/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211214.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 243 Headlines ADROIT HEALTH: Newell Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-recorded Calls AGAVE TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Vacuum Truck Drivers, Silva Says AMAZON.COM INC: Jackson Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Appeal AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Continued in Garner AMP GLOBAL: N.D. Illinois Tosses Rees-Evans' Securities Fraud Suit ATRIUM HEALTH: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Williams Suit BACKCOUNTRY GEAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Weekes Alleges BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Scott Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes BANKSIA HILL: Protesters Support Detainees' Class Action Lawsuit BHC PINNACLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Claims BOFI HOLDING: Court Denies Bid to Seal in Securities Class Suit CAMPBELL SOUP: V8 Juice Blends Falsely Labeled, Yoshida Suit Says CANADA: Faces Sixties Scoop Metis and Non-Status Indian Class Suit CASA DO BRASIL: Faces Cortez Class Suit Over Tip Credit Allowance CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Breda Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Guyton Sues Over Illegal Background Checks CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Stay of Sinclair Claims in Harper Lifted CLIENT SERVICES: Keller FDCPA Class Suit Remanded to State Court COMMUNITY REALTY: Underpays Porters, Yanza Suit Alleges CREDIT COLLECTION: Simmonds Sues Over Misleading Collection Letters CRST EXPEDITED: Court Modifies Scheduling & Case Management Order DAVID SHINN: Stewart Suit Removed to D. Arizona DMD MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response to Dec. 22 DOVER MOTORSPORTS: Dugerian Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties DRUMMOND COMPANY: Jerue Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Porcelli EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 1, 2022 ELEMENT MATERIALS: Clemons Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ENERGY INSPECTION: Sisk Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NMMWA FANDUEL INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ortega Alleges FANNIE MAE: Junior Preferred Stock Holders Win Class Status FBCS INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Lowe Debt Collection Suit FCA US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 26, 2023 FIELDALE FARMS: $60M Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Antitrust Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Ratepayers' Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Hoke ADA Class Suit FLUOR CORP: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Pennington Suit FOGO DE CHAO: Garcia-Alvarez Seeks to Certify Collective Action GEICO ADVANTAGE: Court Certifies Class of Uninsureds in Angell Suit GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Abreva Ineffective as Advertised, Smith Alleges HIPAALINE LTD: Misclassifies Patient Care Specialists, Suit Alleges HOLLYFRONTIER CORP: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Donal Suit Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Stipulation to Stay Class Cert. Bid Deadline Tossed INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek to Modify Sept. 24 Sched Order J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Williams Losses Class Certification Bid JIFFY LUBE: Fuentes Must File Class Cert. Bid by March 25, 2022 JUUL LABS: Bethel School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rock Creek Suit Says JUUL LABS: Cheyenne School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, School District Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Marketing Targets Youth, Bloomingdale Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Marketing Targets Youth, Buffalo Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Edgerton Suit Alleges JUUL LABS: Faces Maud School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Faces Morgan Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Huntsville City Sues Over Alabama's E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Colbert School Suit Claims JUUL LABS: Mid-Del Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Oklahoma JUUL LABS: Swan Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Albertville Suit Says JUUL LABS: Tuttle Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Oklahoma KANGMEI PHARMA: Ordered to Pay CNY2.46 Billion to Shareholders KEURIG GREEN: Settles Class Action Over Recyclability Claims KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Duhon Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices KROGER CO: Fruit-Flavored Beverages Falsely Labeled, Conley Says LA SALLE COUNTY, TX: Appeal From Certification Order Tossed as Moot LORDSTOWN MOTOR: Partial Lifting of Stay in Securities Suit Denied MARCHESE INC: Class Settlement in Christoffersen Suit Wins Approval MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Ct. Enters Consent Amended Scheduling Order MASTER FLEET: Daniels Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Joint Bid for Conditional Class Status Filed MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Donna Frawley Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MOBA AMERICAS: Fails to Pay Quality Engineers' OT, Siwiecki Claims NGL ENERGY: Parties Seeks 120-day Extension of Scheduling Order NISSAN NORTH: Class Cert. Filing Continued to May 4, 2022 NISSAN NORTH: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Kemp Suit PAWN AMERICA: Huff Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII PERFORMANCE FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges PFIZER INC: Spence Sues Over Illegal Distribution of VCDs PLAZA RESEARCH: Class in AD's TCPA Suit Conditionally Certified POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan Seeks Drillers' Unpaid Overtime Wages PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pollak Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York PROJECT 7 INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PTT LLC: Wilson Files Suit in N.D. California PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Says No Legal Basis for Class Action PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Suit Againt Estate Agents Has Enough Claimants QUALITY ECO: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Filed R.S.P. EXPRESS: Time Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought RACHAEL EUBANKS: O'Connor Files Suit in E.D. Michigan RACHEL ZOE CREATIONS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAGAN & RAGAN: Fairley FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia RAZER USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RED HOOK: Ellington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Servers SEVEN X ENTERPRISES: Scandaliato Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages SHOWS CALI: Charles Napoleon Losses Bid for Class Certification SLINGER BAG: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STAPLES & ASSOCIATES: Tholmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATE FARM: Wins Bid to Quash Subpoena in Pederson Suit STEMILT AG: Extension of Time to File Response Nixed as Moot STONECO LTD: Faces Depue Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY: Kelly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. STROM ENGINEERING: Jan. 7, 2022 Extension of Briefing Sched Sought SUGARPOVA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUNBRIGHT TRANS: Sosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Technicians T-MOBILE USA: Daruwalla Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri T-MOBILE USA: Metzger Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri T-MOBILE USA: Thang Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri TAL EDUCATION: Allocation Plan of Securities Settlement Fund OK'd TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Tex. THRIVING BRANDS: Carbone Files Suit in E.D. New York THRIVING BRANDS: Wilson Sues Over Defective Anti-Perspirant TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Granted Leave to File First Amended Suit TRUCKMOVERS DEPOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay Under FLSA, IMWL U.S. BANCORP: Discovery & Briefing Schedule in Kim Due Dec. 21 UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Dumontet Suit Over Illegal Account Program UNION PACIFIC: Ct. Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Renard UNITED AIRLINES: District Court Proceedings Stayed in Sambrano Suit UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 11, 2022 UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Stay of Burzdak Pending Arbitration Appeal Denied USAA FEDERAL: Faces Bulls Suit Over Interest Rate Overcharges VABER MEDICAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VENTURE METALS: Powers Sues Over Unpaid OT for Production Workers VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: FritzCo Files Suit in S.D. New York VF OUTDOOR: Court Tosses Valencia Class Certification Bid YEEZY LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York [*] Canada Municipal Governments Expected to See Class Action Spike ********* ADROIT HEALTH: Newell Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-recorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADROIT HEALTH GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05079-NIQA (E.D. Penn. November 18, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action complaint against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed several pre-recorded calls to his cellular telephone number (484)-213-XXXX, which was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. To generate leads, the Defendant allegedly has been making telemarketing calls to consumers who have never had a relationship and who have never consented to receive their calls. The Defendant's October 25, 2021 pre-recorded call to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number initially played an introduction from a generic name and mentioned insurance. Although the Defendant's pre-recorded call was not personalized to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff answered it to confirm the entity responsible for the call and subsequently spoke to the live Adroit representative offering him insurance services. The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his consent or requested the Defendant's calls, says the suit. The complaint further asserts the Defendant's unsolicited per-recorded calls have harmed the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and they were charged for incoming calls. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from making telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff also seeks treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Adroit Health Group LLC offers insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 S. Allen St, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Tel: (814) 234-2626 E-mail: jjackson@bower-law.com - and – Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com AGAVE TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Vacuum Truck Drivers, Silva Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGAVE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01117-GJF-SMV (D. New Mex., November 18, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking damages for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a vacuum truck driver from on or about February 2019 through August 2021. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not pay him and other similarly situated employees for all hours they worked performing duties for the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff was not compensated for the time he spent driving its vacuum truck from the yard to a jobsite. Despite frequently working more than 40 hours seven days in a workweek, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime premium pay by the Defendant. Instead, they were only paid straight time on an hourly basis. The Defendant willfully failed to pay them at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek, the Plaintiff asserts. Agave Transportation Services, Inc. provides vacuum truck and other oilfield services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net AMAZON.COM INC: Jackson Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.: 20-cv-2365-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Background On Feb. 19, 2021, Plaintiff Jackson filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") against Defendant Amazon. The Plaintiff brings individual and class claims against Amazon for violations of federal and California law, arising from Amazon's alleged interception of communications by members of the Amazon Flex program in a closed Facebook group. On March 16, 2021, Defendant Amazon filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On Aug. 3, 2021, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion Compel Arbitration. It stated that Amazon "failed to meet its burden to demonstrate mutual assent to the 2019 Terms of Service ('TOS')" and concluded that "the 2016 TOS applies in this case." The Court applied California state law to interpret the terms of the 2016 TOS and concluded that the "Plaintiff has met his burden to demonstrate that the claims alleged in the FAC do not fall within the scope of the arbitration provision." On Oct. 12, 2021, Amazon filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order denying the Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. It asserts that the Court should exercise its discretion and stay the action pending appeal, because the arbitration issues in this case present "serious legal questions worthy of Ninth Circuit review." Amazon contends that it is likely to succeed on appeal, because "there is a dearth of Ninth Circuit authority on the evidentiary burden for establishing email notice of a modification of an existing arbitration agreement," and "neither the Court nor the parties have identified cases that are factually on point" regarding the scope of the arbitration provision. It contends that Amazon would be denied the benefits of individual arbitration if a stay is not granted. Amazon further contends that any delay caused by a stay would not substantially harm the Plaintiff, and a stay is in the interest of the public policy favoring arbitration agreements. On Nov. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. He contends that the appeal does not present serious questions for the Ninth Circuit, because the arbitration issues in this case involve "routine issues of state law involving contract interpretation." The Plaintiff contends that a stay is not warranted, because his claims are not subject to arbitration, and any success by Amazon on appeal would require the Court to consider his arguments as to why the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. The Plaintiff contends that requiring Amazon to defend the suit does not constitute clear hardship or inequity. He contends that a stay could result in significant delay, and he and the proposed class have an interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation. The Plaintiff further contends that the public interest would be served by continuing the litigation, because Plaintiff has not agreed to arbitrate, and a stay could result in the loss of evidence. On Nov. 8, 2021, Amazon filed a Reply. Discussion Amazon has appealed the Court's denial of Amazon's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Judge Hayes finds that the arbitration issues in the case present questions that have not been considered by the Ninth Circuit. He concludes that Amazon's appeal raises a substantial case on the merits that weighs in favor of granting a stay pending appeal. He says there is a probability that Amazon will be irreparably harmed absent a stay. Amazon asserts that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. The difference in litigation expenses between a two-party case and a class action is substantial. In addition, arbitration offers the benefits of "speed and economy" which may be "lost forever" if Amazon is required to engage in formal discovery prior to the resolution of its appeal. Although a stay pending appeal will likely cause some delay in the case, Judge Hayes concludes that the potential harm to Amazon in being required to continue to litigate a class action, which could possibly be ordered to individual arbitration, outweighs any harm caused by a delay. Further, a stay pending the outcome of the appeal will serve the public interest by preserving judicial resources and promoting the "strong federal policy encouraging arbitration as a prompt, economical and adequate method of dispute resolution for those who agree to it." Judge Hayes concludes that the balance of hardships tips sharply in Amazon's favor, and the public interest is served by staying the action pending appeal. Order The Motion to Stay Pending Appeal is granted. The action is stayed pending the resolution of Amazon's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The stay will be lifted upon further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8sfufk from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Continued in Garner ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, DOLORES SHEEHAN, PAUL SHEEHAN, RICKY BABANI, MICHAEL BATES, DENNIS CROTEAU, and JEANNETTE CROTEAU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware 16 Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order continuing the deadline for filing a motion for class certification until after the Court rules on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which is scheduled to be fully briefed and ready for consideration no later than January 28, 2022. Within seven days of the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss, the parties shall confer and propose a schedule for the class certification briefing, says Judge Lasnik. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. It is one of the Big Five companies in the U.S. information technology industry, along with Google, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pEAJgO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq. Alexander C. Cohen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com msawyer@rgrdlaw.com acohen@rgrdlaw.com - and - Guillaume Buell, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 Facsimile: (617) 720-2445 E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason P. Johnston, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com jason.johnston@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4510 Facsimile: (206( 389-4511 E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com - and - Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq. Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com jwakefield@fenwick.com AMP GLOBAL: N.D. Illinois Tosses Rees-Evans' Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT REES-EVANS, BRIAND PARENTEAU, JEROME RAPHAEL SIV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMP GLOBAL CLEARING, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07169 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Valderrama grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and dismissed Counts I and III of the Complaint without prejudice and the remaining counts with prejudice. Background Plaintiffs Robert Rees-Evans, Briand Parenteau, and Jerome Raphael SIV are individual investors who owned crude oil futures positions through separate brokerage accounts with AMP Global Clearing, LLC. On April 20, 2020, the crude oil futures contract market which traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) fell into negative balances due to the economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in financial losses to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs brought the class action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendants AMP Global Clearing, LLC, AMP Clearing, AMP Futures, AMP Global US, AMP Global USA, and Daniel Lee Culp, alleging that the Defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 9 (the CEA), and associated regulations. They also allege breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract. The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Analysis I. Count I — Commodity Exchange Act In Count I, the Plaintiffs bring a securities fraud claim and allege that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. Section 9 of the CEA and 17 C.F.R. Section 180.1(a)(3) -- a corresponding regulation. To state a claim for federal securities fraud, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant, (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation." A securities fraud claim must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of particularity under Rule 9(b). Accordingly, in the case, the Plaintiffs must have plead each element of their securities fraud claim with sufficient particularity, describing the "who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud." A. Material Misrepresentation or Omissions The Plaintiffs allege Defendants committed three material omissions by failing to: (1) notify them that crude oil prices could go to a price below zero and trade in the negative, (2) liquidate their contracts in a commercially reasonable time when the price was dropping on April 20, 2020, and (3) provide them with an option to exit or otherwise modify their positions by placing an order via a means other than the Defendants' automated order platforms. To successfully state a claim for omission, a plaintiff must specify each statement that was misleading and the reason why it was misleading. Judge Valderrama finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a material misrepresentation or omission by the Defendants. First, he finds that because the Plaintiffs fail to identify the source of any duty which required the Defendants to inform the Plaintiffs of market trends in light of the express language in the Futures Client Agreement, their allegation does not constitute a material omission. Second, because the Plaintiffs fail to identify any duty to liquidate their contracts at a commercially reasonable time, the allegation does not amount to a material omission. Lastly, the Plaintiffs do not suggest any sort of system failure or computer error on the part of the electronic trading platforms. B. Scienter The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to adequately allege a securities fraud claim as the complaint fails to allege scienter, and even if they did, the Defendants had a motive to inform their customers since the Defendants would be liable to cover any losses. The Plaintiffs counter that the complaint alleges that CME issued warnings that were not heeded or forwarded by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendants did not address the warnings in any meaningful way. The Defendants' conduct, insist the Plaintiffs, was so reckless that it rises to the level of willfulness, which is equated with scienter. Judge Valderrama holds that the Complaint does not contain allegations that allow the Court to infer that the Defendants made any of the alleged omissions with an intent to deceive or defraud. First, he agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendants had any motive to commit fraud. Second, the Defendants accurately point out that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants possessed aligned interests because the Defendants would have been required to cover any unsecured losses. Given that the Plaintiffs fail to allege motive and considering the Defendants possessed aligned interests with the Plaintiffs, the allegation of scienter is insufficient. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege the first two elements of a securities fraud claim under 7 U.S.C. Section 9 and 17 C.F.R. Section 180.1(a)(3), Judge Valderrama grants the Defendants' motion with respect to Count I and dismisses Count I without prejudice. II. Count II - Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The Plaintiffs admit in their response that the arguments contained in the Motion to Dismiss are meritorious and do not defend this claim. Judge Valderrama grants the Defendants' motion as it relates to Count II and dismisses it with prejudice. III. Count III - Commodity Exchange Act Section 6b(e)(3) In Count III, the Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under 7 U.S.C. Section 6b(e)(3) of the CEA. The Defendants move to dismiss this count on the basis that it fails to meet Rule 8's requirement that a claim be sufficiently intelligible. The Plaintiffs respond that the count satisfies Rule 8 as it provides a short statement of the claim showing that they are entitled to relief. Judge Valderrama disagrees with the Plaintiffs. Count III's sole allegation is that the "Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully set forth." This bare bone allegation fails to satisfy Rule 8's pleading requirement. There is, however, a more fundamental flaw in Count III -- it is premised on the same facts as Count I. Judge Valderrama has already found that Count I fails to plausibly state a claim under the CEA. Therefore, Count III fails as well. As such, he grants the Defendants' motion as to Count III for the same reasons as Count I and dismisses it without prejudice. IV. Counts IV & V - Negligence & Gross Negligence In Counts IV and V, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent through their omissions detailed in Count I. To state a cause of action for negligence under Illinois law, a plaintiff "must allege facts sufficient to establish three elements: (1) the existence of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) breach of that duty, and (3) an injury proximately caused by that breach." The Defendants move to dismiss Counts IV and V on the grounds that the claims are precluded by the Illinois economic loss rule, also known as the Moorman Doctrine, as these counts only allege economic losses. Judge Valderrama finds that Counts IV and V seek purely economic losses and thus are precluded by the economic loss doctrine. The Plaintiffs do not allege any duty owed by the Defendants, other than that created by contract. If the Moorman doctrine applies, certain exceptions may revive a negligence or gross negligence claim. But the Plaintiffs admit that the exceptions "very clearly do not apply." Judge Valderrama agrees with the Defendants that the only duty owed to the Plaintiffs was established by the contract between the parties, the Futures Client Agreement, and finds that the Moorman doctrine applies and bars the Plaintiffs' negligence and gross negligence claims. He grants the Defendant's motion with respect to Counts IV and V and dismisses these counts with prejudice as the Plaintiffs neither suggest how they might cure the defects nor request leave to amend in the event of dismissal. V. Count VII: Breach of Contract The Plaintiffs admit the arguments contained in the Motion to Dismiss are meritorious and do not defend this claim. Judge Valderrama grants the Defendants' motion as it relates to Count VII and dismisses it with prejudice. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderrama granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Counts II, IV, V and VII of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. He dismissed Counts I and III of the Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice. He granted leave to the Plaintiffs, if they so choose, to file an amended complaint by Dec. 21, 2021. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint by this date, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice and will terminate the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2e2pswy9 from Leagle.com. ATRIUM HEALTH: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Williams Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRISCILLA WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY NAPIER, PENNY WOLFE, SANDY WIZZARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J.Conrad Jr., entered an order: 1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation on Defendant's motions to dismiss; 2. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims and/or For More Definite Statement of Plaintiffs' Complaint; 3. granting the Defendant's Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff Penny Wolfe's Claims as to Counts I, II, III, and VII for Plaintiff Penny Wolfe's individual claims only; 4. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action and facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); Specifically, the Court conditionally certifies the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective as to Plaintiffs Napier and Williams: "All current and former employees of The Charlotte- Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Atrium Health, Inc. f/k/a Carolinas HealthCare System, employed at any time from April 23, 2017 to the present, that directly or indirectly reported to Kerry Bratcher, and were over age 40 when they reported to Bratcher;" 5. directing the counsel, within 10 days from the entry of this Order, to meet and confer regarding form of notice, opt-in forms, and processes for notice; and 6. directing the Plaintiffs, 30 days from the entry of this Order, to file an amended complaint specifically as to Plaintiff Wolfe's individual claims only. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendant, working as Nurses, Registered Nurses, or Healthcare Technicians. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as Atrium Health, operates as a hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQd3VE at no extra charge.[CC] BACKCOUNTRY GEAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Weekes Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT WEEKES, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BACKCOUNTRY GEAR SHACK LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10456-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021) alleges that the defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software. The Defendant and its website allegedly violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Administrative Code sections 8-101 et seq., as the website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access the Defendant's website and have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or services offered on the website during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint. In December 2021, the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact business on Defendant's website, backcountry.com. The main reason the Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers different outdoor gear and clothing accessories. The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against the Defendant seeking, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who brings this civil rights class action against the defendant Backgountry Gear Shack LLC. The Defendant is an online retail company that owns and operates a website offering products that Defendant delivers to New York and across the country. The Defendant offers its website so that, inter alia, the general public can transact business on it. The goods and services offered by The Defendant's website include, but are not limited to: fleeces, base layers, and other related gear and items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Scott Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael A. Scott, et al. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, Case No. 1:21-cv-00034-SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure comprised of: "Plaintiff and all other workers who, (i) within the last three years of the filing of this lawsuit, (ii) have performed work for Baltimore County’s Department of Public Works at its Materials Recovery Facility in Cockeysville, Maryland through the work detail program of Baltimore County’s Department of Corrections, (iii) who have not received at least $9.25/hour for each hour worked between January 5, 2018 through June 30, 2018, $10.10/hour for each hour worked between July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, $11.00/hour for each hour worked between January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, or $11.75/hour for each hour worked between January 1, 2021 through January 4, 2021, and (iv) who have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class; and "Plaintiff and all other workers who, (i) within the last three years of the filing of this lawsuit, (ii) have performed work for Baltimore County’s Department of Public Works at its Materials Recovery Facility in Cockeysville, Maryland through the work detail program of Baltimore County’s Department of Corrections, (iii) have worked for more than 40 hours per statutory work week, (iv) for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per statutory work week have not received at least $13.88/hour between January 5, 2018 through June 30, 2018, $15.15/hour for each hour worked between July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, $16.50/hour for each hour worked between January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, or $17.63/hour for each hour worked between January 1, 2021 through January 4, 2021, and (v) who have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class." The Complaint alleges that the Defendant, through the Department of Public Works (DPW), operated a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Cockeysville, Maryland as part of its recycling program. Plaintiff, who was incarcerated at the Baltimore County Detention Center, alleges that he and other putative class members, were permitted to perform work detail at a DPW recycling program at the MRF. The Defendant denies many of the allegations in the Complaint, and maintains that Plaintiff and other putative class members were not entitled to the protection of the MWHL or MWPCL (or federal wage and hour law) during their participation in the work detail as inmates of the Baltimore County Department of Corrections. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DBDc0u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard B. Hoffman, Esq. Jordan S. Liew, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC 600 Jefferson Plaza, Ste. 204 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 E-mail: hhoffman@hoholaw.com jliew@hoholaw.com - and - Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. Brooklandville, MD 21022 Telephone: (443) 862-0062 E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com - and - Stephen J. Springer, Esq. Rittenhouse Plaza 1901 Walnut Street, Unit 4A Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 732-8229 E-mail: springerlaw@masn.com BANKSIA HILL: Protesters Support Detainees' Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kearyn Cox, writing for NITV News, reports that a passionate group ranging from Elders to school children protested in Canning Vale on Dec. 1 against what was described as prison brutality and inhumane treatment towards children at the Banksia Hill Detention Centre. The protesters were there to support a class action against Banksia Hill, and included former inmates, community leaders and family members of current detainees. Banksia Hill is the only prison in Western Australia that houses both boys and girls between the ages of ten and 17 years old. According to a recent census, First Nations people make up over two-thirds (68.7%) of juvenile offenders in Western Australia. Joel Mead, a former inmate, described his experience as a 16-year-old being in solitary confinement at Banksia Hill. "It wasn't good at all. I was not allowed out to see anyone or anything. I had to go back to lockdown and it was 24/7 for two weeks straight." Megan Krakouer from the National Suicide Prevention & Trauma Recovery Project organised the community-led protest. Along with other prominent community leaders, she has started a class action suit against Banksia Hill, and says she has testimony from many more juvenile inmates with similar experiences to Joel. "Children in this place are getting flogged, they're getting abused, they're being denied psychological services and education," she told NITV News. "The class action has got over 500 plaintiffs from right across Western Australia. They are from Broome, Kununurra, Albany to Perth. "We are all coming together and saying enough is enough." Human rights lawyer Dr Hannah McGlade supported the class action. "I'm here to support the class action to litigate for the youth of Banksia Hill who have been abused and had their rights violated. "We know about the solitary confinement that has been going on here and the great harm this causes to children and young people," Dr Mcglade said. The class action review against Banksia Hill Detention Centre alleges proof of inhumane treatment, solitary confinement in intensive support units and deprived family contact. Anne Dann is an Elder of Broome, and says family was not contacted when her grandson was injured at the facility. "Look at my grandson, he came from Broome. He was in the Department of child protection from ten years old in Banksia. He is 17 today in Banksia. They broke his finger with the cell door and he had nobody to turn back to at home." Mervyn Eades, C.E.O of Ngalla Maya, an organisation that helps former inmates gain employment, says his own brother struggled in the facilities. "The stuff that has been going on in there is so bad it's not right. It's just a vicious cycle, the revolving door of incarceration. "I had a little brother in this same prison. He grew up here from a young age, in And out of child protection and welfare. He left here and went to Hakea Prison and hung himself 156 days after he arrived in adult prison. "This place breaks our children, it shatters them." Said Mr Eades. Over 10,000 children have been detained at the Banksia Hill Detention centre since it opened in 1997. [GN] BHC PINNACLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BHC PINNACLE POINTE HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01137-BRW (E.D. Ark., November 18, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Qualified Behavioral Health Professional from August 2015 until the present. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated BHPs regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek because the Defendant required them to record only 40 hours per week on their timesheet. BHC Pinnacle Pointe Hospital, LLC provides acute psychiatric services to children and teens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BOFI HOLDING: Court Denies Bid to Seal in Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order denying the parties': a. Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 4; and b. motion to seal the exhibits to the Joint Motion, and portions of the Joint Motion that quote or reveal the contents of those documents. Background Regarding the instant dispute, the Plaintiff seeks documents "relating to BofI's decision to pursue lawsuits against former internal auditor Charles Matthew Erhart, his mother, and his girlfriend." Erhart reported his suspicions that the Bank and its management were engaged in fraud to regulators, and, after being terminated from his employment, sued BofI in October 2015 for allegedly retaliating against him for his whistleblowing activities. That case, Erhart v. BofI, S.D. Cal. Case. No. 3:15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS, is pending in the District and is scheduled to begin trial in February. Erhart's complaint undisputedly informed the Plaintiff's allegations of securities fraud. Six days after Erhart filed suit, BofI sued him in the District for, inter alia, breach of contract, conversion, and computer fraud, alleging that he had failed to safeguard and improperly disclosed the Bank's confidential information -- BofI Federal Bank v. Erhart, S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-cv-02353-BAS-NLS (the "Countersuit").2 In 2016, BofI separately sued Erhart's girlfriend, Sofia Cornell, for allegedly "allowing Erhart to store the confidential information he stole from BofI on her laptop," and sued Erhart's mother, Pamela Erhart, for allegedly "receiving and storing confidential information that Erhart stole from BofI on her computer." The Plaintiff moves the Court to order the Defendants to produce two categories of documents related to the Erhart Family Lawsuits: (1) meeting minutes and other materials for BofI's Board of Directors meetings during which the lawsuits were discussed, and (2) "email communications referencing those lawsuits." To capture documents in the second category, the Plaintiff suggests that the Defendants run the search terms "(Matt* OR Erhart) AND (lawsuit OR sue OR Pamela OR mom OR mother OR girl-friend OR Sofia OR Cornell)" through the ESI of five document custodians, including some of the named defendants. The Plaintiff asserts that the request is timely, and that these documents are relevant and responsive to previously served Requests for Production. The Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's request as untimely, asserts the requested documents are irrelevant, and objects that the proposed search is overbroad, burdensome, and likely to capture privileged documents. The Court heard argument on the dispute during a Nov. 5, 2021 discovery conference. Discussion A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Is Untimely The discovery requests to which the requested documents are purportedly responsive were served on Dec. 23, 2020 and March 12, 2021. The Defendants' responses were served on Jan. 21, 2021 and March 12, 2021, respectively. The parties then engaged in protracted negotiations regarding search terms, including several conferences with the Court and the Court's staff, and ultimately reported to the Court that they had reached agreement. The Plaintiff did not request the supplemental responses or propose additional document searches related to these discovery requests until Sept. 2, 2021 -- the date by which the Court had ordered defendants to complete their document production -- and did not bring the parties' disagreement to the Court's attention until Oct. 18, 2021. Accordingly, Judge Crawford finds that the Plaintiff's demand for supplemental discovery responses, and subsequent request for the Court's assistance in resolving the parties' dispute, were untimely. Given the allegations in the TAC and the Plaintiff's repeated citation to the Countersuit therein, she finds that the Plaintiff's assertion that it was previously unaware that the Countersuit was related to Erhart's allegations of fraud (and the documents that purportedly corroborated them) is not credible. Furthermore, there was a wealth of information available to the Plaintiff regarding the Erhart Family Lawsuits. The Motion to Compel is accordingly denied as untimely. Because timeliness is "a dispositive threshold issue," Judge Crawford does not reach the parties' other arguments. B. Motion to Seal The parties move to seal excerpts of Erhart's and Defendant Garrabrants' depositions taken in the Erhart matter, and portions of the Joint Motion that quote from those excerpts. The Plaintiff opposes sealing "any portion" of the documents but was required to move for sealing under the terms of the operative Protective Order. The Defendants ask to maintain the documents under seal and note that the District Court permitted them to produce the Erhart transcripts in accordance with the Protective Order because of the "highly sensitive information contained therein." First, Judge Crawford finds that many of the excerpts of Erhart's deposition that the Plaintiff relied upon are already publicly available, and as to those excerpts, the Motion to Seal is denied. The Plaintiff will re-file these documents consistent with the terms of the Order within 4 days of the date of the Order. Second, as to the remaining deposition excerpts, the Plaintiff is correct that in the Circuit, designation of a document as "Confidential" pursuant to a blanket protective order is not sufficient to establish good cause for sealing. It is also true, however, that Judge Crawford's Chambers' Rules prohibit parties from filing exhibits to discovery motions that are extraneous to the dispute. Hence, the superfluous exhibits will accordingly be stricken from the record. Third, Judge Crawford is aware that the Joint Motion contains a direct quote from Garrabrants' deposition, which the parties have redacted in the publicly available version of the Joint Motion. However, she does not find that the Defendants' generic reference to "highly sensitive information" is sufficient to meet their burden to "show that specific prejudice or harm will result" if these two lines of testimony are not sealed. She also does not find good cause to seal the direct quote from Erhart's deposition. Although the she could not confirm whether the specific page cited by the Plaintiff was publicly filed in Erhart or the Countersuit, it is indisputable that Erhart's fears for his safety and discussion of those fears with his friends and family have been extensively discussed in public filings. Therefore, the unredacted Joint Motion must be filed on the public docket within 4 days of the date of the Order. For future discovery motions, the parties are advised that the Court follows the Circuit's established precedent and that designation of documents or testimony under the Protective Order, standing alone, will not be considered sufficient to demonstrate good cause for sealing. However, the Court will not abide either party using this rule as a pretext to file extraneous information on the public docket. Documents that are not germane to a dispute will be stricken. The Court also expects the parties to be aware of whether information is already publicly available, either on the docket in this matter or in related litigation, and to refrain from requesting sealed treatment for publicly available materials. Order For the reasons she stated, Judge Crawford denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the supplemental production of documents responsive to its Requests for Production served on Dec. 23, 2020, and March 12, 2021. She also denied the parties' Motion to Seal. Within 4 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff must file the unredacted Joint Motion, and pages 68, 93-98, 104-120, 124-127, 184, 190-193 and 202-203 of the Dec. 6, 2015 deposition of Charles Matthew Erhart taken in the Erhart matter, on the public docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9fz4du from Leagle.com. CAMPBELL SOUP: V8 Juice Blends Falsely Labeled, Yoshida Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE BANTA YOSHIDA, ANTHONY MANCUSO, and ASHLEY MISTLER, on behalf of themselves, those similarly situated and the general public, v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-09458 (Dec. 7, 2021) is a class action against Campbell on behalf of the Plaintiff, similarly situated Class Members, and the general public, to enjoin Campbell from deceptively marketing the Juice Blends with false and misleading labeling claims and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. According to the complaint, for several years, Campbell has sold a line of V8 brand juices called "Fruit and Vegetable 8 Blends". Campbell represents on their labels that the Juice Blends are healthy, or beneficial to health, with claims such as "Boost your morning nutrition" and "Healthy greens." These and the other representations and omissions of material facts, however, are false and misleading because consuming fruit juices like the V8 Juice Blends, due to their sugar content, increases the risk of metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver disease, and is further associated with increased all-cause mortality, the lawsuit says. Campbell Soup, doing business as Campbell's, is an American processed food and snack company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Paul K. Joseph, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com CANADA: Faces Sixties Scoop Metis and Non-Status Indian Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Provost, writing for CBC News, reports that a co-lead plaintiff in a national class action on behalf of Metis and non-status Indian survivors of the Sixties Scoop says she wants to be a voice for all of them after hearing that some feel they won't have a say in the legal proceeding. "That is very good information for me to know," Shannon Varley said. "I want to try and help all these people." The Sixties Scoop refers to the Canadian practice -- from the early 1950s until the early 1990s -- of taking children from Indigenous families and placing them for adoption with non-Indigenous parents. Many of the affected children lost their Indigenous identity and suffered mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically. Varley said she grew up on a farm about 75 kilometres northeast of Regina, not realizing she was Indigenous or adopted. She said she grew up in a very loving adoptive family and felt "totally included." Varley said she was 11 years old when her adoptive family told her that she had been adopted through the Adopt Indian Metis (AIM) program when she was an infant. Varley said even though kids at school had been previously asking what reserve she was from, she was in denial. "I told my parents, 'No, I'm not. I'm part of your family. I've been with you as long as I can remember,'" she said. 'Ashamed of being Aboriginal' She said she refused to believe she was Indigenous for most of her life -- and was not able to teach her three children to be proud of who they are -- because there was shame. "There was subliminal, just under the surface, racism toward Native people in the farming community where I grew up all my life," she said. "So I was ashamed of being Aboriginal when all of this started coming out." Until she learned the circumstances of her adoption through government records later in her life, she said she always wondered why it happened. "Why am I not with my real mom? Where is my real dad? And it gives you a sense of loss and wondering," she said. "Why wasn't I good enough? Why didn't they want me?" Varley was born in Prince Albert to an Indigenous mother from northern Saskatchewan, but was taken at birth by child welfare workers. "These are the reasons I've seen on the documents: she had no dependable vehicle to take me from the hospital and she wasn't married," she said. "At the time, a single Aboriginal woman with a child -- that factored into it also." She said a few survivors have since contacted her. "The common thread is that we all thought we were alone," she said. "We all thought there was no one else out there like me." Varley said she wants people to know she is aware of all the emotional aspects of being a Sixties Scoop survivor. She said she wants to be a "voice of pride" for Metis and non-status Indian survivors. "I am going to do my best to just bring pride to us and give us a prideful voice," she said. "We are here and we are speaking now and we are not alone and we are all going to get together and we are going to get some good things going for us -- something to bring some happiness and a sense of, yes, we do matter." Some survivors feel excluded from process Before the class action was certified earlier this year, a Federal Court judge had to decide which law firms and plaintiffs would carry the legal action against the federal government because of "bad blood" between the lawyers of four overlapping claims. It was the first time ever a federal judge had to make such a decision. Some plaintiffs from the other claims now feel they are on the outside looking in with little or no direct say on how the class action proceeds. The other lead plaintiff in the surviving class action, Sandra Lukowich, previously told CBC News the process should involve the government talking to every single survivor to hear what they need to make them feel whole. The two law firms handling the class action, Koskie Minsky LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, previously declined to be interviewed by CBC. However, in a statement, Koskie Minsky said the next step was for counsel to agree on a schedule, including a trial date in the Federal Court, and that it would have a further comment for the media once that step had been concluded. Government says it remains committed to resolving litigation In a statement provided to CBC following a Nov. 21 story on the class action, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said the Government of Canada is working toward recognizing past wrongs, especially those involving historic harms committed against Indigenous children, outside of the courts. Earlier this year, Canada consented to the certification of the Varley class action involving Metis and non-status Indians, it said. "The parties have committed to focus on discussions that could support a future resolution of the litigation," the statement said. "We remain committed to working with survivors, their counsel, leadership, and the provinces and territories to resolve this litigation, as we believe that negotiation is always preferable to litigation." Katherine Legrange, the director of 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada, a national non-profit organization that works to provide peer support to survivors, said she is encouraged that the government has said it is willing to negotiate an agreement out of court. However, Legrange also believes the government's statement is "kind of contradictory." "I think that by certifying and consenting to the certification, that indicates that they're prepared to go forward in court," she said. "But what they promised us is that they would negotiate and reach a settlement." Legrange said Metis and non-status Indian survivors have already had to wait unnecessarily for more than four years since they were promised a negotiated settlement, after being excluded from a previous Sixties Scoop settlement for status Indian and Inuit survivors. Legrange, a Sixties Scoop survivor herself, and co-plaintiff Derek Chief filed a claim against the federal government in 2018. She said there has been no action on that case, partly because they don't have legal counsel. "My guess is that our case will be stayed once a settlement is reached," she said. "My understanding is that it will probably be dismissed and then I will become part of the class as opposed to being a plaintiff in the negotiations." Told to stop writing to court In the meantime, she feels "out of the loop" and not included in the communications, she said. "In fact, I stopped writing to the Federal Court after I was told that it was inappropriate," she said. "So I stopped trying to get updates from the court and the judge at that point." A June 17, 2020, memorandum from Justice Michael L. Phelan said since Legrange was not a party to the proceeding, it was "not appropriate" for her to write to the judge or set up communications except by means of compliance with the court's rules. "My hope is that if Koskie Minsky or the other law firm is interested in creating a settlement for all survivors, then they need to include us," Legrange said. "And so my hope is that they'll reach out to us and want to include us in that negotiations team." [GN] CASA DO BRASIL: Faces Cortez Class Suit Over Tip Credit Allowance ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHALY CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. CASA DO BRASIL, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-03991 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2021) allege that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when it failed to notify each tipped employee employed within the last 3 years about the tip credit allowance (including the amount to be credited) before the credit was utilized. That is, Defendant's tipped employees were never made properly aware of how the tip credit allowance worked or what the amounts to be credited were, the lawsuit says. The Defendant pays its tipped employees at an hourly rate below minimum wage plus tips. By paying Plaintiff and other Tipped Employees less than the minimum wage per hour, the Defendant is taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendant to include in its calculation of wages a portion of the amounts that Plaintiff received as tips, the suit adds. The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a server at Defendant’s restaurant from June 2019 -- October 2019 and November 2020 -- April 2021. The Defendant operates two Casa do Brasil restaurants in Texas. Plaintiff worked at the Casa do Brasil location at 1665 Greens Prairie Rd, College Station, Texas. The Defendant employed servers, bartenders, and gauchos. The job duties for the servers, bartenders, or gauchos included taking orders, serving drinks, cutting meat at the tables, and meals to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223 8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Breda Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breda v. Cellco Partnership, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11512 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise J Casper entered an order denying as moot motion to certify class and denying as moot motion to exclude. The nature of suit states other statutes - other statutory actions. Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, provides wireless voice and data services.[CC] CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Guyton Sues Over Illegal Background Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO GUYTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FLORIDA, LLC, and CEMEX, INC., Case No. 139815631 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Dec. 6, 2021) is a class action complaint against the Defendants under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. Cemex routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on applicants and employees. Cemex willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways, in systematic violation of Plaintiff's rights and the rights of other putative class members, the lawsuit says. Specifically, Cemex violated 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) by terminating employment opportunities to Plaintiff based in part or in whole on the results of Plaintiff's consumer report without first providing him notice and a copy of the report, as well as a reasonable opportunity to dispute or discuss the contents of the report. On behalf of himself and the putative class, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief under the FCRA. The Plaintiff is a consumer who was employed by Defendant and subsequently terminated in whole or in part because of his consumer report. Cemex is a global leader in the construction material industry with hundreds of locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Stay of Sinclair Claims in Harper Lifted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair's motion to lift the stay of his claims. Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan Turner, Luis Vazquez, and Pedro Abascal brought the putative class action against their former employer, Charter Communications, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. On Oct. 13, 2021, the Court granted Charter's motions to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal's claims, and to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Harper's claims save for his PAGA claim. In that order, the Court also issued a temporary stay of Plaintiff Sinclair's claims pending arbitration of the other Plaintiffs' claims. In the instant motion, Sinclair argues that, because in its order the court resolved issues regarding arbitrability of the other Plaintiffs' claims itself rather than delegating them to an arbitrator, there no longer exists a reason to delay consideration of his claims or a motion for class certification. He states that during oral argument on Oct. 4, 2021, his counsel only expressed desire for a stay for long enough for Sinclair to determine whether to proceed without the other Plaintiffs as proposed class representatives and that, because those Plaintiffs are arbitrating their claims, he seeks to proceed with the action and present a renewed motion for class certification. He also notes that, because he did not sign an arbitration agreement, unlike the other Plaintiffs, section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide alternative grounds to stay his claims pending arbitration of the other Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Shubb explains that as part of the court's inherent power to control its docket, it may stay an action at its discretion, based upon the circumstances of the case before it. By the same token, "the same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay." The court may lift the stay when circumstances have changed such that its reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate. In general, district courts have "broad discretion" to control their dockets through use of stays. The Court stayed Plaintiff Sinclair's claims at his counsel's request. Sinclair's subsequent request that the court lift the stay thus represents a change of "circumstances such that the Court's reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist," contrary to Charter's contentions. For this reason, and because, when feasible, it is preferable to proceed with litigation of nonarbitrable claims, Judge Shubb will grant Sinclair's motion to lift the stay. Therefore, Judge Shubb granted Sinclair's motion to lift the stay of his claims. The parties are directed to stipulate to a briefing schedule and hearing date for Sinclair's renewed motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xbkthhd from Leagle.com. CLIENT SERVICES: Keller FDCPA Class Suit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Patrick Keller, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-50218 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Iain D. