraud claim is also dismissed. E. Unjust Enrichment Finally, the Plaintiff asserts an unjust enrichment claim against the Defendant. Specifically, she alleges that the "Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Products were not as represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members." The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment must be dismissed as duplicative. Judge Garaufis agrees. F. Injunctive Relief Because the Plaintiff's substantive claims are dismissed, her prayer for injunctive relief necessarily fails. Conclusion For the reasons he explained, Judge Garaufis granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/c7zkau6w from Leagle.com. SNAP INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) publicly traded securities between July 22, 2020 and October 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until January 10, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Black v. Snap Inc., No. 21-cv-08892 (C.D. Cal.). Commenced on November 11, 2021, the Snap class action lawsuit charges Snap and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Snap class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Snap class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 10, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Snap relies on user data for its advertising business. In June 2020, Apple Inc. announced new data privacy features for iOS, its mobile operating system for the iPhone. In April 2021, Apple released the new data privacy features for iOS. The Snap class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Apple's privacy changes would have, and were having, a material impact on Snap's advertising business; (ii) Snap overstated its ability to transition its advertising with Apple's privacy changes; (iii) Snap knew of, but downplayed, the risks of the impact that Apple's privacy changes had on Snap's advertising business; (iv) Snap overstated its commitment to privacy; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On October 21, 2021, Snap disclosed weaker-than-expected revenue and weaker-than-expected guidance because of its advertising business, including due to Apple's privacy changes. Snap also disclosed the risks of heightened restrictions on Snap's access and use of user data due to Apple's privacy update, revealing that "changes have adversely affected our targeting, measurement, and optimization capabilities, and in turn affected our ability to measure the effectiveness of advertisements on our services. This has resulted in, and in the future is likely to continue to result in, reduced demand and pricing for our advertising products and could seriously harm our business." On this news, Snap's stock price fell 26%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Snap securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Snap class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Snap class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Snap class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Snap class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] SOUTH DAKOTA: Faces Class Action Over Gypsum Mine Collapse ---------------------------------------------------------- Fox Rothschild on Nov. 22 disclosed that 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. 16 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.   [GN] SPARC GROUP LLC: Zuniga Slams Illegal SMS Ads --------------------------------------------- Jennifer Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sparc Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-020242 (Fla. Cir., November 9, 2021), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Sparc Group operates as "Aeropostale," a clothing brand. It allegedly sent SMS ad messages to Zuniga's phone without the requisite prior express written consent. Despite "opting out," Zuniga continued to receive the text messages. Zuniga asserts she has not consented to receive text messages from them in the first place and have affirmatively attempted to prevent continuing to receive them. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com TAISHAN GYPSUM: Parker Waichman Files Writ of Cert. in Amorin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Interested Parties PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP, ET AL., Petitioners v. ARNOLD LEVIN, ET AL., Case No. 21-666. Response is due on December 6, 2021. Interested Parties petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case titled MR. EDUARDO AMORIN, et al., Plaintiffs, PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP, MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, MRACHECK FITZGERALD ROSE KONOPKA THOMAS & WEISS, PA, ROBERTS AND DURKEE PA, LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY PROCTOR, PA, Interested Parties-Appellants v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD., f.k.a. SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD., et al., Defendants, ARNOLD LEVIN, STEPHEN J. HERMAN, RICHARD J. SERPE, PATRICK SHANAN MONTOYA, SANDRA S. DUGGAN, Interested Parties-Appellees, Case No. 20-12100. The Eleventh Circuit Appeal was filed due to a discrete disagreement over attorneys' fees following a fractured multidistrict litigation about defective Chinese drywall. These attorneys appointed by the MDL court were awarded common benefit costs and fees by the district court. The Court of Appeals affirmed denoting that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding these fees. The questions presented are: 1. Does state law govern under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) and Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975), or does inherent federal equitable power allow the fashioning of an award by the transferor court? 2. If the use of equity is proper, what standard governs: the common fund doctrine as defined by Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) and Alyeska, or the common benefit doctrine developed for MDL fee awards? 3. Does Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 (1983) allow a transferor court sitting in diversity to allocate contractual fees from individual settlements based on findings by an MDL-transferee court involving a class action settlement, or is the transferor court required to provide its own "clear explanation" of its award? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was brought before the Court for determination of a trial plan for 175 Virginia Plaintiffs who are members of a certified class of property owners (or former property owners)1 who suffered various forms of damages caused by Defendant Taishan's defective drywall sold in Virginia under the Venture Supply brand name. The instant case was part of a larger proceeding before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which began in 2009 and involved more than 3,500 properties in Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia. Following remand from the MDL, the Virginia Plaintiffs and the Defendants submitted competing trial plans. The petition now concerns an award of attorney fees to court appointed attorneys from contractual fees paid to private attorneys for the settlement of individual cases remanded from a multidistrict litigation, MDL 2:09-2047. The dispute is rooted in the transferee court's attempt to retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of awarding fees to attorneys appointed in the MDL. Directly, it concerns the fracturing of jurisdictional lines when the transferor court and a panel of the Eleventh Circuit strained to accommodate the transferee court's benevolence. What started as an attempt by the transferee court to reserve jurisdiction over a "collateral matter" turned into a deprivation of petitioners' contractual rights and an unprecedented double recovery for the court appointed attorneys. Throughout the decade-long MDL, all "Chinese Drywall" cases were managed by attorneys appointed by the MDL court, who engineered a settlement with one group of defendants, the "Knauf Entities," but were unable to settle with another group of defendants, the "Taishan Entities."[BN] Interested Parties-Petitioners PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP, ET AL., are represented by: Jay L.T. Breakstone, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 59 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 267-6700 - and - Mark Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 - and - Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq. Mary Katherine Price, Esq. FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC 105 Yorktown Drive Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 619-7755 E-mail: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com TALOS ENERGY: Patel Appeals Stockholder Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled VRAJESHKUMAR PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TALOS ENERGY INC., Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY S. DUNCAN, NEAL P. GOLDMAN, CHRISTINE HOMMES, JOHN "BRAD" JUNEAU, DONALD R. KENDALL, JR., RAJEN MAHAGAOKAR, CHARLES M. SLEDGE, ROBERT M. TICHIO, JAMES M. TRIMBLE, OLIVIA C. WASSENAAR, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS, LLC, RIVERSTONE TALOS ENERGY EQUITYCO LLC, RIVERSTONE TALOS ENERGY DEBTCO LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., APOLLO TALOS HOLDINGS, L.P., AP TALOS ENERGY DEBTCO LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants, and TALOS ENERGY INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2020-0418-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Verified Stockholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint in this action challenges Nominal Defendant Talos Energy Inc.'s February 28, 2020, purchase of certain oil-producing assets (the "Challenged Transaction"). Plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel was a Talos stockholder at all relevant times, and purports to bring his claims derivatively and on behalf of Talos's other similarly situated public stockholders. In 2012, Defendant Timothy S. Duncan formed the Company's predecessor, Talos Energy LLC ("Old Talos"). From its inception, Old Talos was backed by funds affiliated with Defendants Riverstone Holdings, LLC, ("Riverstone Parent") and Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("Apollo Parent"). Riverstone Parent invested in Old Talos through Defendants Riverstone Talos Energy Equityco LLC and Riverstone Talos Energy Debtco LLC (the "Riverstone Funds," and together with Riverstone Parent, "Riverstone"). Apollo Parent similarly invested in Old Talos through Defendants Apollo Talos Holdings, L.P., and AP Talos Energy Debtco LLC (the "Apollo Funds," and together with Apollo Parent, "Apollo"). Together, Riverstone and Apollo are the "Venture Capital Defendants." The Complaint also describes Talos's 2018 acquisition of Whistler Energy II, LLC ("Whistler"). Whistler was another oil company that held assets in the Gulf of Mexico. In July 2013 and October 2014, Apollo loaned Whistler a total of $135 million in secured financing. Whistler suffered several operational issues, and in March 2019, several creditors commenced involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against it. Apollo asserted senior secured creditor claims of approximately $143.7 million. Whistler emerged from bankruptcy in March 2018. Apollo had received only $35 million in cash on its loans, but also received new membership interests that would entitle it to receive 100% of any distributions until it was paid back on its original loans, interest, and fees. On August 31, Talos acquired Whistler from Apollo for $52.3 million, allegedly making Apollo nearly whole on its Whistler investment. But this came at a price, according to the Complaint. Apollo required Talos to greatly overpay for Whistler at a premium of between 61% and 66% over a fair price. Allegedly, that transaction "bailed Apollo out of a disastrous investment" and was the first half of the alleged quid pro quo at the heart of this action, to be followed by the overpayment for Riverstone assets in the Challenged Transaction. The Complaint alleges that having agreed to let Talos bail out Apollo from the Whistler debacle, Riverstone was rewarded with its own sweetheart deal in the Controllers' next interested-party transaction--the Challenged Transaction. The Complaint offers no other allegations that Riverstone was involved in the Whistler transaction, or that it struck any agreement with Apollo to support the Whistler deal in exchange for a future favor. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 19, 2021, Judge Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs' appellate case is captioned as VRAJESHKUMAR PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TALOS ENERGY INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TIMOTHY S. DUNCAN, NEAL P. GOLDMAN, CHRISTINE HOMMES, JOHN "BRAD" JUNEAU, DONALD R. KENDALL, JR., RAJEN MAHAGAOKAR, CHARLES M. SLEDGE, ROBERT M. TICHIO, JAMES M. TRIMBLE, OLIVIA C. WASSENAAR, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS, LLC, RIVERSTONE TALOS ENERGY EQUITYCO LLC, RIVERSTONE TALOS ENERGY DEBTCO LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., APOLLO TALOS HOLDINGS, L.P., AP TALOS ENERGY DEBTCO LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and TALOS ENERGY INC., Nominal Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 347,2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on October 29, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Vrajeshkumar Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TALOS ENERGY INC., is represented by: Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq. F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Daniel Tepper, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 TENCENT MUSIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 27 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE:TME) Class Period: March 22, 2021 - March 29, 2021 Deadline: December 27, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/tme. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Tencent shares while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined. Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) Class Period: November 3, 2016 - October 4, 2021 Deadline: December 27, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/fb. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Facebook misrepresented its user growth; (2) Facebook knew, or should have known, that duplicate accounts represented a greater portion of its growth than stated, and it should have provided more detailed disclosures as to the implication of duplicate accounts to Facebook's user base and growth; (3) Facebook did not provide a fair platform for speech, and regularly protected high profile users via its Cross Check/XCheck system; (4) despite being aware of their use of Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond meaningfully to drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent organizations; (5) Facebook has been working to attract preteens to its platform and services; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Hoegh LNG Partners LP (NYSE:HMLP) Class Period: August 22, 2019 - July 27, 2021 Deadline: December 27, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/hmlp. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Hoegh LNG Partners LP (the "Partnership") was facing issues with the PGN FSRU Lampungcharter; (2) as a result, the PGN FSRU Lampung charterer would state that it would commence arbitration to declare the charter null and void, and/or to terminate the charter, and/or seek damages; (3) the Partnership would need to find alternative refinancing for its PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (4) the PGN FSRU Lampungcredit facility matured in September 2021, not October 2021 as previously stated; (5) the Partnership would be forced to accept less favorable refinancing terms with regards to the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (6) Hoegh LNG would not extend the revolving credit line to the Partnership past its maturation date; (7) Hoegh LNG would reveal that it "will have very limited capacity to extend any additional advances to the Partnership beyond what is currently drawn under the facility"; (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Partnership would essentially end distributions to common units holders; (9) the COVID-19 pandemic was not the sole or root cause of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia, in 2019, before the pandemic, there were already a very low amount of demand in Indonesia for the Partnership's gas; (10) the auditing, tax, nor maintenance of PGN FSRU Lampung were not the sole or root cause(s) of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia; and (11) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] TIKTOK INC: Settles Consumer Privacy Class Action for $92 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Tyko, writing for USA Today, reports that if you or your minor children have used the TikTok or Musical.ly apps, you could be entitled to money from a class-action lawsuit settlement. According to court documents, a proposed $92 million settlement is pending in the TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, a lawsuit that alleges the company "violated federal and state law by collecting and using" personal data "in connection with their use of the TikTok - Make Your Day video-sharing application" and its predecessor app Musical.ly. TikTok denies the allegations, according to documents and the settlement with Chinese parent company ByteDance was reached back in late February. But on Nov. 15, TikTok put out a settlement notice in the app, directing users to Tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com. TikTok features short videos, known for their lighthearted feel. The app has become a favorite of young people, especially Generation Z. According to a Pew Research Center study from April, about 48% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they use TikTok. In September, TikTok announced it had 1 billion users globally. The app, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, has seen its share of controversy and recently came under criticism for its effect on teenage girls' body image. The federal lawsuit alleged that TikTok broke the Illinois biometric privacy law, which allows suits against companies that harvest consumer data without consent, including via facial and fingerprint scanning. Illinois is the only state with a law that allows people to seek monetary damages for such unauthorized data collection. TikTok settlement: How to claim To be eligible to receive money, you need to have been using the app by Sept. 30 and need to submit a claim form by March 1, 2022, court documents show. Parents can submit claims for minors. For those who live in Illinois and have used TikTok to create videos, you may be entitled to six times the payment, documents show. The forms can be submitted at Tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com or can be printed and mailed in. The settlement offers four different ways to get the settlement: -- PayPal, which requires your PayPal email address. -- Venmo for which you need to include the mobile number associated with your Venmo account. -- A virtual prepaid card. Or you can choose to get a physical check mailed to the address you provide. TikTok lawsuit deadlines Jan. 31: Deadline to object and tell the court you don't like the settlement and last day to be excluded from the settlement, which means you'll get no benefits. March 1: Last day to submit a claim to receive a payment. If the court approves the settlement and it becomes final and effective, "you will receive your payment by electronic means (unless you opt for an alternative form of payment)." [GN] TLW ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Forrest Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN FORREST; BRADEN GLASSON; and MASON FRAKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TLW ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; CERBERUS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; and TROY WATKINS, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01099 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Forrest was employed by the Defendants as flowback operator then as a flowback field supervisor. Plaintiffs Glasson and Frakes were employed as flowback helpers. TLW ENERGY SERVICES, LLC is engaged as a flow back and well testing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Employees File Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Galena Goins, Sonia Lopez and Terry A. Jones-Jackson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Ricardo Moreno, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08722 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2021), seeks all legal and equitable relief available under state and federal anti-discrimination, equal pay, and retaliation statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the California Equal Pay Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to rectify UPS' discriminatory practices and policies. United Parcel Service is a multinational package delivery and supply chain management company where Ricardo Moreno is a coordinator at the UPS Oakland Hub. Plaintiffs were employed at the UPS Hub in Oakland. Goins worked in loading and unloading and eventually moved to small sort after her supervisor verbally assaulted her. Goins also has had two knee replacements and periodically needs to take off from work due to her knees going out and her back pain. From March 2018 to present, Goins has been denied the interactive process and reasonable accommodation based on her disability, asserts the complaint. Lopez accused her previous supervisor of leering at other female co-workers and positioned himself in order to peer under their clothing. She has reported the harassment in June 2020, but no actions were taken. She has been harassed repeatedly since returning from medical leave after a shoulder injury, the complaint notes. Jackson has been employed at UPS for over 20 years. She has seniority and claims that she is entitled to receive Equal Pay as male sorter of same seniority. She claims she was denied equal pay based on her gender. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: M. Alieu Iscandari, Esq. ISCANDARI LAW GROUP 303 Hegenberger Road, Suite 311 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510)-606-9062 Facsimile: (510)-722-2241 E-mail: izcan79@gmail.com - and - Tiega-Noel Varlack, Esq., Esq. VARLACK LEGAL SERVICES 225 W. Winton Avenue, Suite 207 Hayward, CA 94544 Telephone: (510)-397-2008 Facsimile: (510)-397-2997 Email: tiega@varlacklegal.com UNITED STATES: Kluge Suit Transferred to Court of Federal Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JOHN C. KLUGE for himself and THE PUTATIVE CLASS v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Case No. 1:19-cv-02618, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the United States Court of Federal Claims on November 4, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Federal Claims assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02131-LAS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated U.S. military reserve personnel, who are also federal civilian employees, who volunteered to serve the Nation in wartime only to be unlawfully deprived of a differential pay benefit of employment found in 5 U.S.C. 5538. The Congress passed the Differential Pay Law, and it was signed into law, 10 years ago with effective date of January 28, 2009. Congress intended with this Statute to provide the same employment benefits that a large number of private sector, even state, local, and foreign, employers provide to activated reservists covering the difference when their military pay and allowances is less than their civilian pay. John Kluge is a resident of Fairfax, Virginia, and was formerly a federal civilian employee at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He is also a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army Reserves. In 2008 and 2009, the Plaintiff was mobilized by the Army pursuant to an order to Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 1301(d). He volunteered for wartime duty. As such, he contends, he should have received differential pay, as his civilian compensation was more than his military compensation during this period. The Defendant is the United States of America, a sovereign. The Defendant is responsible for the actions of its various departments, agencies, and offices, such as the Office of Personnel Management and DHS. OPM is an executive branch office and DHS is an executive department.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Renne, Esq. RENNE LAW 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 110521 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 869-0418 E-mail: jrenne@rennelaw.com UNITED STATES: Settles USCIS Lawsuit Over H-4, L-2 Lengthy Delays ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Maroko, Esq., Kreuza L. Gjezi, Esq., and Ilene Zaitouna, Esq., of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, PC, disclosed that USCIS announced on November 10, 2021, that it has settled a class-action lawsuit filed in Washington State that focused on lengthy adjudication times for processing H-4 spouses' extensions of employment authorization documents (EAD), as well as L-2 spouses seeking employment authorization initially and/or renewals of EAD's. A brief summary of the new, improved policies includes: 1. H-4 spouses already approved for an EAD, who timely file for EAD renewal, will receive an automatic 180-day extension of the expiring EAD. Note that first-time EAD applicants, in the H-4 spousal category, are excluded and will not see any change in their current processing times or procedures. 2. L-2 spouses will be acknowledged as having employment authorization implicit within their L-2 status. This is a historic recognition by USCIS. This means, long term, that L-2 spouses will no longer need to even obtain EAD's in order to be authorized to work in the U.S. However, during the 120-day implementation period of the settlement, L-2 spouses who already hold an EAD, which is expiring within the 120 days, will need to have timely filed for an EAD extension. For those timely-filed EAD renewal applicants, an automatic 180- day extension of their employment authorization will apply. For L-2 spouses seeking first-time employment authorization, there will be a slight delay in implementing the policy so that they may be unable to commence employment based on their implicit employment authorization until I-94 record formatting has been updated by USCIS to indicate "L-2 spouse" rather than merely "L-2" as is the current I-94 formatting. [GN] VF OUTDOOR: Denial of Class Certification in Valencia Suit Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, 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, Plaintiff v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the Defendant's motion to deny class certification be granted based on the classes as currently defined and proposed to be represented by Plaintiff Briana Valencia. I. Background Defendant VF Outdoor is an apparel, footwear, and accessories company that owns and distributes several clothing brands, including "Vans," "Timberland," "The North Face," "Dickies," and "Jansport." The Defendant's products are shipped to various distribution centers located in California and then distributed to various retail establishments within the State. The Defendant currently employs Plaintiff Valencia as an hourly, non-exempt employee at its distribution center in Visalia, California. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant requires its employees, upon arrival and prior to clocking-in, to undergo a "security check wherein their bags are searched" and thereafter walk to their assigned workstations. She also alleges that the Defendant requires its employees, after clocking-out for the day or for a meal period, to walk to the front of the building and undergo a "post-shift security check." According to her, these two processes take approximately 20 minutes each for employees to complete, for which they are not compensated. On Aug. 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (8) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff ultimately seeks to certify classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 comprised of: a. 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 required by VF Outdoor LLC to undergo pre-shift and post-shift security checks between August 26, 2015 and the present date (Unpaid Time Class); b. 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 required by 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 Aug. 26, 2015 and the present date (Overtime Class); c. 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 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 (Meal Period Class); d. 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 (Rest Period Class); and e. 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 (Wage Statement Subclass). On Oct. 28, 2019, the Defendant removed the action to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). It thereafter filed a motion to transfer the action to the Court, which was granted on Dec. 17, 2020. Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, the Defendant implemented a "pre-dispute arbitration agreement" as part of its onboarding process for non-exempt employees in California. It also distributed the Arbitration Agreement to existing employees at the time of its implementation. The Arbitration Agreement "covers any claim that arises out of or relates to the undersigned's employment with the Defendant," ncluding "all disputes, whether based on tort, contract, statute. The Arbitration Agreement also includes a class action waiver. According to the Defendant, approximately 1,348 -- or 59% -- of the 2,291 putative class members have signed the Arbitration Agreement. The Plaintiff was presented with the Arbitration Agreement, but refused to sign it. Although the Plaintiff has yet to file a motion for class certification, the Defendant moves for an order denying certification, contending that the Plaintiff cannot meet the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because she did not sign the Arbitration Agreement, whereas most of the putative class members have. Because the Plaintiff did not sign the Arbitration Agreement, the Defendant asserts that she will be unable to demonstrate typicality, adequacy, commonality, predominance, or superiority. II. Discussion A. The Motion to Deny Class Certification is Not Premature As an initial matter, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's motion is premature because it was brought "prior to the close of class certification discovery, and before she has filed her motion for class certification." The Plaintiff points out that the Defendant has neither "identified a single class member who signed the Arbitration Agreement," nor produced "additional persons for deposition who were allegedly helped gather the signatures of class members for the Arbitration Agreements." Judge Oberto disagrees. She finds that the Defendant's motion is premised solely on two facts: (1) a majority of the putative class members signed the Arbitration Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff did not. Since neither is in dispute, discovery regarding the identities of the putative class members who signed the Arbitration Agreement and the circumstances surrounding it is not germane to the merits of the Defendant's motion. B. The Plaintiff Cannot Represent the Proposed Classes The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) because she is "atypical and an inadequate representative." As noted, the Plaintiff did not sign the Defendant's Arbitration Agreement, but seeks to represent a class comprised mostly of employees who did. "The Ninth Circuit has foreclosed the viability of that proposition." Given that the Plaintiff did not sign the Arbitration Agreement, she therefore has no standing to argue that it is inapplicable, void, unconscionable, or unenforceable. III. Conclusion & Recommendation Judge Oberto concludes that the Plaintiff lacks typicality and adequacy pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 with respect to the putative class members who signed the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, she recommended that the Court grants Defendant VF Outdoor's motion to deny class certification based on the classes as currently defined and proposed to be represented by Plaintiff Valencia. These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(l)(B). Within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the Court, E.D. Cal. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Findings & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/tnhsvcn4 from Leagle.com. VIACOMCBS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ViacomCBS Inc. (NASDAQ:VIAC) Class Period: March 22, 2021 - March 29, 2021 Deadline: December 28, 2021 For more info:www.bgandg.com/viac. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants sold a large amount of ViacomCBS shares while in possession of material non-public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully liquidate its position in ViacomCBS because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants avoided billions in losses combined. Camber Energy, Inc. (NYSE American:CEI) Class Period: February 18, 2021 - October 4, 2021 Deadline: December 28, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cei. 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. ON24, Inc. (NYSE:ONTF) Class Period: ON24 common stock pursuant and/or traceable to ON24's February 3, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") Deadline: January 3, 2022 For more info: www.bgandg.com/ontf. The complaint alleges that 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. CONTACT: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [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 ***