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, granted Keller's motion to remand the case back to state court and for fees. Introduction Plaintiff Keller brings the suit as a class action and an individual claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After Keller filed the claim in the Circuit Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of McHenry County, Illinois, Defendant Client Services removed to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Background Mr. Keller alleges that Client Services sent him a debt collection letter on Jan. 24, 2020, which sought collection of a $379.71 debt he allegedly owed on his CareCredit credit card. On Feb. 14, 2020, Keller's attorney sent Client Services a letter requesting verification of the debt and notifying it that Keller was represented by counsel. In late 2020 and into 2021, Client Services allegedly began sending Keller new collection letters. This time, they used a new reference number, even though the "amount and description of the debt made it clear that it concerns the same $379.71 debt as the January 24, 2020 letter." Mr. Keller alleges that this tactic confused him: He wasn't sure if it was the same debt or why Client Services was contacting him instead of his attorney, as the FDCPA requires. He further alleges that he was "harassed and aggravated as a result." On behalf of the putative class, Keller alleges that this tactic is a pattern for Client Services. In support, Keller points to numerous other lawsuits. Based on these allegations, Keller brings a class action for Client Services' alleged pattern of FDCPA violations (Count I). He also brings an individual claim for Client Services' alleged misleading communication and for failing to direct its communication to his attorney (Count II). Though not expressly listed as a claim, Keller also alleges that Client Services shared his private information with a third-party without his consent, though he never alleges any harm in connection with the allegedly unlawful sharing of information. Analysis Mr. Keller moves the Court to remand the case back to state court. The removal statute provides, "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be remanded." The statute further allows for the shifting of fees if the plaintiff is successful in moving for remand: "An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." In the case, Keller contends that he sued in state court because he believed he lacked standing to bring the action in federal court. A. Standing The elements of Article III standing are familiar: The Plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is redressable by the relief sought and traceable to the harm complained of. Because the analysis is driven by the harm complained of, it is the "first and foremost" element. The Supreme Court has defined an injury in fact as an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent—rather than merely hypothetical or conjectural. Judge Johnston opines that as the party removing the case, Client Services had the burden of establishing Article III standing. Keller reasonably and rightfully asserted that he lacked standing, a position supported by Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. Client Services has not met its burden of showing that standing exists. B. Fees Section 1447(c) provides a fee-shifting mechanism when plaintiffs successfully move to remand a civil action back to state court. "An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." In Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., the Supreme Court explained that the determination of whether fees are appropriate under Section 1447(c) should turn on the reasonableness of the removal. In the case, Client Services removed the action to federal court and then broadly asserted an affirmative defense that Keller did not suffer a concrete injury in fact. It removed to federal court and bestowed on itself the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction and did so while admitting that it believed the Court lacked jurisdiction. Three glaring problems exist with the tactic, Judge Johnston opines. First, a lack of standing is not an affirmative defense in federal court. Second, Client Services apparently knew that two of Keller's three individual claims lacked standing. Third, the practice of removing an action to federal court and then arguing against standing later is not reasonable. For those reasons, Judge Johnston exercises discretion to order that the cost of removal be shifted under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) to Client Services. Conclusion For the reasons explained, Judge Johnston granted Keller's motion to remand and for fees. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.3, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding the amount of fees recoverable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). They are further ordered to file a joint status report by Dec. 23, 2021, regarding the status of their LR 54.3 conference and whether any fee dispute remains. If no dispute exists, the Court will then remand the case forthwith to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, McHenry County, Illinois. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8byxp6 from Leagle.com. COMMUNITY REALTY: Underpays Porters, Yanza Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- The case, VICTOR YANZA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY REALTY CORPORATION, HERE REALTY LLC, and JOEL BERGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06410 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or about 2003 to work as a porter for one of the Defendants' developments, Kissena Gardens. According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he worked at least 3 hours past his 8:00am to 4:00pm shift. However, the Plaintiff only received a fixed salary of $500.00 a week regardless of overtime hours worked, says the suit. The Corporate Defendants own, sell, and provide property management to buildings throughout New York. Joel Berger owns both the Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 CREDIT COLLECTION: Simmonds Sues Over Misleading Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------- WEESLEY SIMMONDS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-DBP (D. Utah, November 18, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred primarily for personal, family or household purposes that unfortunately was fell behind in the payments. The alleged debt was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for collection. Subsequently on or about February 15, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt. However, there was a statement in the Defendant's collection letter that was false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of the alleged debt because the statement was likely to confuse or otherwise mislead the least sophisticated debtor regarding credit reporting, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's each and every violation of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff seeks any actual and statutory damages for himself and other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks litigation costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and other punitive damages and any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Credit Collection Services is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 4455 E. Camelback Road, Suite C250 Phoenix, AR 85018 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com CRST EXPEDITED: Court Modifies Scheduling & Case Management Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH HUCKABY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa corporation; CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-07766-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting stipulation to modify scheduling and case management order as follows. 1. Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion February 27, 2022 for Class Certification: 2. Deadline for Defendant's March 21, 2022 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: 3. Deadline for Plaintiff's April 4, 2022 Reply Brief: 4. Hearing on Plaintiff's April 18, 2022 Motion for Class Certification: CRST provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31EeQ9j at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID SHINN: Stewart Suit Removed to D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jenghiz Kn Stewart, & those similarly situated, et al v. David C Shinn, named as Director Shinn, Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADOC"); J. Rigley, Warden, GEO Group Security Services Inc. ("GEO Group"); Unknown Kiezer, named as Leiutenant Keizer, GEO Group Security Services Inc ("GEO Group"); Case No. S8015CV2021-01161, was removed from the Mohave County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Dec. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-08260-GMS--JZB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner: Prison Condition for the Civil Rights Act. David C. Shinn is the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants is represented by: Pari Komalahiranya Scroggin, Esq. GRASSO LAW FIRM PC 2250 E Germann Rd., Ste. 10 Chandler, AZ 85286 Phone: (480) 739-1200 Email: pscroggin@grassolawfirm.com DMD MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response to Dec. 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISA SPENCER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. DMD MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A LEGACY HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01698-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order grantng a two-week extension of time for them to respond to Plaintiff Spencer's motion for Conditional certification and Court-supervised notice to potential opt-In Plaintiffs, until December 22, 2021. In exchange, the Defendants agree to toll the statute of limitations for an equivalent two-weeks for any putative collective member who may later opt into this suit. Counsel for the Defendants has contacted counsel for the Plaintiff, who do not oppose this request. Legacy Health Services is a family-owned and operated post-acute care services company located in Parma, Ohio. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IyMlul at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, Ohio 44144 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, Ohio 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlabor.law.com The Counsel for the Defendants, are: Andrew J. Dorman, Esq. Katie Lynn Zorc, Esq. REMINGER CO., L.P.A. 101 Prospect Avenue West, Suite 1400 Cleveland, OH 44115-1093 Telephone: (216) 430-2169 Facsimile: (216) 687-1841 E-mail: ADorman@reminger.com KZorc@reminger.com DOVER MOTORSPORTS: Dugerian Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DUGERIAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOVER MOTORSPORTS, INC., HENRY B. TIPPIE, PATRICK J. BAGLEY, R. RADCLIFFE HASTINGS, TIMOTHY R. HORNE, JEFFREY W. ROLLINS, DENIS MCGLYNN, MICHAEL A. TATOIAN, and ANASTASIA T. NARDANGELI, Case No. 2021-1067 (Del. Ch., Dec. 8, 2021) is a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of Dover Motorsports against Dover and the members of Dover's Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's efforts to sell the Company to Speedway Motorsports through its subsidiary Speedco II, Inc. via a tender offer. On November 8, 2021, Dover and Speedway issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 8, 2021, to sell Dover to Speedway. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Speedway will acquire all outstanding shares of Dover for $3.61 per share in cash. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced the Tender Offer on November 23, 2021. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59 p.m. (12:00 midnight), Eastern time, on December 21, 2021. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $131.5 million. On November 23, 2021, Dover filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC to, among other things, recommend that Dover stockholders accept the Offer Price and tender their shares to Purchaser pursuant to the Tender Offer. The Recommendation Statement allegedly fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information thereby rendering the shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to tender their shares in the Tender Offer or seek appraisal. Critically, the Recommendation Statement omits any financial projections for Dover, including the most critical metric for Dover stockholders -- Dover's free cash flow projections -- relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and the background of the Proposed Transaction, including critical information regarding the PE Firm's competing proposal, whether the PE Firm and other potential topping bidders are precluded from making a topping bid through provisions in the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) they executed with the Company and the details of any employment discussions Dover executives had with Speedway, says the suit. In facilitating the Proposed Transaction and disseminating the incomplete and misleading Recommendation Statement, each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59 p.m. (12:00 midnight), Eastern time, on December 21, 2021, and the Proposed Transaction is expected to be consummated shortly thereafter. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the expiration of the Tender Offer so they can properly determine whether to tender their shares in the Tender Offer or seek appraisal. If this material information is not timely disseminated, the Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Dover will suffer the irreparable injury of an uninformed tender or appraisal decision and Dover's public stockholders may not receive the true value of their investment. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the expiration of the Tender Offer unless and/or until defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, or, in the event it is consummated, recover damages resulting from the defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties. Speedway is a leading marketer, promoter and sponsor of motorsports entertainment in the United States. Through its subsidiaries, it owns and operates the following premier facilities: Atlanta Motor Speedway, Bristol Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, Las Vegas Motor Speedway, New Hampshire Motor Speedway, Sonoma Raceway, Texas Motor Speedway and Kentucky Speedway. Purchaser is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Speedway. Dover is a promoter of NASCAR sanctioned and other motorsports events in the United States whose subsidiaries own and operate two of auto racing's most distinctive venues, Dover International Speedway in Dover, Delaware and Nashville Superspeedway in Lebanon, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com DRUMMOND COMPANY: Jerue Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Porcelli ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerue v. Drummond Company, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order referring motion for report and recommendation. The "Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Legal Memorandum in Support Thereof" is referred to the Honorable Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto, says Judge Barber. The nature of suit states real property -- all other real Drummond Company is a privately owned company based in Birmingham, Alabama, United States, involved in the mining and processing of coal and coal products as well as oil and real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 1, 2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN LACON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATION PRINCIPLE FOUNDATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03957-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered a scheduling order: -- All motions to amend the complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before Jan 18, 2022. -- The parties shall complete all discovery by June 10, 2022. -- Motions for class certification shall be filed by July 1, 2022. -- The court designates Benjamin Hogan as lead counsel for the plaintiff; Justin Boron as lead counsel for Education Principle Foundation, South University Member, LLCc, and South University Savannah, LLC; and Lisa Messner as lead counsel for Yodel Technologies, LLC. Education Principle Foundation operates as a non-profit organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pAJ7hc at no extra charge.[CC] ELEMENT MATERIALS: Clemons Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MARK CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV42552 (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 18, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as non-exempt employee, asserts these claims: -- The Defendants have failed to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages; -- The Defendants have failed to provide him and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with meal periods and rest breaks, and failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal periods and rest breaks; -- The Defendants have failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements; -- The Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records; and -- The Defendants have failed to timely pay all earned wages owed to them upon separation of employment. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff seeks civil penalties against the Defendants, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC provides testing, inspection, and certification services for diverse products, materials, and technologies in advanced industrial supply chains where failure in use is not an option. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Tel: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 ENERGY INSPECTION: Sisk Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NMMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SISK, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENERGY INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01170-GBW-CG (D.N.M., Dec. 8, 2021) seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers. The Plaintiff Sisk brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Energy Inspection Services, LLC (EIS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Sisk worked for EIS as a welding inspector. Sisk and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked for EIS in excess of 40 hours each week. But EIS allegedly did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and NMMWA, EIS improperly paid Sisk and the Day Rate Inspectors a daily rate with no overtime compensation, the lawsuit says. EIS provides professional, integrated field services generating quality, flexibility, and cost savings for your heavy industry projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: emjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com FANDUEL INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ortega Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANDUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10066 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, fanduel.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. FanDuel Inc. develops and publishes an online daily fantasy sports game. The Company offers players the ability to draft a new team at any time and pitch it head-to-head against a single opponent or a league of opponents for a cash prize for the player whose team has the most fantasy points at the end of the day. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan P. Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave. Suite 1E5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 918-9347 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com FANNIE MAE: Junior Preferred Stock Holders Win Class Status ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations Case No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. certifying three classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): -- "All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie Preferred Class");" -- "All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Preferred Class");" and -- "All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their successors in interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of certification and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common Class");" Excluded from the foregoing three classes (the "Classes") are defendants and the United States Department of Treasury, as well as their respective officers and directors; 2. appointing plaintiff Joseph Cacciapalle as a class representative of the Fannie Preferred Class and the Freddie Preferred Class; 3. appointing plaintiff Barry P. Borodkin as a class representative of the Fannie Preferred Class; 4. appointing plaintiffs Michelle M. Miller and Timothy J. Cassell as class representatives of the Freddie Common Class. 5. appointing the law firms of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.; and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as Co- Lead Class Counsel; 6. directing the parties to promptly meet and confer regarding an appropriate form, content, and method of providing the notices to be disseminated to the Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B); and 7. directing the Parties, no later than 45 days following the entry of this Order, to submit a mutually satisfactory stipulation and proposed order setting forth the agreed- upon form, content, and method of providing the notices to be disseminated to the Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B). A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IBGsMM at no extra charge.[CC] FBCS INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Lowe Debt Collection Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BARBARA LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, INC, and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-2268 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: (i) denied the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Background The instant action arises out of a state court debt collection action initiated by LVNV against Lowe, wherein the Superior Court of New Jersey entered apparently conflicting and erroneous orders. Namely, the Superior Court dismissed the case against Lowe but also entered default judgment against her. The Defendants, debt collectors, allegedly attempted to collect on the default judgment while it was in effect and before it was vacated. On July 11, 2016, Defendant LVNV commenced an action against the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, Docket Number PAS-DC-5913-16 (the "State Court Action") seeking to collect a personal credit card debt. The Plaintiff filed an Answer in the State Court Action on Aug. 12, 2016, disputing the debt. She was thereafter notified that the matter would be set down for trial on Oct. 20, 2016. On Oct. 14, 2016, LVNV filed a request for default judgment against Lowe in the State Court Action and submitted a certification of proof regarding its damages. That day, the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of LVNV and against Lowe under Judgment Number PAS-VJ-6348. On Oct. 20, 2016, the morning of trial, LVNV's counsel submitted a letter to the state court indicating that the matter should be marked as settled. That day, the Plaintiff appeared for the trial in the State Court Action as scheduled, but LVNV did not. As a result, Judge Liliana S. DeAvila-Silebi entered an Order dismissing the case by reason of LVNV's non-appearance. On Nov. 8, 2016, despite the dismissal order, the Superior Court filed a notice stating that judgment had been entered in favor of LVNV against the Plaintiff for an amount of $1,173.19 on Oct. 14, 2016. On Oct. 11, 2018, the state court filed a "Statement for Docketing," which would have allowed LVNV to docket that judgment. The Plaintiff alleges that, in 2019, FBCS started calling her to collect a debt on behalf of LVNV. She cannot remember the dates or number of calls but recalls receiving many calls from FBCS from mid to late 2019. She also alleges that, during one or more of those calls, she verbally disputed the debt. By letter dated Sept. 11, 2019, FBCS acknowledged the Plaintiff's verbal dispute of the alleged debt. During her deposition on Feb. 19, 2021, the Plaintiff could not recall this letter. She also could not recall disputing an account with FBCS, making a phone call to FBCS, or receiving any calls or letters from FBCS or LVNV. On Aug. 17, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered in the State Court Action. On Aug. 23, 2021, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered an order (the "Vacatur Order") granting the Plaintiffs motion to vacate the default judgment, finding that the judgment had been "entered erroneously" and declaring the judgment "void ab initio. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint, which she amended on June 1, 2020 (the "First Amended Complaint"). In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants attempted to collect a debt that was subject to dismissal and by doing so, made a false representation in violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5) and 1692e(10). The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 15, 2020. Upon motion by the Plaintiff, on Feb. 11, 2021, the Court entered an order staying consideration of the Defendants' motion to dismiss pending the disposition of the Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment in the State Court Action. On April 16, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. They argue that: (1) the Plaintiff cannot establish any debt collections efforts within the statutory period; and (2) even if the Defendants attempted to collect the debt at issue within the statutory period, said attempts did not violate 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e because a judgment had been entered against the Plaintiff at the time of the debt collection. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on May 24, 2019, arguing that her claims are timely and that there is sufficient evidence that the Defendants had violated the FDCPA by seeking an invalid default judgment, making false representations to the State court, and thereafter calling the Plaintiff to collect on an invalid judgment. On June 1, 2021, the Defendants replied in further support of their motion for summary judgment, reiterating arguments made in their initial motion. On Oct. 8, 2021, the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) she has Article III standing; (2) her claims are timely; (3) there is no dispute that Defendants attempted to collect a debt subject to dismissal and thus made a false or misleading statement in violation of the FDCPA; and (4) she is entitled to recover actual and statutory damages and an award of attorneys' fees. The Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Oct. 18, 2021, arguing that: The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, they did not violate section FDCPA by attempting to collect on the judgment at issue, the Plaintiff lacks standing, and she is not entitled to any damages or legal fees under the FDCPA. On Oct. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a reply in further support of her motion for summary judgment. Discussion Judge Cecchi first considers the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and views the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff. The parties dispute whether the Defendants attempted to collect a debt within the one-year statute of limitations period and whether, in doing so, the Defendants violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff alleges that FBCS called her from "mid to late 2019" seeking to collect a debt on behalf of LVNV. The Defendants contest this point, noting that, during her deposition, the Plaintiff could not confirm or even recall a single call from the Defendants. Even assuming that the Defendants called the Plaintiff in 2019 to collect the default judgment in the State Court Action, Judge Cecchi finds that the Defendants' efforts did not violate Section 1692c of the FDCPA. Section 1692e prohibits the use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt" and provides a non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct. The Plaintiff argues that default judgment was erroneously entered against her in the State Court Action, and thus, the "Defendants' efforts to collect a debt that was the subject of dismissal is improper per se." Judge Cecchi finds this argument unpersuasive. Although the default judgment entered against the Plaintiff was eventually vacated, it was in effect from October 2016 to August 2021. Therefore, the Defendants have satisfied their burden of identifying evidence that shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The Plaintiff nevertheless argues that, because the Superior Court found that the default judgment was void ab initio, the Vacatur Order entered on Aug. 23, 2021 should be treated as if the order itself existed in 2019. The Plaintiff has provided no case law in support of this proposition, and Judge Cecchi disagrees with her reasoning. Even though the default judgment is now considered invalid, the judgment nevertheless existed in 2019 when the alleged communications were made. Since Judge Cecchi finds that the Defendants satisfied their burden of showing an absence of a genuine of issue of material, the non-moving party must now "go beyond the pleadings and by its own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" In the case, besides arguing that Defendants' alleged attempts to collect on the erroneous default judgment were per se false and misleading -- an argument that the Court has already dismissed -- the Plaintiff has not alleged that any other aspect of the alleged debt collection communications were false, misleading, or illegal. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. In her cross-motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff reiterates the argument that she made in opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment: Namely, that the Defendants violated the FDCPA, as a matter of law, because they attempted to collect a debt that was subject to dismissal. As expressed, the Defendants' attempts to collect on the default judgment were not inherently false or misleading, even though the default judgment was eventually dismissed, because the default judgment was in effect at the time of the alleged debt collection communications. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion is denied. Conclusion For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mfbyjbm6 from Leagle.com. FCA US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 26, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY CRAWFORD, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12341-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Stephen J. Murphy entered a stipulated order regarding additional case deadlines as follows: -- Substantial completion of July 15, 2022 production of documents: -- Plaintiffs' initial disclosure Sept. 16, 2022 of class certification expert reports: -- Defendant's disclosure of class Oct. 28, 2022 certification expert reports: -- Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Dec. 9, 2022 reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) (if any): -- Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 26, 2023 certification: -- Defendant's opposition to March 13, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Any motion(s) to exclude class March 13, 2023 certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of April 17, 2023 their motion for class certification: -- Opposition(s) to motion(s) to April 17, 2023 exclude class certification experts: -- Replies in support of motion(s) May 8, 2023 to exclude class certification experts: -- Oppositions to dispositive 45 days after motions due: motions filed -- Replies in support of 21 days after dispositive motions due: oppositions filed FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQJlQa at no extra charge.[CC] FIELDALE FARMS: $60M Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Appointed Counsel's motion an interim fee award; reimbursement of litigation expenses; and incentive awards to the five named class representatives. Introduction In the lawsuit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the chicken industry against more than 20 Defendants, the Court appointed interim counsel to represent a putative class of direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "DPPs" and their "Appointed Counsel"). The Court approved settlements the Appointed Counsel negotiated with six defendant corporate families, totaling $170,261,600, while the case continues to proceed against the remaining Defendants. Background Without the benefit of a prior government investigation to guide them, the Appointed Counsel filed the first complaint in the case in September 2016. Since then, the Court has appointed counsel for two additional classes and more than 100 entities have opted out of the classes to file their own direct actions. The more than 20 Defendants are represented by some of the most prominent law firms in the country. The Appointed Counsel successfully defended the case against a significant motion to dismiss. They have shepherded the case through extensive discovery, as is recounted in the declaration supporting their motion, and is reflected in the more than 5,000 docket entries that make up the case, including 16 scheduling orders. The Appointed Counsel have briefed numerous motions, including a motion for class certification that is currently pending. The Appointed Counsel have been assisted by 20 other firms. The Appointed Counsel and the assisting firms have submitted their hours for the Court's review on a quarterly basis. Their collective lodestar is 100,608.25 hours representing $50,928.159.75 in fees. The Appointed Counsel seek a fee award of one-third of the settlement total of $170,261,600, or $56,753,866. They also seek payment of $4.5 million of the $5,104,566.48 in litigation expenses they have incurred. And they seek a $25,000 incentive award for each of the five named plaintiffs. Analysis A. Risk of Non-Payment & Caliber of Class Counsel's Performance Judge Durkin opines that the Appointed Counsel have devoted thousands of hours to the case. Their performance to date has been exemplary. The road to some of the settlements was eventually smoothed by later criminal indictments. But the Appointed Counsel's work appears to have prompted the government investigations that led to those indictments, rather than the reverse. A substantial award is warranted as a proper incentive for high quality counsel to take on complex cases, requiring a massive investment of time and money, with such a high risk of non-payment. B. Fee Awards in Comparable Cases Clients generally want to incentivize their counsel to pursue every last settlement dollar, and a declining percentage award operates to the contrary. Thus, to the extent that courts in other circuits have awarded percentages smaller than what the Appointed Counsel seek, Judge Durkin finds those awards relatively unpersuasive. Most persuasive are the large number of antitrust cases in the circuit that have awarded one-third of the common fund as attorney's fees. The fact that fee awards in antitrust cases in the circuit are almost always one-third is a strong indication that this should be considered the "market rate." There is simply little to no precedent recommending anything other than an award of 33%. With the only real evidence of the "market rate" being one-third, that is what the Court will award. C. Expenses The Appointed Counsel seek $4.5 million out of $5,104,566.48 in expenses. The Appointed Counsel "informed the class" that they would not seek to recover the full amount of their expenses at this time. The request for $4.5 million in expenses is granted. Therefore, the Appointed Counsel will be paid fees of one-third of the settlement fund minus $4.5 million in expenses. D. Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards Empirical evidence shows that incentive awards are now paid in most class suits and average between $10-$15,000 per class representative." The Appointed Counsel cite one antitrust case from this district which awarded $15,000 to named plaintiffs from a $90 million settlement. Without specific hour totals indicating a higher award is appropriate, and without evidence that the role of class representative imposed anything other than a professional (as opposed to a personal) burden, the Court will not ignore what appears to be a customary maximum of a $15,000 incentive award. Conclusion Therefore, the Appointed Counsel's motion is granted as follows: (1) expenses are awarded in the amount of $4.5 million; (2) incentive awards in the amount of $15,000 are awarded to each of the five class representatives; and (3) fees are awarded in the amount of $55,228,866.70, which is one third of the settlement fund after deducting the expenses and incentive awards. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fe6ekfx from Leagle.com. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Ratepayers' Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Kathiann M. Kowalski, writing for Energy News Network, reports that despite admitting to alleged bribes and unlawful activity that led to the passage of House Bill 6, FirstEnergy just argued that the law and orders under it shield the company from lawsuits from ratepayers. The argument came in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of ratepayers who are or will be subject to higher rates as a result of House Bill 6. Nuclear subsidies and recession-proofing provisions for utilities have since been repealed. But ratepayers are still subject to the law's provisions for subsidies for two old coal plants. The law gutted the state's clean energy standards as well. If plaintiffs win, all Ohio ratepayers could potentially benefit. "What's unique about this case is the company has admitted to having committed a crime and has admitted that some of the decisions that came out of the [Public Utilities] Commission may well have been induced by bribery," said Ashley Brown, a former utilities commissioner who now heads the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. The amended complaint says the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, as well as the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act. The named defendants are FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Service Company, Energy Harbor and several current and former officers. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, triple damages, attorney fees and other relief, such as a ruling that HB 6 is unlawful. Due deference -- or not FirstEnergy argued last year that the court couldn't grant relief based on a "filed-rate doctrine." In general, courts respect the rates set in state utility cases. However, Judge Edmund Sargus ruled last winter, the argument doesn't apply to payments outside of the usual ratemaking process. Also, he wrote, HB 6 played an overriding role. HB 6 is Ohio's nuclear and coal bailout law. FirstEnergy renewed the argument on Nov. 19, saying it made filings with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio after being told to do so because of HB 6. But, Brown said, the PUCO's orders under HB 6 are themselves under a cloud of alleged corruption. FirstEnergy has admitted it paid $4.3 million to a company controlled by Sam Randazzo shortly before he became PUCO chair, with the understanding that he would take official action for the company's benefit. Randazzo has denied wrongdoing. In Brown's view, FirstEnergy's admissions forfeited any protection that a filed-rate doctrine might have given it. They also raise questions about the PUCO's integrity. "How can we respect the filed rate when the rate was derived from corruption?" Brown asked. Even after news of the scandal broke in mid-2020, the PUCO didn't conduct a full investigation into alleged corruption and all of FirstEnergy's actions relating to HB 6, he noted. Among other things, its staff told prospective corporate separation auditors not to include HB 6 in the scope of their work. "The kind of presumption of validity that the [federal court] accords to agency decisions is really being jeopardized and perhaps eliminated" by the PUCO's own conduct, Brown said. "The commission's inaction, and the actions of course of Randazzo, have basically diminished its ability to defend the integrity of its own decisions." "The PUCO can't comment on pending court cases," said spokesperson Matt Schilling. "However, I will point out, as you are likely aware, the nuclear monies were never collected and the PUCO has ordered FirstEnergy's utilities to refund decoupling-related monies consistent with Ohio law." The class action case goes beyond HB 6's now-repealed nuclear plant subsidies for FirstEnergy Solutions -- now Energy Harbor -- and charges for recession-proofing FirstEnergy or other utilities. Among other things, the requested relief includes charges for two 1950s coal plants, known as the OVEC plants. PUCO rulings since the scandal erupted last year seem consistent with "FirstEnergy driving the bus on the investigation and accountability," said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute. "You basically have a signed confession from this company," Anderson said. Yet rulings by hearing examiners and the commission have shielded FirstEnergy from disclosing information and documents to multiple parties. "What is it you don't want the public to see?" he asked. FirstEnergy spokesperson Mark Durbin said he could not comment on pending litigation. He also was asked about some critics' call for PUCO to start a full ratemaking case now. In response, Durbin noted that a $306 million settlement last month "was unanimous with the PUCO staff and other parties, while also specifying that the next rate case will be in 2024." That case dealt with significantly excessive profits from an unlawful credit support rider. It did not deal explicitly with House Bill 6. Delaying a full rate case until 2024 means the test years will likely be 2022 and 2023, Anderson said. In other words, that case likely won't include "a full look under the hood" at FirstEnergy's utilities' books for the years most relevant to HB 6. Questioning corruption FirstEnergy's Nov. 19 filing also argued that "private litigation cannot collaterally attack state legislation" -- in this case, HB 6 -- "by treating it as 'injuring' a party." For support, it referred to an 1810 Supreme Court case and noted that the case was recently cited in a case against Commonwealth Edison in Illinois. The Commonwealth Edison case involved RICO claims based on corruption that led to state subsidies. The district court's decision found that the complaint didn't adequately allege causation. And an Illinois district court case isn't binding on a federal court in Ohio. The 1810 Supreme Court case dealt with whether corruption behind a state land grant law could nullify the rights of later innocent purchasers. The Supreme Court said no. "If the original transaction was infected with fraud, these purchasers did not participate in it, and they had no notice of it," Chief Justice John Marshall wrote. "They were innocent." FirstEnergy's situation is more like a man who murders his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan, Brown said, referring to a quote commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln. "They simply scorched the whole integrity of the process," Brown said. "And now they're complaining that, 'just because we bribed someone, why would that deprive us of the benefit of the rates that we bought?'" Also, he noted, Congress didn't enact the RICO statute until 1970 -- 160 years after the 1810 case. Other relief? FirstEnergy's Nov. 19 motion also suggests the federal court shouldn't worry because ratepayers have other avenues for relief. Bills to repeal HB 6 have been stalled. And groups continue to question the independence of the PUCO. "It is difficult . . . for the PUCO to discover the facts about the FirstEnergy scandal while not looking for them," said a Nov. 22 filing by the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel in one of the PUCO's "HB 6 related" cases. "Is the commission here to protect customers? Or are they there to protect the financial best interests of the company?" asked Neil Waggoner, senior Ohio representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. "I think there needs to be an overall review of the commission. We need to look at how the commission carries out business top to bottom." Waggoner asked for such a review from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and Ohio Inspector General Randall Meyer in August. So far, he's had no response. It's unclear how the federal court will rule on FirstEnergy's motion. Lawyers for plaintiffs in the class action case did not respond to a request for comment. Presumably they will oppose FirstEnergy's motion. If the company's arguments fail, then Judge Sargus will need to consider whether to let the case move ahead as a class action. He initially agreed to that on Nov. 9, certifying a class of all Ohio ratepayers who have or will pay higher rates because of HB 6. Presumably that class could extend beyond FirstEnergy's customers. Other utilities' ratepayers were already required to subsidize the OVEC plants through 2024. But HB 6 extends those subsidies through 2030, with an estimated total price tag as high as $1.8 billion. Judge Sargus vacated that order on Nov. 19 after FirstEnergy objected. The company said it didn't have to respond to the motion to certify the class until after its lawyers had a chance to ask questions to the named plaintiffs under oath. The judge's Nov. 19 order noted that the defendants didn't necessarily have that right when they had violated an earlier scheduling order for that questioning to take place. Nonetheless, the order said, it would give FirstEnergy a chance to respond. That response is now due on Dec. 14. [GN] FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Hoke ADA Class Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOL HOKE v. SHAVONNA MURPHY, DR. WEAVER MITCHELL, JOSEFINA BALUGA, and the FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:21-cv-00128-WS-MAF (W.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Stafford entered an order: 1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation; 2. dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against the Florida State Hospital; 3. dismissing the Plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) claim for failure to state a claim; 4. denying the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and class certification; 5. directing the clerk to return the case to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on all other claims. The magistrate judge recommends that: (1) Plaintiff's claims against the Florida State Hospital be dismissed; (2) Plaintiff's claim under the ADA be dismissed for failure to state a claim; (3) Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief be denied; (4) Plaintiff's request for class action certification be denied; and (5) all other claims be allowed to proceed. Florida State Hospital is a mental health treatment facility owned and operated by the State of Florida A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ydjcQF at no extra charge.[CC] FLUOR CORP: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Pennington Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, HARRY PENNINGTON, III; TIMOTHY LORENTZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FLUOR CORPORATION; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.; SCANA CORPORATION; FLUOR DANIEL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC.; SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC.; ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC.; SOUTH CAROLINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amici Supporting Appellees. LAWRENCE BUTLER; LAKEISHA DARWISH; JIMI CHE SUTTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FLUOR CORPORATION; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC.; ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC.; SOUTH CAROLINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amici Supporting Appellees, Case Nos. 21-1141, 21-1143 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to both SCANA and Fluor. In 2017, SCANA, an electric and natural gas public utility, halted construction at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina. As a result, Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), a contractor with SCANA, laid off its employees working at the project, as did Fluor, a subcontractor hired by WEC. Employees of both WEC and Fluor then sued SCANA and Fluor, alleging that the companies had failed to give notice of the plant closure and layoffs as required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, holding that SCANA was not required to give notice to the employees of contractors working on-site, and that Fluor had complied with the WARN Act. For the following reasons, the Fourth Circuit affirms. In 2008, SCANA, along with Santee Cooper, a state-owned electric and water utility, set out to build a nuclear power plant. The project, two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in central South Carolina, was an ambitious one. Along with an unrelated nuclear reactor in Georgia, V.C. Summer "represent[ed] the first new generation of nuclear power plant construction in the United States in 30 years." J.A. 380. To build the project, the two utilities entered into an agreement with WEC, which was tasked with designing and manufacturing the reactors. Eight years later, the project was substantially over budget and behind schedule. WEC needed a new subcontractor to manage construction at the site and turned to Fluor, hoping in part that the new construction company could turn the project around. Instead, a bad situation became worse. According to the plaintiffs, Fluor soon conducted an analysis that concluded the project would run a further $6 billion over budget and would take another three years to complete. Furthermore, WEC would be liable for those costs, since it had agreed to build the project for a fixed price. In March 2017, WEC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under an interim agreement between SCANA and WEC, WEC would continue to perform work at the site, while SCANA would make payments to Fluor directly on behalf of WEC. As things stood in the summer of 2017, therefore, SCANA, WEC, and Fluor all continued to work at the plant. SCANA held the license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and was required to oversee the project and ensure that the work conformed with the terms of the license. But pursuant to its agreement with SCANA, WEC was solely responsible for the means and methods that it employed. Fluor meanwhile, under the terms of its own agreement with WEC, managed the actual construction on the site. Fluor had no direct contractual relationship with SCANA, aside from the payments made under the interim agreement. On July 7, 2017, this house of cards finally collapsed when Santee Cooper informed SCANA that it intended to discontinue funding its portion of the project. SCANA could not continue the project on its own and on July 31, after Santee Cooper's board formally voted to suspend funding, SCANA abruptly stopped all construction at the site. It is undisputed that SCANA alone ordered the plant's closure and gave neither Fluor nor WEC any advance notice. SCANA for its part states that there was no closure to announce until Santee Cooper's board actually voted and that SCANA had in fact spent much of July looking for other partners to replace Santee Cooper. Moreover, any advance notice of the project's closure could violate insider trading laws and would jeopardize ongoing efforts by SCANA and Santee Cooper to recover a contractual guarantee from WEC's parent company, Toshiba. When the site closed, Fluor and WEC laid off a total of approximately 4,000 workers employed at the project. Following the plant closure, employees at WEC and Fluor filed a class action complaint against SCANA and Fluor in federal district court, contending that the two companies had violated their obligations under the WARN Act. As the case progressed, SCANA and Fluor moved for summary judgment. SCANA argued that it was not liable under the WARN Act since it had not employed any of the plaintiffs, all of whom worked for either WEC or Fluor. And Fluor argued that it could not reasonably have foreseen SCANA's sudden closure of the plant and that it therefore was relieved of liability under a statutory exception for unforeseeable business circumstances. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment to both SCANA and Fluor in a thorough and thoughtful opinion. It first held that SCANA was not an "employer" of the plaintiffs under a multi-factor test enumerated by the Department of Labor. It noted, for instance, that SCANA had no ownership interest in WEC or Fluor, nor did it share any common directors or officers with those companies. Likewise, the companies were "wholly independent and unaffiliated" and there was no evidence in the record that SCANA had integrated its personnel policies with those of WEC or Fluor. And on one important factor, the "de facto exercise of control," the court reviewed the record extensively, and concluded that SCANA had not exerted greater control over Fluor or WEC than "would be expected between an independent contractor and a principal client, particularly in a highly regulated industry." Accordingly, the district court held that SCANA had not been required to give notice to the Plaintiffs. The court then considered Fluor's liability under the statute. It concluded that the abrupt shutdown, which Fluor had not anticipated, qualified as an unforeseeable business circumstance and that Fluor was thus exempted from giving 60 days of notice. The court also determined that Fluor had complied with the statutory requirement that it send notice as soon as practicable, since the company mailed notice to its employees in the days following the closure of the plant. The Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Fourth Circuit. They contend that SCANA functioned as their "employer" for WARN Act purposes, even though they were employed by contracting firms entirely unaffiliated with SCANA. But such an interpretation would go beyond the textual limits of the statute and its implementing regulations and would subject plant owners to the prospect of uncertain and ill-defined liability, the Fourth Circuit opines. The basic premise of the WARN Act is that firms must provide their own employees with notice before closing a plant. Thus the text of the statute, as well as its basic purpose, indicates that the Plaintiffs do not have a valid claim against SCANA. None of them were in any common sense of the word "employees" of SCANA; instead, they either worked for WEC, a contractor hired by SCANA, or for Fluor, a subcontractor hired by WEC and with no direct contractual relationship to SCANA at all. And as to its own employees, SCANA complied with the WARN Act by providing 60 days of compensation beginning on the day of the project's closure, thereby satisfying its obligations under the statute. The Fourth Circuit holds that the record makes clear that Fluor took pains to provide the required information to its employees, even amid the unsettling circumstances of the sudden shutdown. Fluor's HR team drafted and distributed an FAQ document to the Fluor employees on the very day of the shutdown while working remotely from a local hotel. The following day, Fluor gave notice to state and local officials, and within six business days it began sending a total of 50,000 pages of notice to its employees. The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court that "such notice was reasonable given the magnitude of the Project, the presence of thousands of workers at the job site, and the abrupt nature of the shutdown." And while the Plaintiffs argue that the notice sent was defective since it failed to include a required telephone number, the regulations are clear that "minor, inadvertent errors" are not "to be the basis for finding a violation of WARN." Indeed, the notice contained a specific email address for employees to send questions, and Fluor amended the notice to include the correct telephone number shortly thereafter. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit concludes that Fluor complied with its requirements under the WARN Act, and the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment to Fluor as well. The Fourth Circuit notes that it does not discount for a moment the loss and dislocation caused by layoffs and plant closings. The WARN Act takes a large step in mitigating those difficulties. The scheme constructed by Congress reflects a sensitive balance of the competing interests at issue. The trial court was careful to respect that balance, and the Fourth Circuit in turn is pleased to affirm its judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcrrt8b from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Jack A. Raisner, RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP, New York, New York, Charles Anthony Ercole, KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Appellants. Charles Theodore Speth II, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Columbia, South Carolina, for SCANA Appellees; John Hagood Tighe, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, in Columbia, South Carolina, for the Fluor Appellees. ON BRIEF: Rene S Roupinian, Isaac Raisner, RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP, in New York City; Lee D. Moylan, Rona J. Rosen, Glenn Weiner, KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Amy L. Gaffney, GAFFNEYLEWIS LLC, in Columbia, South Carolina; David B. Yarborough, Jr., Reynolds Blankenship, YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE, LLC, in Charleston, South Carolina, for the Appellants. D. Michael Henthorne, Christopher R. Thomas, James R. Silvers, Piper R. Byzet, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Columbia, South Carolina, for the SCANA Appellees. David R. Kresser, Matthew R. Korn, FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP, in Columbia, South Carolina, for the Fluor Appellees. Stephanie E. Lewis, William R. Gignilliat, Allison Chalmers Hawkins, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., in Greenville, South Carolina, for Amici South Carolina Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Tara S. Morrissey, Stephanie A. Maloney, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, in Washington, D.C., for Amicus Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Maurice Baskin, Washington, D.C., Bill Foster, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Greenville, South Carolina, for Amicus Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Gregory R. Begg, Michael J.P. Schewe, PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C., in River Edge, New Jersey, for Amicus Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. FOGO DE CHAO: Garcia-Alvarez Seeks to Certify Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN GARCIA-ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00124-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order 1. granting her motion for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action; and 2. granting her request for Court authorization to provide that: (a) the Defendant produce to Plaintiff a list of all similarly situated class members within the last three years; (b) the proposed "Notification" letter to be sent to all similarly employees nationwide; and (c) the proposed "Notice of Consent to Join", which similarly situated employees can complete, sign, and file with the Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Churrasqueiro/Carver employed by the Defendant and is authorized by the FLSA to sue in his own name on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated. The similarly situated employees (class members") consist of the following positions: "All carvers (churrasqueiros) who worked for Defendants nationwide and were paid pursuant to the "tip credit" (less than minimum wage plus tips) during the last three (3) years preceding this lawsuit." While Plaintiff believes nationwide certification is appropriate here, if the Court finds otherwise, Plaintiff proposes that the Court certify a class of churrasqueiros who worked at any of the locations Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs worked or trained. That is, the stores located in the following markets: Atlanta, Georgia; Dunwoody, Georgia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Jacksonville, Florida; Irvine, California; Detroit, Michigan. The Defendants pay or paid FLSA Collective members a reduced tipped minimum wage rate, plus tips. Defendants subject(ed) Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members to the same illegal practice and policy by forcing them to participate in a tip pool contribution plan that includes non-traditionally tipped employees. As a result, Plaintiff and all FLSA Collective members are not or were not guaranteed at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked. Fogo collectively owns and operates 46 "Fogo De Chao" steakhouse restaurants throughout the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ybGbeG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Adeash Lakraj, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999, Ext. 403 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com alakraj@theleachfirm.com - and - Jay Forester, Esq. Katherine I. Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St Paul St, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jforester@foresterhaynie.com kserrano@foresterhaynie.com - and - Noah E. Storch, Esq. Richard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul Scheck, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 E-mail: pscheck@shutts.com mhouston@shutts.com - and Victoria L. Vish, Esq. Mary Ruth Houston, Esq OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 8117 Preston Road Kansas City, MO 64111 E-mail: Patrick.hull@ogletree.com victoria.vish@ogletree.com GEICO ADVANTAGE: Court Certifies Class of Uninsureds in Angell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELL, et al., Plaintiff v. GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-0799 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Introduction Judge Ellison held a hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on Oct. 28, 2021. At that hearing, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion. Judge Ellison provides his Memorandum & Order to further document the rulings and reasoning. Background The case concerns an alleged breach of the Texas private passenger auto insurance policy issued by Defendants GEICO Advantage, GEICO Indemnity, Government Employees, GEICO County, or GEICO Choice (collectively, "GEICO"). The contested policy term states that GEICO will pay automobile insurance policy holders for direct and accidental loss to a covered vehicle. However, GEICO limits its liability for loss to the vehicle's Actual Cash Value (ACV), which is defined in Texas as "the replacement cost of the auto less depreciation." The Plaintiffs and all the putative class members possessed coverage under uniform policy provisions entitling them to the "replacement cost less depreciation" of their vehicles. They claim that GEICO underpaid ACV by systematically withholding mandatory fees and sales tax for vehicles leased before an August 2020 change in policy. The Lead Plaintiffs are Philip Angell, Steven Brown, Tonnie Beck, Tammy Morris, and Dawn Burnham; all five were parties to a contract with GEICO, and all claim they did not receive full ACV for their total loss vehicles. Plaintiff Brown did not receive any reimbursement for sales tax, and none of the lead plaintiffs received any reimbursement for registration fees. All the Lead Plaintiffs received title fees. At this juncture, the Plaintiffs seek class certification for a class defined in the following way: "All insureds, under any Texas policy issued by GEICO with the same material operative policy language covering a vehicle with auto physical damage coverage, who 1) made a first-party auto property damage claim during the time period of 4 years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the date on which an Order certifying the class is entered, 2) where such vehicle was declared a total loss, 3) whose claim was adjusted as a total loss, and 4) where the total loss payment was for an amount less than the adjusted vehicle value, plus sales tax calculated as the applicable percentage of the adjusted vehicle value, applicable Title Fees, and applicable Registration Fees, less any applicable deductible and salvage-retained value." Discussion A. Article III Standing Judge Ellison holds that Article III is not concerned with the nature of a plaintiff's injury-in-fact, so long as such injury stems from a specific breach by defendant. In the case, the Court has an alleged breach -- GEICO's failure to pay out the full amount of ACV. And it has alleged injuries in fact -- (1) underpayment of sales tax/and or mandatory fees, or (2) failure to receive the benefit of their bargain in the case of the Plaintiffs who managed to receive payment through alternate means. And all alleged injuries are redressable by the relief the Plaintiffs request, namely monetary damages. Further, the Plaintiff class is ascertainable with reference to objective criteria. Therefore, Judge Ellison finds that the Plaintiffs have met the requirements for Article III Standing. B. Rule 23(a) GEICO's core Rule 23 argument is that the Lead Plaintiffs -- by alleging a general underpayment of ACV yet only advancing claims regarding mandatory fees and sales tax -- do a disservice to the class members who may wish to advance claims regarding underpayment of other components of ACV. This allegation forms the basis of GEICO's arguments against the Plaintiffs' adequacy, commonality, and typicality. At this juncture, Judge Ellison finds that the Plaintiffs meet Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement, as they allege underpayment of ACV in general, while focusing specifically on mandatory fees and sales tax. Having found that the Plaintiffs meet the standard for adequacy, he similarly finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy requirements for commonality and typicality. The common issue to be resolved is whether GEICO breached the form policies, underpaying ACV by withholding mandatory fees and/or leased sales tax. As explained, it does not matter that the Plaintiffs fail to allege underpayment of other components of ACV. Similarly, the Plaintiffs meet the requirements of typicality because they, like all the class members, allege underpayment of ACV notwithstanding waiver of claims GEICO believes are necessary. C. Rule 23(b) A class is certifiable under Rule 23(b) where (1) common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions and (2) class-wide litigation is superior to other available methods of adjudication. GEICO's primary predominance objection is that individual issues relating to underpayment of adjusted vehicle value -- a claim the Plaintiff does not bring -- would predominate over any questions common to the class. Judge Ellison does not find at this juncture that the Plaintiffs must bring claims of underpayment of adjusted vehicle value as part of their ACV claim. It follows that he need not worry about the predominance of issues that have not been brought before the Court. Judge Ellison finds that GEICO's misgivings about the Plaintiffs' damages methodology seem to amount to manufactured difficulties in applying what appears to be a rather straightforward formula. As for the superiority of class-wide litigation, he holds that class treatment is superior in the case, where (1) class claims turn on interpretation of identical form contract provisions, (2) the litigation concerns negative value suits (3) no other litigation precludes class treatment, and (4) class treatment will conserve litigation resources and avoid inconsistent results. D. Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act Judge Ellison agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TTPCA) is a strict liability statute. Indeed, the Texas Supreme Court recently held "Nothing in the TPPCA would excuse an insurer from liability for TPPCA damages if it was liable under the terms of the policy but delayed payment beyond the applicable statutory deadline." As such, there is no reason to distinguish between certification of the underlying breach of contract claim and the TTPCA claim. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth and those stated on the record at the Oct. 28, 2021 hearing, Judge Ellison granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/27btdmdr from Leagle.com. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Abreva Ineffective as Advertised, Smith Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC and GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, Case No. 4:21-cv-09390 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for the manufacture, marketing, and sale of Abreva cold sore treatment cream. The Defendants allegedly represent that Abreva can heal a cold sore in 2.5 days, but it does not. Defendants further represent that "nothing heals a cold sore faster," despite readily available alternatives that do purport to heal cold sores faster. Worse, the Defendants exceed the scope of its approval by the Food and Drug Administration, by making these and other unsupported representations concerning the ability of Abreva to provide symptomatic and anti-viral benefits. Thus, Defendants' advertising is false and misleading, and the Product is ineffective as advertised and unsuitable for its intended purpose. The Plaintiff brings her claims against Defendants individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated purchasers of the Product for (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750, et seq.; (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1792, et seq.; (4) violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & 23 Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.; (5) Breach of Express Warranty; (6) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (7) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (8) Negligent Misrepresentation; (9) Fraud by Omission; and (10) Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff Smith purchased Abreva from a brick-and-mortar CVS Pharmacy. In doing so, Plaintiff Smith relied upon Defendants' advertising, packaging, labeling, and other promotional materials, including Defendants' website and commercials as prepared and approved by the Defendants and their agents and disseminated through advertising media containing the alleged unlawful claims. Cold sores, also known as fever blisters, are caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV). Herpes infection is extremely common -- it is estimated that between 50% and 80% of adults in the United States are carriers of either HSV-1 (oral herpes) or HSV-2 (genital herpes). Once infected, the virus remains in the body permanently, periodically causing painful and unsightly blisters (cold sores) to form, usually on the lips. According to the Mayo Clinic, cold sores typically last around two to four weeks before healing on their own. Outbreaks can be triggered by a variety of factors such as stress, fatigue, colds and fevers, or exposure to cold weather or sunlight. Although there is no known cure for HSV, several prescriptions and over the counter (OTC) treatments exist, intended to relieve discomfort, shorten healing time, or reduce transmission of the virus. Collectively, US adults living with HSV develop over 100 million outbreaks annually, most of which are treated with OTC medications. Abreva is one of those OTC medications and is the leading OTC cold medication. Abreva is topical cream containing 10% of the active ingredient docosanol, intended to make cold sores heal faster. This ingredient is currently the only ingredient approved by the FDA to shorten healing time that is available without a prescription. Abreva was originally developed by Avanir Pharmaceuticals, which held clinical trials of the active ingredient, docosanol, and received FDA approval for a limited set of claims in 2000. That year, Defendants licensed exclusive rights from Avanir and began selling Abreva throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Sean L. Litteral, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com slitteral@bursor.com HIPAALINE LTD: Misclassifies Patient Care Specialists, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE SINISGALLI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HIPAALINE LTD d/b/a Leafwell and ONLINE MD LLC and EMILY ARIDA FISHER, Case No. 2:21-cv-05610-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 3, 2021) sues the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Rule 23 Class Action for Violations of the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and similarly situated patient care specialists as independent contractors from March 22, 2021 through May 31, 2021. Despite no changes in the Plaintiff's responsibilities, on June 1, 2021, the Defendants re-classified Plaintiff and similarly situated patient care specialists as employees, but still did not pay overtime to Plaintiff for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in any given workweek. The Defendants led the Plaintiff to believe that Plaintiff was not entitled to overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek simply because the Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis as opposed to an hourly wage, added the complaint. The Plaintiff was incorrectly classified as a "salaried" employee. The Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on their own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be adversely affected by Defendant's unlawful conduct. The class which the Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right to send "opt-in" notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which the Plaintiff is herself a member, is composed of and defined as follows: "All former and current Patient Care Specialists or persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions and/or duties to Patient Care Specialists employed by Defendants in the United States during the statutory period covered by this Complaint." Plaintiff Sinisgalli is a resident of the state of Ohio. She was employed by the Defendants as a patient care specialist. Hipaaline is a limited liability company of England and Wales with its principal place of business in London, England that is in the medical marijuana prescription business. Online Md, LLC is a limited liability company with a principal address of 8095 N.W. 68th Street, Miami, Florida and is in the medical marijuana prescription business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com HOLLYFRONTIER CORP: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Donal Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY DOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLYFRONTIER CORPORATION; FRANKLIN MYERS; MICHAEL C. JENNINGS; ANNE-MARIE N. AINSWORTH; ANNA C. CATALANO; CARNEY HAWKS; LELDON E. ECHOLS; MANUEL J. FERNANDEZ; R. CRAIG KNOCKE; ROBERT J. KOSTELNIK; JAMES H. LEE, and MICHAEL E. ROSE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01670-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 24, 2021) is an action against HollyFrontier Corporation ("HollyFrontier" or the "Company") and the members of its Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") arising out of their attempt to acquire refining, marketing and other businesses of Sinclair Oil Corporation ("Sinclair Oil") from The Sinclair Companies ("Sinclair Holdco") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on October 29, 2021, HollyFrontier filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC, which omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) financial projections for HollyFrontier, Sinclair NewCo and the pro forma combined company; and (ii) the financial analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Citi"). The failure to adequately disclose such material information renders the Proxy false and misleading. The stockholder vote to approve the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. Under the Merger Agreement, following a successful stockholder vote, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from conducting the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of the Company's common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, says the suit. HollyFrontier Corporation produces gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, lubricants, and asphalt. It is based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 Email: BDLong@longlawde.com -and- Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 860-9158 Facsimile: (212) 214-0506 Email: raymond@bespc.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Stipulation to Stay Class Cert. Bid Deadline Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 the stipulation to stay the deadline for plaintiff's motion for class certification (second). Hyundai Motor America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company. Along with Hyundai's USA manufacturing plant in Montgomery, Alabama called Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Hyundai has total of 19 manufacturing plants globally. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IwH7PD at no extra charge.[CC] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek to Modify Sept. 24 Sched Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling Order, dated September 24, 2021 as follows: Scheduling Order Current Modified Deadline Deadline -- Plaintiff must produce Oct. 20, 2021 Completed expert(s) for deposition(s) -- Defendants' designation of Nov. 5, 2021 Completed class certification expert(s) and expert report(s) -- Defendants must produce Dec. 10, 2021 Feb. 4, 2022 expert(s) for deposition(s) -- Plaintiff’s motion for class Jan. 21, 2022 March 18, 2022 certification -- Defendants' opposition to Feb. 25, 2022 April 22, 2022 the motion for class certification -- Plaintiff's reply to March 18, 2022 May 13, 2022 the opposition to the motion for class certification The parties seek to extend the deadlines related to the remaining two expert depositions and a correlative extension of Plaintiff’s forthcoming class certification motion. This extension is sought as a result of the death of a parent of one of Defendants’ expert deponents, which occurred just before his scheduled deposition. Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GwWy8J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. Christopher M. Mattei, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com cmattei@koskoff.com - and - Gary N. Reger, Esq. ORGAIN, BELL AND TUCKER, LLP 207 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 861-0441 E-mail: gnr@obt.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC P.O. Box 3829 Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gary J. Mennitt, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: gary.mennitt@dechert.com - and - Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. Andraya Pulaski Brunau, Esq. Matthew W. Austin, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 242 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-0100 Facsimile: (860) 275-0343 E-mail: tgoldberg@daypitney.com abrunau@daypitney.com J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Williams Losses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willie Williams, et al. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01701-PSG-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the predominance requirement is satisfied for any of their claims, says Judge Gutierrez. The Defendant employs truck drivers to provide transportation services to various retail stores. The Defendant's dedicated contract services division includes contracts with 56 accounts in California overseen by 65 managers. The Plaintiffs have each worked as truck drivers for the Defendant. Williams worked as a driver on Defendant's Target and St. George accounts from April 2019 to June 2020. Cline has worked as a driver on Defendant's 99 Cents Only Store and Target accounts since "June or July of 2019." Contreras worked as a driver on Defendant's Target account from July 2019 to May 2021. J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company based in Lowell, Arkansas. It was founded by Johnnie Bryan Hunt and Johnelle Hunt in Arkansas on August 10, 1961. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EGznbF at no extra charge.[CC] JIFFY LUBE: Fuentes Must File Class Cert. Bid by March 25, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR FUENTES et al., v. JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-05174-AB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Anita B. Brody entered an order on parties' joint letter filed December 6, 2021 regarding class certification deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiff files Motion for Class March 25, 2022 Certification (including any supporting expert declarations): -- Defendant files opposition to May 13, 2022 Motion for Class Certification (including any supporting expert declarations): -- Plaintiff files reply in support June 23, 2022 of Motion for Class Certification (including any supporting expert declarations): -- Conclusion of fact discovery: July 22, 2022 -- Plaintiff serves merits expert August 5, 2022 reports: -- Defendant serves merits expert Sept. 2, 2022. reports: -- Plaintiff serves merits rebuttal Sept. 30, 2022 reports: -- Conclusion of expert discovery: Oct 28, 2022 -- Deadline for filing dispositive Nov. 23, 2022 motions: -- Opposition to any Motion for Jan. 13, 2023 Summary Judgment: -- Reply to any Motion for Feb. 17, 2023 Summary Judgment: Jiffy Lube is an American brand of automotive oil change specialty shops founded in Utah, United States, in 1971. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dzb4QP at no extra charge.[CC] JUUL LABS: Bethel School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- BETHEL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09339 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Bethel Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 36000 Clear Pond Road in Shawnee, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rock Creek Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROCK CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09373 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Rock Creek Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 200 Steakley St. in Bokchito, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Cheyenne School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHEYENNE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09355 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Cheyenne Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 910 East Buster Avenue, in Cheyenne, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, School District Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SPRINGER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09349 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Springer Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 16624 US Highway 77, Springer Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Marketing Targets Youth, Bloomingdale Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomingdale Public Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09364 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2021) is a putative class action on behalf of Bloomingdale Public Schools alleging that the Defendants have marketed its nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants' 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 Plaintiff contends that all Defendants have materially participated in conduct that had intended and foreseeable effects on Plaintiff such that the forum Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants. Defendants' conduct was purposefully directed at Plaintiff and similarly situated plaintiffs throughout the United States and in each forum. According to the complaint, JUUL products are rampant in the nation's schools, with the percentage of 12th graders who reported consuming nicotine almost doubling between 2017 and 2018. In 2019, more than five million middle and high school students reported current use of e-cigarettes, including more than one in every four high schoolers. Consistent with this national trend, youth e-cigarette consumption rates in Bloomingdale Public Schools continue to climb. The Surgeon General has warned that this new "epidemic of youth e-cigarette use" could condemn a generation to "a lifetime of nicotine addiction and associated health risks." The swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community (including county public health departments) on the front lines dealing with this crisis, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level—but it's too little, too late. The action is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Plaintiff Bloomingdale is a unified school district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan. Defendant JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI) is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Ploom, Inc., a predecessor company to JLI, was incorporated in Delaware on March 12, 2007. In 2015, Ploom, Inc. changed its name to 23 PAX Labs, Inc. In April 2017, PAX Labs, Inc. changed its name to JUUL Labs, Inc., and formed a new subsidiary corporation with its old name, PAX Labs, Inc. That new subsidiary, PAX Labs, Inc. (PAX), was incorporated in Delaware on April 21, 2017 and has its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories (collectively "JUUL" or "JUUL products"). Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI in or around April 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold, marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name PAX Labs, Inc. Together with its predecessors, JUUL Labs, Inc is referred to herein as "JLI." Defendant Altria Group, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries and their predecessors, "Altria" or together with Defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, and Altria Group Distribution Company, (the "Altria Defendants) is a Virginia corporation, having its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Defendant James Monsees is a resident of the San Francisco Bay area, California. In 2007, he co-founded Ploom with Adam Bowen. He served as Chief Executive Officer of JLI until October 2015. Since October 2015, he has been Chief Product Officer of JLI. At all relevant times, he has been a member of the Board of Directors of JLI until he stepped down in March 2020. Defendant Adam Bowen is a resident of the San Francisco Bay area, California. In 2007, he co-founded Ploom with Defendant Monsees. At all relevant times, he has been Chief Technology Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of JLI.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Marketing Targets Youth, Buffalo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Buffalo Public Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.m Case No. 3:21-cv-09346 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2021) is a putative class action on behalf of Buffalo Public Schools alleging that the Defendants have marketed its nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants' 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 Plaintiff contends that all Defendants have materially participated in conduct that had intended and foreseeable effects on Plaintiff such that the forum Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants. Defendants' conduct was purposefully directed at Plaintiff and similarly situated plaintiffs throughout the United States and in each forum. According to the complaint, JUUL products are rampant in the nation's schools, with the percentage of 12th graders who reported consuming nicotine almost doubling between 2017 and 2018. In 2019, more than five million middle and high school students reported current use of e-cigarettes, including more than one in every four high schoolers. Consistent with this national trend, youth e-cigarette consumption rates in Buffalo Public Schools continue to climb. The Surgeon General has warned that this new "epidemic of youth e-cigarette use" could condemn a generation to "a lifetime of nicotine addiction and associated health risks." The swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community (including county public health departments) on the front lines dealing with this crisis, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level—but it's too little, too late. The action is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The Plaintiff Buffalo is a unified school district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Defendant JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI) is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Ploom, Inc., a predecessor company to JLI, was incorporated in Delaware on March 12, 2007. In 2015, Ploom, Inc. changed its name to 23 PAX Labs, Inc. In April 2017, PAX Labs, Inc. changed its name to JUUL Labs, Inc., and formed a new subsidiary corporation with its old name, PAX Labs, Inc. That new subsidiary, PAX Labs, Inc. (PAX), was incorporated in Delaware on April 21, 2017 and has its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories (collectively "JUUL" or "JUUL products"). Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI in or around April 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold, marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name PAX Labs, Inc. Together with its predecessors, JUUL Labs, Inc is referred to herein as "JLI." Defendant Altria Group, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries and their predecessors, "Altria" or together with Defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, and Altria Group Distribution Company, (the "Altria Defendants) is a Virginia corporation, having its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Defendant James Monsees is a resident of the San Francisco Bay area, California. In 2007, he co-founded Ploom with Adam Bowen. He served as Chief Executive Officer of JLI until October 2015. Since October 2015, he has been Chief Product Officer of JLI. At all relevant times, he has been a member of the Board of Directors of JLI until he stepped down in March 2020. Defendant Adam Bowen is a resident of the San Francisco Bay area, California. In 2007, he co-founded Ploom with Defendant Monsees. At all relevant times, he has been Chief Technology Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of JLI.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Edgerton Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDGERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09378 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Edgerton School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 200 Elm High Drive in Edgerton, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Maud School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAUD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09352 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Maud Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 306 West Main in Maud, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Morgan Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09381 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Morgan County School District is a public school district with its offices located in Decatur, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Terrell, Esq. Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com brebarchak@mtattorneys.com - and – Christina D. Crow, Esq. JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC 219 North Prairie Street Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334)738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com - and – Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com JUUL LABS: Huntsville City Sues Over Alabama's E-Cigarette Epidemic ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTSVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09382 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Huntsville City Board of Education is a public school district with its offices located in Huntsville, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Terrell, Esq. Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com brebarchak@mtattorneys.com - and – Christina D. Crow, Esq. JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC 219 North Prairie Street Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334)738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com - and – Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Colbert School Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- COLBERT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09358 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, added the suit. Colbert Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 630 Collins Street in Colbert, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Mid-Del Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- MID-DEL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09341 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Mid-Del Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 7217 SE 15th Street in Midwest City, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Swan Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth ----------------------------------------------------------------- SWAN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09351 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Swan Valley School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 8380 O'Hearn Road in Saginaw, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Albertville Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09380 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. Albertville City Board of Education is a public school district with its offices located on the West Main Street in Albertville, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Terrell, Esq. Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com brebarchak@mtattorneys.com - and – Christina D. Crow, Esq. JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC 219 North Prairie Street Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334)738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com - and – Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com JUUL LABS: Tuttle Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------------ TUTTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09343 (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Tuttle Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 515 East Main Street in Tuttle, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KANGMEI PHARMA: Ordered to Pay CNY2.46 Billion to Shareholders -------------------------------------------------------------- Guo Yingzhe, writing for Caixin Global, reports that long-suffering shareholders in debt-ridden Kangmei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (600518.SH) who lost money as a result of an 88.6 billion yuan ($13.9 billion) fraud have moved closer to winning compensation after two court rulings over the past three weeks. On Nov. 12, a court in Guangzhou made a landmark ruling in the country's first securities class-action lawsuit, ordering Kangmei to pay 2.46 billion yuan to more than 50,000 shareholders who lost money because of a massive fraud at the company. [GN] KEURIG GREEN: Settles Class Action Over Recyclability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Jared Paben, writing for Plastics Recycling Update, reports that Keurig Green Mountain has reached a tentative class-action settlement with a consumer who is suing the company over its coffee pod recyclability claims. The case, which was first filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2018, alleges that the company is deceiving consumers by claiming its polypropylene K-Cups are recyclable. Details of the deal, which is the second major settlement over brand owners' recyclability claims in recent months, haven't been made public yet. Lafayette, Calif. resident Kathleen Smith sued Keurig Green Mountain, alleging that Keurig instructed consumers to remove the metal foil from the used K-Cups, compost or discard the coffee grounds, and then recycle the cup and filter, while urging consumers to "check locally to recycle empty cup." But the lawsuit alleges the cups fall through sorting screens at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) because of their small size -- especially after they're compacted in collection trucks -- and they're disposed of. If they're not disposed of by the MRF, the cups can contaminate other recyclables, the suit alleges. And even if they are sorted, baled and sold to a plastics reclaimer, the residual metal and food contaminants render them non-recyclable or difficult to recycle, according to the lawsuit, which also emphasized a lack of markets for even non-contaminated K-Cups. Keurig asked the case to be dismissed, citing a host of reasons. Among them, Keurig claimed the plaintiff failed to differentiate between the company's original coffee pods and its recyclable PP pods, which were introduced in 2017 after testing with recycling companies to ensure their recyclability. KW Plastics and Merlin Plastics were among the companies involved in the K-Cup recycling trials. In its motion to dismiss the case, Keurig also insisted its marketing language is compliant with the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which are referenced in California statutes, because Keurig discloses to consumers that the cups aren't recyclable in all communities and instructs them to "check locally." Keurig was dealt a legal setback in June 2019, when Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. declined to dismiss the case. And in September 2020, over Keurig's opposition, Gilliam approved an order certifying the class represented by the plaintiff. The class includes "all persons who purchased the Products for personal, family or household purposes in California (either directly or through an agent) from June 8, 2016 through the present," according to his ruling. Keurig Green Mountain acquired Dr Pepper Snapple Group in 2018. The company is now part of Keurig Dr Pepper, one of the largest beverage companies in North America. Details of agreement not yet public On Oct. 26, the parties submitted a notice informing the judge that, after mediation sessions and additional negotiation this year, they've reached an agreement in principle. The filing asks Judge Gilliam to delay the case while the parties convert the terms of their agreement, which is currently memorialized in a term sheet, into a legal settlement document. Gilliam on Oct. 27 approved an order giving the parties until Feb. 24, 2022 to submit a motion for preliminary approval of the class-action settlement. Details of what Smith and Keurig have agreed to weren't disclosed. In her complaint, Smith asked Judge Gilliam to order Keurig to stop making recycling claims and conduct a "corrective advertising and information campaign." Smith also asked Judge Gilliam to order Keurig to pay restitution to all class members, damages and punitive damages. The lawsuit was filed by California law firm Lexington Law Group, which has filed a number of legal actions alleging brand owners' recyclability claims are violating California law. In March 2021, Lexington Law Group filed a lawsuit naming as defendants specialty products recycling company TerraCycle and consumer goods companies CSC Brands, Gerber Products Company, Late July Snacks, L'Oreal USA, Materne North America, The Coca-Cola Company, The Clorox Company, The Procter & Gamble Company, and Tom's of Maine. A settlement in that case was announced last month. Lexington Law Group also represented Greenpeace in a December 2020 lawsuit against Walmart, which succeeded in getting the case thrown out. Greenpeace has since refiled an altered version of the complaint. [GN] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Duhon Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA DUHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC f/k/a RESPIRONICS, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11954-NMG (D. Mass., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for strict products liability, breach of express warranties, and punitive damages. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a replacement is available. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096 BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips Holding USA Inc. is a holding company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Philips RS North America Holding Corporation is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices, with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Orent, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 55 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7700 Facsimile: (401) 457-7723 E-mail: jorent@motleyrice.com - and – Kimberly D. Barone Baden, Esq. Ann E. Rice Ervin, Esq. Roger M. "Hank" Young, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9635 E-mail: kbarone@motleyrice.com ariceervin@motleyrice.com hyoung@motleyrice.com KROGER CO: Fruit-Flavored Beverages Falsely Labeled, Conley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CONLEY v. Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-05642-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 8, 2021) alleges that Kroger fails to disclose to consumers that the house-brand fruit-flavored sparkling-water beverages contain a synthetic artificial flavoring chemical, falsely representing these beverages as "Naturally Flavored." According to the complaint, because the Products contain the artificial flavoring ingredient dl-malic acid, which is used to create the labeled characterizing tart fruit flavor, the Products must be labeled in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. When a food or beverage product contains an artificial flavoring ingredient like the dl-malic acid in Kroger’s Products, federal law requires that the seller specifically disclose on both the product's front and back labels that the product is artificially flavored. The "artificially flavored" statement must be shown prominently on the front display panel and of sufficient size for an average consumer to notice, the suit adds. Kroger manufactures, labels, distributes, advertises, and sells a variety of house-brand fruit-flavored sparkling-water beverages that represent and warrant they are "Naturally Flavored."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com - and - David Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, PC 2028 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 468-4865 E-mail: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com LA SALLE COUNTY, TX: Appeal From Certification Order Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GLORIA CAROLINA MANZO-HERNANDEZ; VICTOR ZEPATA-JASSO; MOISES AMADEO MANCIA-MENDOZA; MERCY ROCIO DUCHI-VARGAS; JATZEEL ANTONIO CUEVAS-CORTES, Petitioners-Appellants v. ASSISTANT WARDEN JUAN SAUCEDO, Respondent-Appellee, Case No. 21-40034 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Petitioners' appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for class certification and habeas petition. Introduction Petitioners-Appellants Gloria Carolina Manzo-Hernandez, Victor Zepata-Jasso, Moises Amadeo Mancia-Mendoza, Mercy Rocio Duchi-Vargas, and Jatzeel Antonio Cuevas-Cortes are undocumented immigrants who were detained as material witnesses at the La Salle County Regional Detention Center in Encinal, Texas. The Petitioners filed a habeas petition on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly-situated individuals for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking, respectively and among other rulings, their release from custody and a declaration that they were unlawfully detained. The district court denied their motion for class certification and habeas petition. It also dismissed their request for a declaratory judgment without prejudice. The Petitioners appealed. Background According to the operative petition, the Petitioners were undocumented immigrants arrested by United States Border Patrol agents. Although the Petitioners were never charged with a crime, magistrate judges of the Laredo division detained them between January 2020 and March 2020 as material witnesses so that they could testify in criminal prosecutions for human trafficking. Before they were detained, law enforcement officers submitted nearly identical affidavits for every alien. The Petitioners were then detained without counsel after making a short "initial appearance" in which "no individual findings were made." They have not appeared in court since their initial appearance and the extended detention has "taken a substantial toll on their mental, emotional, and physical healt," all exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioners filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against Omar Juarez, the warden of the La Salle County detention center. After the district court denied a temporary restraining order, the Petitioners filed an amended petition, substituting Respondent-Appellee Juan Saucedo, the assistant warden of the detention center, for Juarez. They claimed that the mentioned process of detaining witnesses reflects a "policy or practice" of failing to comply with Section 3144 and associated procedural protections outlined in 18 U.S.C. Section 3142. They also claimed that this policy or practice violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Petitioners sought their release and an injunction against Saucedo from "detaining individuals under Section 3144 without a valid detention order." They additionally requested declarations under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-02, that (1) Saucedo had detained Petitioners in violation of Section 3144 and the Constitution and (2) detentions under Section 3144 must follow individualized findings. Finally, the Petitioners sought to represent themselves and a class of around 156 individuals who "have experienced similar or identical treatment." The Petitioners filed for class certification, which the district court denied without prejudice because "the parties agreed that the district court would first consider any motion to dismiss before considering the issue of class certification." The Petitioners then sought reconsideration of that ruling. The district court held a hearing on the motion during which it clarified that it "expected that the government would not use the timing as a bar to the motion for class certification in the future if the parties reach that stage based upon the ruling the district court made to remove" Petitioners' class-certification "motion from the docket." Meanwhile, the Government moved to dismiss the case, which the district court construed as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respectively. By the date the Government filed its motion, all named petitioners except Manzo-Hernandez had been released. The district court then dismissed Petitioners' claims, declining to exercise jurisdiction over them as a matter of discretion. It then denied the motion for reconsideration as moot and issued a final judgment. The Petitioners timely appealed the district court's order dismissing their case but not its denial of class certification or motion for reconsideration. By the time they filed their notice of appeal, Manzo-Hernandez had been released. Discussion The Government asserts the action is now moot for several reasons. First, the Government argues that the Petitioners' individual claims are moot because the named petitioners have been released. It additionally contends that their class claims are moot because "the Laredo Division appears to have adopted new procedures in which it is holding detention hearings pursuant to the Bail Reform Act" and because Petitioners did not appeal the district court's order denying class certification. Finally, the Government adds that no mootness exception applies to either their individual or class claims. The Fifth Circuit agrees that the Petitioners' individual and class claims are moot and that no exception applies. A. Individual Claims The Petitioners do not argue that their individual claims remain live but continue to seek injunctive relief for themselves, as well as on behalf of a putative class of detained witnesses. The Fifth Circuit opines that although a habeas claim may not be moot when the petitioner faces collateral consequences from his or her detention, the Petitioners do not point to any such consequences that they have suffered. Moreover, although a plaintiff seeking damages may avoid mootness even if injunctive relief is no longer available to him or her, the plaintiff "must demonstrate either continuing harm or a real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future," when merely pursuing declaratory relief. The Fifth Circuit opines that the Petitioners have not demonstrated they face such circumstances. Finally, although there is an exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review," that exception is inapplicable because the Petitioners have not "demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that [they] will once again be" detained. B. Class Claims Since the Petitioners' individual claims are moot, the Fifth Circuit holds that their class claims are too unless those claims "fall within an exception to the general rule." The Petitioners cite to several Supreme Court cases that involve different such exceptions. Notwithstanding the Petitioners' contrary framing, the record shows that the district court denied their class-certification motion with the understanding that they could renew the motion only if their individual claims survived dismissal. The Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the district denied that motion, dismissed their claims, and issued a final judgment. Thus, no motions are pending. And because the Petitioners did not appeal either order related to their class-certification motion, "the only disputes relevant are those between" the named Petitioners and the Government, "and those disputes are now over." The Fifth Circuit thus concludes this appeal is moot. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mskmcunf from Leagle.com. LORDSTOWN MOTOR: Partial Lifting of Stay in Securities Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re: Lordstown Motor Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:21 CV 616 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Partial Lifting of Discovery Stay. The Plaintiffs' moved for a partial lifting of the PSLRA discovery stay pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(3)(B). The Plaintiffs bring the consolidated class action under the Securities Act of 1934, alleging that the Defendants misrepresented to investors the pre-orders for the Endurance truck. The Plaintiffs' claims are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), which provides that discovery "shall" be stayed during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs argue that a partial lifting of the stay is necessary in order to preserve evidence. They point out that the Defendant Lordstown recently engaged in the spoliation of evidence in a case pending in the Central District of California. In that lawsuit, Karma Automotive, LLC brought suit against Lordstown and two individual employees alleging that defendants engaged in a due diligence period with Karma for the sole purpose of stealing Karma's employees and trade secrets. The trade secret information consisted of source code and technical specifications directed at getting electronic vehicles to market. Within days of being made aware of the lawsuit, the individual defendants intentionally "wiped clean" certain computer drives and deleted information on an SSD card. The court found that defendants spoliated evidence and indicated that it would give a "jury instruction permitting, but not requiring, the jury to draw an adverse inference." The court entered the spoliation order on Sept. 16, 2021. According to the Plaintiffs, Lordstown's history of spoliation makes the case rise above the speculative level. They point out that the spoliation occurred just over a year ago. In addition, they argue that the documents that Lordstown's employees destroyed relate to the production capabilities of the Endurance. Therefore, those documents would likely be relevant in the lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiffs claim that the Karma lawsuit demonstrates Lordstown's willingness to engage in "brazen corporate espionage." According to them, they seek to lift the stay only for limited, particularized discovery. The Plaintiffs also argue that their complaint is well-supported and is not the type of case that Congress envisioned when enacting the automatic stay provision. In response, Lordstown argues that the legislative history makes clear that only in exceptional circumstances should the PSLRA's stay provision be lifted. Congress provided one example of such a circumstance-the terminal illness of an important witness. According to Lordstown, the spoliation of evidence by other employees in a different action does not rise to the level of an "exceptional circumstance." It points out that other courts have found that the spoliation of evidence (even within the same case) does not provide a justification for lifting the stay. Regardless, Lordstown argues that the Plaintiffs seek broad categories of discovery, rather than the "particularized discovery" permitted under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(3)(B). Upon review, Judge Gaughan finds that a lifting of the PSLRA's stay provision is not warranted. She notes that the Plaintiffs ask the Court to lift the stay on evidence preservation grounds. Although the Plaintiffs take issue with the fact that current defense counsel also served as defense counsel in Karma, Judge Gaughan notes that, on the next business day following service on Lordstown, the defense counsel in Karma instructed employees not to destroy documents and Lordstown's general counsel issued a litigation hold. Based on an isolated instance of spolitation in a trade secrets case, Judge Gaughan cannot say that a lifting of the PSLRA's stay provision is necessary to preserve evidence. Judge Gaughan notes that Lordstown is willing to submit to a document preservation order in the matter. Although she does not find that a lifting of the discovery stay is warranted, she finds that, given the conduct in Karma, the Court will require the Defendants to submit to such an order. The Defendants are directed to meet and confer with the Plaintiffs prior to submitting the proposed order to the Court. Order For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gaughan denied the Plaintiffs' Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum of Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxn79c86 from Leagle.com. MARCHESE INC: Class Settlement in Christoffersen Suit Wins Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GORDON D. CHRISTOFFERSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MARCHESE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1481 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin approves the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement. On Aug. 3, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the Class Action Settlement Agreement reached between Plaintiff Gordon Christoffersen and Defendant V. Marchese. It approved a form of notice for mailing to the class certified for purposes of the settlement. The Court is informed that actual notice was sent by first class mail to 247 class members. A total of 47 notices were returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable with no forwarding address or further information. No class members requested exclusion and no objections were filed or received. On Nov. 30, 2021, Judge Joseph held a fairness hearing to which class members, including any with objections, were invited. She finds that provisions for notice to the class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. She further finds the settlement is fair and reasonable. Judge Joseph approves the Class Action Settlement Agreement submitted by the parties, including the Release and payment of settlement funds. Class Representative Gordon Christoffersen will receive $15,000 in settlement of his individual claims and as an incentive award for serving as the class representative. These funds will be paid by check within 30 days of the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Class Members, including Class Representative Gordon Christoffersen, will be paid as follows: a. $500 to each Settlement Class Member who was an employee of V. Marchese and whose employment terminated between Dec. 1, 2018, and Sept. 15, 2019. b. $250 to each Settlement Class Member who was an employee of V. Marchese and whose employment terminated between Jan. 1, 2014, and Nov. 30, 2018, who has submitted a claim certifying that they were covered by the group health plan provided by V. Marchese at the time of their termination; and c. $50 to each other Settlement Class Member was employed by V. Marchese and who did not submit notice of exclusion from the Class. Based on their petition, the Class Counsel will receive $75,000 as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of the lawsuit. The Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from Defendant or the Class Members other than the court awarded fees and costs. The Class Representative and the Class grant the Defendant the following release: "(a) Class Representative Gordon Chistoffersen and each and every member of the Class who has not opted out, including each and every one of their respective present, former and future agents, representatives, attorneys, heirs, administrators, executors, assigns or any other person acting on their behalf or for their benefit (collectively, Releasors) hereby release and discharge V. Marchese, as well as its respective predecessors and successors in interest and present, former and future affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, related parties, insurers, officers, directors, agents, employees, members, shareholders, general partners, limited partners, beneficiaries, representatives, vendors, subcontractors, heirs, or attorneys (collectively, Releasees) from any causes of action, suits, claims or demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, known or unknown at this time, which the Class Representatives and the Class now have or ever had against the Releasees, or any of them, under any legal theory arising out of the allegations in or subject matter of the Complaint." Judge Joseph dismisses the claims of Class Representative and the Class as set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement against the Defendant and the Releasees with prejudice and without costs other than those agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Court. Based upon the submissions of the Class Counsel, Judge Joseph finds that the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs of $75,000 is reasonable. The Class Counsel is not entitled to payment of any additional fees and costs other than the Court awarded fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29t7rkf6 from Leagle.com. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Ct. Enters Consent Amended Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merle D. Russ and Ellen Russ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation, OceanWatch Villas Owners Association, Hardin Construction Company, LLC, HKS, Inc., Schmidt & Stacey Consulting Engineers, Inc., Cayce Company, Inc., Royal Concrete, Inc., Cartner Glass of Myrtle Beach, Inc., All Aspects, Inc., ABG Caulking Contractors, Inc., TSG Industries, Inc., First Exteriors, LLC, CPP Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Renovia, and CP Rankin, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson, III entered third consent amended scheduling order regarding FRCP Rule 23 issues. 1. Class Certification Expert Disclosures: Plaintiffs due by March 15, 2022 Defendants due by Aug. 15, 2022 2. Depositions of Class Certification Expert Witnesses: Plaintiffs due by June 15, 2022 Defendants due by Nov. 21, 2022 3. Class discovery shall close on December 1, 2022. 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Supportshall be filed by Jan. 9, 2023. Defendants' responses shall be filed by Feb. 9, 2023 The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by March 9, 2023. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. owns and operates resorts. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GtxsHS at no extra charge.[CC] MASTER FLEET: Daniels Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER DANIELS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MASTER FLEET LLC, Case No. 21-cv-1395 (E.D. Wisc., Dec. 8, 2021) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff brings these FLSA and WWPCL claims and causes of action against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant's alleged unlawful compensation system failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's deliberate failure to compensate its hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for hours worked at the proper and legal rate(s) of pay violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the lawsuit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Joint Bid for Conditional Class Status Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARRIE KEATOR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. MCCORMICK TRUCKING, INC., TRACIE MCCORMICK, INC., ACTION TRAILER SERVICES, INC., ROBERT MCCORMICK, and TRACIE MCCORMICK, Case No. 3:21-cv-00605 (M.D.Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a class of individuals and authorizing the notice and consent forms to be sent to these individuals in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On August 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Collective Action Complaint under the FLSA seeking overtime wage compensation and liquidated damages for certain classifications of employees employed by one or more of the named Defendants. Since the filing of the initial Collective Action Complaint, Plaintiff Carrie Keator and three (3) other individuals have filed consent forms seeking to join this action. On September 7, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a pre-discovery motion for conditional collective certification and Court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs. Mccormick Trucking provides transportation services. The Company offers trucks freight shipping and freight hauling services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31EiXCg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Curt M. Masker, Esq. THE MASKER FIRM 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 823-1737 Facsimile: (615) 821-0632 E-mail: curt@maskerfirm.com - and - Daniel Arciniegas, Esq. ARCINIEGAS LAW PLLC Atrium Building 1242 Old Hillsboro Road Franklin, TN 37068 Telephone: (629) 777-5339 Facsimile: (615) 988-9113 E-mail: daniel@attorneydaniel.com The Defendants are represented by: Fred J. Bissinger, Esq. Jerome D. Pinn, Esq. LAWSON WRIGHT DAVES & JONES 545 Mainstream Drive, Suite 413 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 727-1000 E-mail: fbissinger@wimberlylawson.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Donna Frawley Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA FRAWLEY v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT GROUP OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08894-AJN-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); and 2. directing reasonable notice to the class. Medical Management was founded in 1987. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pJJHcJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maia Goodell, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 195 Montague Street, 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 Facsimile: (646) 759-1587 E-mail: maia@kakaleclaw.com MOBA AMERICAS: Fails to Pay Quality Engineers' OT, Siwiecki Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN SIWIECKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MOBA AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-12826-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich., Dec. 3, 2021) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated sufficient overtime wages under the FLSA within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Plaintiff was employed at Defendant's business in Farmington Hills. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Customer Care Representative from April of 2009 until April of 2021, and as a "Quality Engineer" from April of 2021 until October of 2021. The Defendant's primary business is manufacturing and selling egg-grading, packaging and processing machines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com NGL ENERGY: Parties Seeks 120-day Extension of Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY R. UNDERWOOD, Successor Trustee of the JAMES L. PRICE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, trustee on behalf of the Trust and all others similarly situated, v. NGL ENERGY PARTNERS LP, Case No. 4:21-cv-00135-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting 120-day extension of the current Scheduling Order, as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Documents previously produced Dec. 14, 2021 April 13, 2022 by Parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to Class Certification Motion Jan. 14, 2022 May 13, 2022 filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Response March 15, 2022 July 13, 2022 filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Reply April 14, 2022 Aug. 12, 2022 filed with any rebuttal evidence, including expert disclosures, if any Class Certification Discovery April 14, 2022 Aug. 12, 2022 cutoff Parties are encouraged to complete all merits discovery by this date as well Class Certification Hearing April 28, 2022 Aug. 26, 2022 (specific date to be set by Court at a later time) The Court entered the current scheduling order on June 7, 2021, which set Plaintiff's class certification motion deadline on January 14, 2022. The Plaintiff served its first set of discovery requests to Defendant on May 11, 2021, and Defendant responded to those discovery requests on June 24, 2021. Although Defendant objected to conducting class-wide email and/or custodian-level terms-and-connectors searches prior to a class being certified, the Defendant nonetheless agreed to work in good faith with Plaintiff to determine whether the Parties could reach agreement regarding an acceptable protocol for custodian-level terms-and-connectors searching, review, and production. Accordingly, the Parties have been working cooperatively in good faith toward reaching agreement on the ESI to be searched, reviewed, and produced ahead of class certification. NGL Energy serves as a full service midstream provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EKvbHL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - James U. White, Jr., Esq. WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C. P.O. Box 54783 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Craig Buchan, Esq. Patrick L. Stein, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT Williams Center Tower II Two West Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 574-3049 Facsimile: (918) 574-3152 E-mail: craig.buchan@mcafeetaft.com patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com NISSAN NORTH: Class Cert. Filing Continued to May 4, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cristian Pascal, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order: 1. continuing deadline for filing motion for class certification to May 4, 2022; and 2. deeming moot ex parte application for order shortening time on motion to amend the scheduling order's deadline to file motion for class certification, motion to amend the scheduling order, and joint stipulation regarding enlargement of page limit for plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Nissan North America is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. A copy of the civil minutes -- general dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IBLyZs at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN NORTH: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Kemp Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAKEITA KEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order granting joint bid to modify current case management order and extend discovery and class certification deadlines as follows: - Class Certification Discovery Jan. 14, 2022 Cut-Off - Deadline to file Motion for Feb. 28, 2022 Class Certification - Plaintiffs' expert disclosures Feb. 28, 2022 and reports due for any experts to be relied upon in support of Motion for Class Certification - Deadline for Plaintiffs to produce April 4, 2022 class certification experts for deposition - Deadline to file Opposition to May 23, 2022 Motion for Class Certification - NNA's expert disclosures and May 23, 2022 reports due for any experts to be relied upon in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification - Deadline for NNA to produce class June 27, 2022 certification experts for deposition - Deadline to file Reply in support July 25, 2022 of Motion for Class Certification - Class Certification hearing TBD A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31AjQfh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com - and - Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com - and - Dam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq. Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, pro hac vice SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 250-6114 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net The Defendants are represented by: Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq. Anthony F. Schlehuber, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 726-7341 E-mail: bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com aschlehuber@bakerdonelson.com - and - E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq. S. Vance Wittie, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 357-2503 E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com - and - Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq. Matthew Jacob Adler, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-7521 E-mail: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com PAWN AMERICA: Huff Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Randell Huff, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, Payday America, Inc., and PAL Card Minnesota, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02569-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., Nov. 24, 2021), is brought against Defendants for their collective failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII"), including account numbers, driver's license information, names, addresses, phone number, email address, social security number, passport number and/or other identification numbers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those persons, and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from disclosure or criminal hacking activity. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their PII confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Plaintiff and Class Members have taken reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of their PII. Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably expected and relied upon Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. The Defendant, however, breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class Members. The Defendants have confirmed that on October 3, 2021, each of the Defendant business entities discovered that a data breach (the “Data Breach”) had occurred approximately five days earlier. The Plaintiff seek to remedy these harms, and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to inadequate data security, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a citizen of Kentucky at all relevant times and currently resides in Glasgow, Kentucky. The Defendants operate and own alternative financing businesses with current operations principally located and focused in Minnesota and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone (513) 381-2333 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case 2:21-cv-09220 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as staff. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. is an American company distributing range of food products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Rouen, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 408 Stroudsburg, PA 18360 Telephone: (610) 324-2848 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 Email: rouenlaw@att.net -and- Daniel Rodriguez, Esq. Noah Moss, Esq. RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Law Corp. 1128 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: (661) 323-1400 Facsimile: (661) 323-0132 Email: Noah@rodriguezlaw.net PFIZER INC: Spence Sues Over Illegal Distribution of VCDs --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Spence and Carita Thompson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. PFIZER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06324 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 24, 2021), is brought to seek economic damages for those who paid for or made reimbursements for generic varenicline-containing drugs ("VCDs") that were illegally and willfully manufactured, distributed, and/or introduced into the market by the Defendant. This case arises from adulterated, misbranded, and unapproved VCDs that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or ultimately sold by Defendant Pfizer, Inc., in the United States under the brand name Chantix. These VCDs are non-merchantable and are not of the quality represented by Defendant. The Defendant represented and warranted to consumers that its VCDs were therapeutically equivalent to and otherwise the same as the FDA-approved brand name drug Chantix. Specifically, Defendant represented and warranted that the VCDs were fit for their ordinary uses, met the specifications of Defendant’s FDA-approved labeling materials, and were manufactured and distributed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. However, the Defendant willfully ignored warnings about the operating standards, and knowingly and fraudulently manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, and/or distributed adulterated and/or misbranded VCDs for purchase in the United States by consumers. The Defendant's VCDs were adulterated and/or misbranded (and thereby rendered worthless) through contamination with a probable human carcinogen known as n-nitroso-varenicline. Additionally, Defendant was on notice of other potential nitrosamines as well, such as n-nitrosdimethylamine (NDMA) and n-nitrosodiethlamine (NDEA). According to the FDA and other global health authorities, nitrosamines are dangerous probable human carcinogens. According to FDA testing, the VCDs subject to this action contained NDMA contamination levels many times higher than the FDA’s updated interim limits for NDMA and other nitrosamine impurities. The Plaintiff paid for VCDs that were illegally and willfully introduced into the market by Defendant, which caused them and the millions of other VCD consumers to sustain economic damages. Defendant's VCDs were not fit for their ordinary use and Defendant has been unjustly enriched through the sale of these knowingly adulterated and/or misbranded drugs. Defendant's conduct, as detailed in this Complaint, also constitutes actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and other violations of state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs paid money for one or more of the Defendant's VCDs. Pfizer has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of adulterated and/or misbranded generic VCDs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. Steven R. Beckham, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com sbeckham@mcgpc.com PLAZA RESEARCH: Class in AD's TCPA Suit Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, Plaintiff v. PLAZA RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-2826 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division: (i) conditionally granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and (ii) denied without prejudice its motion to permit discovery. I. Background Plaintiff Advanced Dermatology ("AD") filed a purported nationwide class action complaint against Defendant Plaza Research Corp. ("PRC") alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, for sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses who have not given their consent. According to AD, PRC is a national medical marketing and market research firm that sends marketing facsimiles to medical offices to solicit their participation in marketing surveys for which the participants are compensated. AD alleges that on Oct. 15, 2019, PRC, who had no prior or existing business relationship with AD, sent AD an unsolicited facsimile without AD's consent. The one page facsimile stated PRC was "recruiting Dermatologists across the nation to participate in an online interview discussing treatment options," and that "those who participate will be compensated $450 for 1 hour of his/her time." AD claims that the facsimile it received is a "form facsimile" that PRC sends nationwide without consent to solicit participation in its surveys and market research. AD further alleges that transmission of the facsimile by PRC violated the TCPA and damaged AD by causing injuries such as monetary loss due to cost of paper, ink, and toner, work interruption and loss of employee time, invasion of privacy, nuisance, and trespass by interfering with the use of office equipment to aid patients. On these facts, AD asserts one claim for violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, on behalf of itself and the class. AD brings the TCPA action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of itself and similarly situated individuals defined as follows: "All persons in the United States who received a facsimile, soliciting their participation in a paid research study/project, from or on behalf of Defendant and who had no ongoing business relationship with Defendant and had not given consent to receive facsimiles from Defendant, within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the class is certified." AD claims that the exact number of class members is unknown, but likely consists of thousands of individuals and businesses, and individual joinder of each class member in the case is impracticable. It also claims that there are many common questions of fact and law common to AD and members of the proposed class, and that these common questions predominate over questions that may affect individual members of the proposed class. AD further alleges that its claims are typical of proposed class members and that it has sustained the same damages as other members of the proposed class as a result of PRC's actions. And lastly, it alleges that it will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of proposed class members and has retained competent counsel experienced in complex litigation and class actions, including TCPA cases, and both AD and the counsel are committed to prosecuting this action on behalf of all members of the proposed class. Service was perfected upon PRC and, after PRC did not respond to the complaint and AD took no action to prosecute the case, the Court issued a show cause order. In response to the show cause order, AD filed an application with the Clerk for entry of PRC's default, which was entered. After seeking an entry of default, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for an order certifying the proposed class stated in the complaint, and motion to permit class discovery. II. Discussion A. Motion for Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Rule 23(a) sets out four prerequisites to a class action—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. These requirements "effectively limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff's claims." And even if all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, a class meeting those prerequisites "must also pass at least one of the tests set forth in Rule 23(b)." First, at this juncture, given the law of the Sixth Circuit and AD's allegations concerning the existence of fax records, Judge Lioi concludes that AD has conditionally satisfied the ascertainability requirement for class certification. Second, taking AD's factual allegations as true, Judge Lioi finds that the numerosity requirement is conditionally satisfied because the substantial number of class members alleged in the complaint is deemed admitted by PRC as a result of its default and is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a). Third, she finds that the common fact issues alleged by AD relating to PRC's fax solicitations, and common legal questions relative to the legality of the faxing activity under the TCPA, are sufficient to conditionally satisfy the Rule 23(a) commonality requirement. Fourth, accepting AD's allegations as true, Judge Lioi finds that Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement is conditionally satisfied. Fifth, she has no reason to otherwise question the adequacy of AD as the class representative or AD's counsel as to class counsel. Having conditionally satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a class must also satisfy at least one of the tests set forth in Rule 23(b) to be certified. AD claims that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Lioi finds that the predominance factor of Rule 23(b)(3) is conditionally satisfied. AD's allegations, deemed admitted by PRC's default, are sufficient to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 12(b)(3). With respect to superiority, Juduge Lioi conditionally finds that class treatment is superior to individual litigation to obtain a fair and efficient adjudication of AD's class action TCPA claims. Having determined that AD's proposed class satisfies the requirements of ascertainability, Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(3), Judge Lioi conditionally certifies the following class: "All persons in the United States who received a facsimile, soliciting their participation in a paid research study/project, from or on behalf of Defendant and who had no ongoing business relationship with Defendant and had not given consent to receive facsimiles from Defendant, within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the class is certified." B. Motion for Class Discovery In its motion for class discovery, AD claims that it must conduct discovery before seeking default judgment. That is the entire sum and substance of AD's motion -- the motion contains no explanation or detail regarding the targets, nature, or scope of the discovery it seeks to conduct. Judge Lioi holds that good cause for expedited discovery has been permitted in situations such as default when failing to conduct discovery would negatively impact the ultimate resolution of the case. That said, AD has not addressed this issue in its motion, nor has it indicated who it proposes to seek discovery from, the nature and scope of any discovery, or the timeframe required to complete such discovery. Accordingly, AD's motion to permit class discovery is denied without prejudice and with leave to submit a properly supported motion within 14 days. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lioi conditionally granted AD's motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice its motion to permit class discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2t4vh8zb from Leagle.com. POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan Seeks Drillers' Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONY JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLARIS PRECISION TUBULAR SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00218 (W.D. Tex., November 18, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a torque turn/driller from on or about January 2020 through January 2021. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant required him to work off-the-clock, but were not paid for all hours worked. When he worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only paid at his hourly rate. The Plaintiff seeks all damages allowed by the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and expenses, pre-judgment interest, and all other relief to which he and the collective action members may be justly entitled. Polaris Precision Tubular Services, LLC is an authorized contractor for several major tubular manufacturers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pollak Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Zalmen Pollak, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06738 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. PRA Group, Inc. or PRA -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a debt buyer and debt collector based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 704-6000 Email: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com PROJECT 7 INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Project 7, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Project 7, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10392 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Project 7 -- https://project7.com/ -- is a premium confectionery brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PTT LLC: Wilson Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PTT, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PTT, LLC doing business as: High 5 Games, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:21-mc-80284 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Civil Miscellaneous Case. PTT, LLC doing business as High 5 Games -- https://www.high5games.com/ -- is the industry's largest independent casino games provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Phone: (989) 642-0055 Fax: (888) 398-7003 Email: pellison@olcplc.com PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Says No Legal Basis for Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Da Silva, writing for Property Industry Eye, Purplebricks says there is no basis for a class action legal case over the way it treated self-employed agents which it is claimed could start this month. Contractors for Justice (C4J) is currently pursuing a proposed Group Litigation Order (GLO) against Purplebricks, on behalf of former agents that were hired as self-employed estate agents by the company. The premise of the claim is that, in law, these self-employed agents were in effect employed for the purposes of holiday pay and pension contributions being owed by the company to the individual. The claim is for as much as 20.7% of each person's total earnings. But Purplebricks has told EYE: "We have always taken legal advice in regards to our model – and the advice is very clear that there is no legal basis for this potential action. The service we offer our customers is completely unaffected." C4J claims that it now has enough claimants with which to trigger the legal process against Purplebricks. Claimants now number in the hundreds and the current cohort will be 'sealed' and pre-action papers submitted to the courts from 14 December. The pressure group says that any potential claimants that are considering joining the action have until midnight on 14th December to submit their intention to proceed via the C4J website here. Each individual submission is anonymous and is accepted on a no win-no fee basis. If the claim is not successful, there will be no legal fees to pay. There are two choices of fee deal for each claimant with a percentage of any win being paid to C4J on such success. Individual claims could be worth tens of thousands of pounds. C4J spokesman Peter Fletcher is amazed at the take up. He said: "From the day that we announced that we were supporting formerly self-employed estate agents in a claim to recompense their holiday pay and statutory pension contributions, my team have been inundated with interest from hundreds upon hundreds of Purplebricks agents in particular'. "Our case is clear. Companies that masquerade their staff as self-employed in order to save themselves huge sums in employment costs will end up simply funnelling that cash back to the individuals that have lost out by being part of such schemes'. "We are now full to the brim with potential claimants and will be shutting the door on this first cohort of petitioners on 14th December. It's possible that there will be a second cohort at some point in the future but far from certain that this will be possible or needed." [GN] PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: Suit Againt Estate Agents Has Enough Claimants ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Lewis, writing for The Negotiator, reports that the legal organisation putting together the controversial GBP20m Group Litigation Order or 'class action' against several online estate agencies including Purplebricks says it now has enough claimants to trigger the legal process. Contractors for Justice (C4J) says it now has hundreds of claimants lined up and that the current will be 'sealed' and pre-action papers submitted to the courts from 14th December. Any potential claimants that are considering joining the action have until midnight on 14th December to submit their intention to proceed via the C4J website. The premise of the claim is that, in law, these self-employed agents were in effect employed for the purposes of holiday pay and pension contributions being owed by the company to the individual. The claim is for approximately 20% of each person's total earnings from the companies that C4J are set to pursue. Each individual submission is anonymous and is accepted on a no win-no fee basis. If the claim is not successful, there will be no legal fees to pay. There are two choices of fee deal for each claimant with a percentage of any win being paid to C4J on such success. "I'm frankly amazed at the take up," says C4J spokesman Peter Fletcher. "From the day that we announced that we were supporting formerly self-employed estate agents in a claim to recompense their holiday pay and statutory pension contributions, my team have been inundated with interest from hundreds upon hundreds of Purplebricks agents in particular'. Only one agency, Purplebricks, has responded to in the past to requests for comment on the C4J legal claims. Earlier this year it said that: "All Territory Operators entered into a commercial licence agreement and this was clearly set out in their contract with Purplebricks. We have always taken legal advice in regards to our licensing model -- and the advice is very clear that these individuals were operating as limited companies, running their own business and with full control over their own staff." The Group Litigation Order is to be pursued via an Employment Tribunal hearing. [GN] QUALITY ECO: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB ALLEY, PAUL ATKINSON, CHRISTIAN BRATTON and all others similarly situated, v. QUALITY ECO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv 355 (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint bid for conditional class certification and judicial notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rOZqJR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua L. Jewett, Esq. Ben Johnson, Esq. PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC 101 West Main Street, Suite 101 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 901-4382 Facsimile: (757) 257-0387 E-mail: jjewett@piercemccoy.com bjohnson@peircemccoy.com R.S.P. EXPRESS: Time Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, D/B/A SAPPHIRE TRUCKING, INC., GABRIEL BICLEA, D/B/A MB TRUCKING, INC., ION GUTU D/B/A GPA TRUCKING, INC., and DUMITRU MARIUS RENDENCIUC, D/B/A DMR EXPRESS, INC. v. RAZVAN POP, MARIA POP, R.S.P. EXPRESS, INC., NA TRUCK REPAIR, LLC and JOHN DOE CORPORATION ONE and JOHN DOE CORPORATION TWO, Case No. 2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered a stipulated order to extend time for filing defendants' response to the plaintiffs' motion for class certiciation as follows: (A) the date by which Defendants are required to file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ pending motion for class certification should be extended until January 13, 2022; (B) Plaintiffs shall have the opportunity to supplement their motion for class certification after the deposition testimony of Mr. Marinescu; and (C) Defendants shall have the right file a response or reply to any supplemental motion for class certification within 21 days after any filing. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on November 18, 2021. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (e) (2), the Defendants' response to the motion currently is due on or before December 9, 2021. Counsel for the Defendants has been seeking to take the depositions of each Plaintiff for purposes of class related and merits discovery since at least July, 2021, and served counsel for Plaintiffs on September 20, 2021, with a notice for each Plaintiff’s deposition each of which was scheduled to occur on October 4, 5, 7, or 8, 2021. R.S.P. Express Inc. provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gyq1PQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce A. Miller, Esq. Keith D. Flynn, Esq. MILLER COHEN, P.L.C. 7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 964-4454 Facsimile: (313) 964-4490 E-mail: kflynn@millercohen.com - and - Melvin Butch Hollowell, Esq. Angela L. Baldwin, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: mbh@millerlawpc.com alb@millerlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ray Carey, Esq. GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO, McCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C. 30500 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 425 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 865-0001 E-mail: Rcarey@gmgmklaw.com RACHAEL EUBANKS: O'Connor Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rachael Anne Eubanks, et al. The case is styled as Dennis O'Connor, and all those similarly situated v. Rachael Eubanks, in her personal capacity; Terry Stanton, in his personal capacity; State of Michigan, Case No. 1:21-cv-12837-NGE-PTM (E.D. Mich., Dec. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Rachael Anne Eubanks -- https://www.michigan.gov/ -- is the 47th Michigan State Treasurer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Phone: (989) 642-0055 Fax: (888) 398-7003 Email: pellison@olcplc.com RACHEL ZOE CREATIONS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rachel Zoe Creations, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rachel Zoe Creations, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10454 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rachel Zoe -- https://shoprachelzoe.com/ -- is an American clothing line launched by designer Rachel Zoe in 2011 that features contemporary fashions and accessories inspired by the styles of the 1960s and 1970s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com RAGAN & RAGAN: Fairley FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as April Fairley, individually and for all others similarly situated v. Ragan & Ragan, P.C., Case No. 21A086488, was removed from the Superior Court of Gwinnett County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Dec. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04996-TWT-JKL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ragan & Ragan P.C. -- https://raganlaw.com/ -- is located in Wall Township, New Jersey and is part of the Legal Services Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Hurt , Jr. , Esq. HURT STOLZ, P.C. 1551 Jennings Mill Road, Suite 3100-B Watkinsville, GA 30677 Phone: (706) 395-2750 Fax: (706) 996-2576 Email: jhurt@hurtstolz.com - and - Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. ZIMMERMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 7251 West Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Phone: (702) 228-8916 Fax: (702) 228-8917 The Defendants is represented by: Matthew Robert Rosenkoff, Esq. TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP 1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (770) 434-6868 Fax: (770) 434-7376 Email: mrosenkoff@taylorenglish.com RAZER USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Razer USA LTD. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Razer USA LTD., Case No. 1:21-cv-10381 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Razer -- https://www.razer.com/ -- is the world leader in high-performance gaming hardware, software and systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com RED HOOK: Ellington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Servers ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERICA ELLINGTON, IAN DANIELS, and MADISON DENNIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. RED HOOK CAJUN SEAFOOD & BAR INC., d/b/a Red Hook Cajun Seafood, a Tennessee Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02751-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 3, 2021) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former tipped employees who are members of a class defined as: "All current and former servers and/or bartenders of Defendants during the three (3) year period preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who are the Named Plaintiff(s) or elect to opt- in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). According to the complaint, the Defendants pays its tipped employees below the minimum wage rate by taking an unlawful advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provision, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers. The Defendants include RED HOOK OF WINCHESTER INC., a Tennessee Corporationl RED HOOK OF CHURCH INC., d/b/a Red Pier Cajun Seafood and Bar, a Tennessee Corporation; RED HOOK OF BARTLETT INC., a Tennessee Corporation; RED HOOK OF JACKSON TN INC., a Tennessee Corporation; RED HOOK OF MEMPHIS INC., a Tennessee Corporationl RED HOOK OF WHITEHAVEN INC., a Tennessee Corporation; RED HOOK OF WOLFCHASE INC., a Tennessee Corporation; RED HOOK CRAB SHACK LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; RED HOOK SOUTHAVEN INC., a Mississippi Corporation; RED HOOK OF CHURCH INC., d/b/a Red Hook Cajun Seafood & Bar, a Mississippi Corporation; RED HOOK OF CHURCH ROAD INC., a Mississippi Corporationl and SUN WAI JOE NG and RYAN NG, Individually. Defendant Red Hook Cajun Seafood & Bar Inc. is a Tennessee for-profit corporation with its principal office located at 6105 Stage Rd, Bartlett, Tennessee 38134-8313. The Defendant Red Hook Cajun Seafood & Bar Inc. has been an "employer" of Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers for purposes of the FLSA during the relevant period to this action.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com SEVEN X ENTERPRISES: Scandaliato Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH SCANDALIATO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEVEN X ENTERPRISES, INC., MAI THANH MINH, individually and DR. CUONG HUNG MAI, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-02712-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla., November 18, 2021) seeks unpaid overtime compensation against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendants on or about February 2019 as a recovery agent. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally violated the FLSA. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants allegedly denied Plaintiff of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Seven X Enterprises, Inc. primarily operates in the Business Consulting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 220-4000 Fax: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com cgray@fgbolaw.com SHOWS CALI: Charles Napoleon Losses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES NAPOLEON v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01775-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said, "The plaintiff cannot establish typicality or adequacy of representation because plaintiff, as the class representative, does not have a claim against defendants under this class definition. This Court already decided that defendants were not time-barred from pursuing money owed under the Elevation Grant as the state prescription period of ten-years applies. Consequently, plaintiff cannot establish typicality or adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(3) and Rule 23(a)(4), and therefore, the class action cannot be certified." This suit arises from a dispute over funds provided to Charles Napoleon following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005, and was quickly followed by Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rNtTZ1 at no extra charge.[CC] SLINGER BAG: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slinger Bag Americas Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Slinger Bag Americas Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10453 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Slinger Bag Inc. -- https://slingerbag.com/ -- provides portable tennis ball launcher.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com STAPLES & ASSOCIATES: Tholmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples & Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Calvin Tholmer, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Staples & Associates, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00312270-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 7, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Staples & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.staplesandassociates.com/ -- provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com STATE FARM: Wins Bid to Quash Subpoena in Pederson Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY PEDERSEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Lindsay; BETTY L. RADOVICH; WANDA WOODWICK; and ROSALIE KIERNAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Nicholson; individually and on behalf those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00029-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: 1. Defendants motion to quash subpoena to Riley McGiboney and State Farm is granted and plaintiffs motion to compel compliance is dismissed in part. -- Plaintiffs may not depose State Farm Agent Riley McGiboney at this time. Plaintiffs may revisit the issue with the Court once the depositions of other State Farm agents are complete and try to persuade the Court that the use of the screenshots of State Farms electronic insurance application proved inadequate. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for a Rule 16 Conference is granted. -- The discovery deadlines shall be extended 90 days. The parties shall comply with the following deadlines: a. Discovery shall close on April 28, 2022; b. Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by May 19, 2022; c. Defendants Response to Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by June 16, 2022; and d. Plaintiffs Reply to Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by June 30, 2022. 3. The limit on the number of interrogatories is increased to 50. 4. The Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with the number of households with UM and without UIM insurance on January 1, 2021. 5. All other pending motions are dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling if appropriate. State Farm is a group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lRzOZl at no extra charge.[CC] STEMILT AG: Extension of Time to File Response Nixed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia et al v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254 (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply and on motion to expedite. Because Defendant has already filed a response, the motions are now denied as moot, says Judge Mendoza. The nature of suit state Labor -- Other Labor Litigation. Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes providing farm management services..[CC] STONECO LTD: Faces Depue Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- LANDON DEPUE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STONECO LTD., THIAGO DOS SANTOS PIAU, LIA MACHADO DE MATOS, RAFAEL MARTINS PEREIRA, and MARCELO BASTIANELLO BALDIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10468 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021 is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired StoneCo securities between March 11, 2021 and November 16, 2021, inclusive pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, StoneCo announced its second quarter 2021 financial results in a press release, reporting an 8.1% year-over-year decrease in revenue "mainly due to adjustments in credit fair value and significantly lower credit disbursements." The Company stated that it had "implemented some prudent actions, like temporarily stopping the disbursement of credit and increasing coverage for potential future losses, which impacted [StoneCo's] reported results for the quarter." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.96, to close at $46.54 per share on August 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit. Then, on October 26, 2021, PAX Global Technology Ltd's Florida offices were raided by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies as part of a federal investigation. As a Viceroy Research report on October 27, 2021 pointed out, StoneCo states that PAX "is no longer [its] sole provider of POS services, [but the Company is] still substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a substantial amount of [its] POS devices." Moreover, another company replaced its PAX terminals "because it did not receive satisfactory answers from PAX regarding its POS devices connecting to websites not listed in their supplied documentation." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.64, or 7%, to close at $33.81 per share on October 27, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced that it would "start retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term loans, between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of '22." The Company could not provide specific guidance about when credit volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted origination of credit. On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.96, or 34%, to close at $20.70 per share on November 17, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that StoneCo was experiencing difficulties in implementing its credit product; (2) that StoneCo faced significant risks via its point-of-sale vendor, PAX Global Technology Ltd.; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Landon Depue purchased StoneCo securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. StoneCo is a provider of financial technology solutions. StoneCo's services allow merchants and other vendors to conduct electronic commerce across in-store, online, and mobile channels, primarily in Brazil. Starting in 2019, StoneCo expanded its offerings to include credit solutions to its customers. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY: Kelly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stony Brook University Hospital, et al. The case is styled as Laura Kelly, Kristen Perdie, and all other individuals similarly situated, Petitioners v. Stony Brook University Hospital, New York State Department of Health, Howard A. Zucker, Respondents, Case No. 622545/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 3, 2021). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Stony Brook University Hospital -- https://www.stonybrookmedicine.edu/ -- previously known as Stony Brook University Medical Center, is a nationally ranked, 695-bed non-profit, research, and academic medical center located in Stony Brook, New York, providing tertiary care for the entire Long Island region.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Patricia Ann Finn, Esq. 58 E Route 59 Ste 4 Nanuet, NY 10954-2959 The Respondents are represented by: Robert Edward Morelli, Esq. 300 Motor Pkwy Ste 230 Hauppauge, NY 11788-5190 STROM ENGINEERING: Jan. 7, 2022 Extension of Briefing Sched Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STROM ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines on the briefing schedule to January 7, 2022. Strom filed a Motion to Strike the Report and Testimony of Erin Hatton, Ph.D. on December 4, 2021. Due to filing difficulties, the exhibits to Defendants' opposition brief were not filed until December 6, 2021, and Strom did not serve Plaintiff with these exhibits until December 6, 2021. On December 6, 2021, the Court set a deadline for Plaintiff to oppose the Motion to Strike of December 30, 2021. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply in further support of his Motion for Class Certification is currently due December 17, 2021. Because these two pleadings are related, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that he be permitted to submit these two filings simultaneously. Given the upcoming holidays and pre-existing plans of Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deadlines for these two filings be extended up and until January 7, 2022. Strom provides strategic planning, labor dispute staffing, temporary workforces, and full service labor solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y63FSF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com www.llrlaw.com - and - Taylor N. Brailey, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue, 26 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7624 Facsimile: (412) 774-1959 E-mail: tschroeder@littler.com jvaughn@littler.com kmccombs@littler.com tbrailey@littler.com - and - Michaela L. Wallin, Eswq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mwallin@bm.net - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone/Fax: (215) 792-6676 E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelafirm.com - and - Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Theodore A. Schroeder, Esq. Joshua C. Vaughn, Esq Katelyn W. McCombs, Esq Taylor N. Brailey, Esq LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7624 Facsimile: (412) 774-1959 E-mail: tschroeder@littler.com jvaughn@littler.com kmccombs@littler.com tbrailey@littler.com SUGARPOVA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugarpova, LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sugarpova, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10402 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sugarpova -- https://sugarpova.com/ -- is a premium candy and chocolate line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SUNBRIGHT TRANS: Sosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANILO CIGOLLEN SOSA, individually on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. SUNBRIGHT TRANSPORTATION d/b/a SCHOLASTIC TRANSPORTATION LLC, A New York Domestic Limited Liability Company, BIG MIKES AUTO SALES LLC, A New York Domestic Limited Liability Company, and FREDY J. CALDERON, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-06799 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages from the Defendant for overtime work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff further complains that they are entitled to back wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by the New York Labor Law sections 650 et seq. and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the himself and other similarly situated current and former "technician" employees of the Defendants, who elect to opt into this action. Sunbright is a company that provides transportation services for residential and commercial customers. Big Mikes is a vehicle repair facility and tire shop. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt "technician." The Plaintiff worked in this capacity from December 2019, through May 2021. Throughout the time period in which the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a technician, the Plaintiff's primary duties included painting, detailing and repairing the Defendants' motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com T-MOBILE USA: Daruwalla Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Veera Daruwalla, Michael March, Lavicieia Sturdivant, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01118, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00854-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. J Austin Moore, Esq. Norman E Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: vahle@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - Daniel J Mogin, Esq. Jennifer M Oliver, Esq. Timothy Z LaComb, Esq. MOGINRUBIN LLP 600 W BROADWAY STE 3300 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 798-5333 Email: dmogin@moginrubin.com joliver@moginrubin.com tlacomb@moginrubin.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com - and - Jonathan L Rubin, Esq. MOGINRUBIN LLP (DC) 1615 M ST NW, STE THIRD FL WASHINGTON, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 630-0616 Email: jrubin@moginrubin.com - and - Steven M Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD (NY) 33 WHITEHALL ST STE 14TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1194 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq. Kim D Stephens, Esq. Jason T Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1200 FIFTH AVE STE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: kpowell@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA) 1201 W PEACHTREE ST ONE ATLANTIC CTR ATLANTA, GA 30309-3432 Phone: (404) 881-7584 Email: kristy.brown@alston.com - and - Kathleen M O'Sullivan, Esq. Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq. Steve Y Koh, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4900 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 583-8888 Fax: (206) 583-8500 Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com LTsuji@perkinscoie.com SKoh@perkinscoie.com T-MOBILE USA: Metzger Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edmund Metzger, Judith Weil, Zorka Lipovic, Maria Rapestkaya, William Mabe, Marina Lipovic, Dejan Dex Lipovic, Aleksandar Lipovic, Daniela Lipovic, Nikola Lipovic, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04721, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00853-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc J. Held, Esq. Philip M. Hines, Esq. HELD & HINES, L.L.P. 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (718) 531-9700 Fax: (718) 444-5768 Email: marcheldesq@gmail.com phines@heldhines.com The Defendant is represented by: Reade William Seligmann, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 210-9453 Email: reade.seligmann@alston.com T-MOBILE USA: Thang Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Henry Thang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-06473, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00851-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Grace Fiorilla, Esq. Margaret C. MacLean, Esq. LOWEY DNNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com - and - Alexis M Wood, Esq. Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Kas Larene Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com The Defendant is represented by: Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Esq. Kathryn Sena Christopherson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 560 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 243-1057 Fax: (415) 243-1001 Email: stuart.plunkett@alston.com kathryn.christopherson@alston.com - and - Edward Joseph Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 461-6400 Fax: (415) 461-3900 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com TAL EDUCATION: Allocation Plan of Securities Settlement Fund OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE TAL EDUCATION GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-05480-LAP-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order approving the proposed plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund. The matter came on for hearing on Nov. 30, 2021, on the Plaintiffs' motion to determine whether the Plan of Allocation created by the Settlement achieved in the class action should be approved. Judge Parker, having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Hearing and otherwise; and having considered the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed Plan of Allocation, finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of the claims of the Claimants as set forth in the Plan of Allocation mailed to the Settlement Class Members provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity. She finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation is, in all respects, fair and reasonable to the Settlement Class. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2p8byt from Leagle.com. TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Members of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, et al. The case is styled as Francisco C. Martinez and All Inmates Similarly Situated in the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice v. The Members of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Bobby Lumpkin; The Members of the Mailroom Systems Coordinators Panel (MSCP)L The Members of the Director's Review Committee (DRC)L Sherry Varela, Mailroom Supervisor; Case No. 3:21-cv-00337 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The nine member Texas Board of Criminal Justice (TBCJ) -- https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/tbcj/index.html -- is appointed by the governor to oversee the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. THRIVING BRANDS: Carbone Files Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thriving Brands LLC, et al. The case is styled as Peter Carbone, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Thriving Brands LLC, Henkel Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-06742 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Thriving Brands Company -- https://thriving-brands.com/ -- is a firm in Cincinnati, Ohio that invests in consumer brands worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com THRIVING BRANDS: Wilson Sues Over Defective Anti-Perspirant ------------------------------------------------------------ Mosanthony Wilson and James Corsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THRIVING BRANDS, LLC, HENKEL AG & CO. KGAA, and THE DIAL CORPORATION d/b/a HENKEL NORTH AMERICAN CONSUMER GOODS, Case No. 3:21-cv-01988-H-RBB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2021), is brought against the Defendant with regards to their Right Guard Sport Fresh antiperspirant aerosol ("Product") which is defective because it contains the chemical benzene, a known carcinogen that offers no therapeutic deodorant or antiperspirant benefit. The Defendants took advantage of the trust consumers have in the Right Guard brand, representing that the Product is safe for its intended use when, in reality, the Product contains significant concentrations of benzene, a harmful carcinogen. Benzene is a carcinogen known to cause cancer in humans. Long-term exposure additionally causes harmful effects on the bone marrow, a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia, and excessive bleeding that can affect the immune system, leading to an increased chance of infection. The Product’s benzene contamination was not disclosed to the consumer on the product label, the ingredients list, or otherwise. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves, and for the proposed Classes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased and used Right Guard Sport Fresh antiperspirant aerosol. The Defendants formulate, design, manufacture, market, advertise, distribute, and sell the Product to consumers throughout the United States, including in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 Email: Astraus@Milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jczeisler@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com rbusch@milberg.com TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Granted Leave to File First Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOUIS B. EDLESON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVEL INSURED INTERNATIONAL, INC., and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.: 21-cv-323-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 23, 2021, Plaintiff Edelson filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants Travel Insured International, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company, alleging that the Defendants violated California state law by failing to refund travel insurance premiums paid for post-departure coverage on trips that were never taken. The Plaintiff alleged the following claims on behalf of himself and a nationwide class: (1) unjust enrichment; and (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff sought damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 3, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On Sept. 23, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed the "request for injunctive relief" and the "putative claims on behalf of non-California insureds whose claims would be governed by the laws of states other than California" without prejudice and with leave to file a motion for leave to amend. On Oct. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. He seeks leave to file an amended complaint that "cures the deficiencies identified by the Court with regard to the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief." On Nov. 15, 2021, the Defendants filed a Response to the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Defendants "do not oppose leave for the Plaintiff to file the 'proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint, but they expressly reserve and do not waive their right under Rule 12 to seek dismissal of the injunctive relief claim in the proposed FAC." On Nov. 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend "be freely given when justice so requires." This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality. The Supreme Court, citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), has identified several factors district courts should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: "Undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment." Judge Hayes finds that the proposed FAC adds factual allegations in support of the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. The case is in its early stages, and the proposed amendment seeks to cure deficiencies identified by the Court in the Order on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants do not oppose leave for the Plaintiff to file the proposed FAC. Judge Hayes concludes that the Foman factors do not warrant deviating from the "presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is granted. The Plaintiff will file the proposed FAC attached as "Exhibit 1" to the Declaration of Yury A. Kolesnikov within five days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2akzs44h from Leagle.com. TRUCKMOVERS DEPOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay Under FLSA, IMWL ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CAIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRUCKMOVERS DEPOT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-06525 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 7, 2021), is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards and overtime provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified Plaintiff as nonexempt from the requirements of the FLSA. Despite Plaintiff's entitlement to overtime payments under the FLSA, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff 1.5x his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant knew or should have known that its actions violated the FLSA. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the FLSA and the IMWL.[BN] TruckMovers provides truck driveaway services across the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com U.S. BANCORP: Discovery & Briefing Schedule in Kim Due Dec. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. BANCORP and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00032-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order on stipulated motion regarding proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendants' motion for decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective. The parties' joint proposed discovery and briefing schedule is now due by Dec. 21, 2021, says Judge Lasnik. U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pzNQQ4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Brittany J. Glass, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com bglass@terrellmarshall.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447‐8888 Facsimile: (561) 447‐8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. Sabine Jean, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245‐1000 Facsimile: (646) 509‐2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com sjean@outtengolden.com The Defendant is represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq. Jason S. Campbell, Esq. Samuel Freeman, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 E-mail: jfife@winston.com ewoodhead@winston.com jscampbell@winston.com sfreeman@winston.com - and - Julie S. Lucht, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-3154 Facsimile: (206) 359-4154 E-mail: jlucht@perkinscoie.com UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Dumontet Suit Over Illegal Account Program --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN DUMONTET, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., MATTHEW S. BUCHSBAUM, SCOTT M. ROSENBERG, GERARD COSTELLO and SONIA M. ATTKISS, Case No. 1:21-cv-10361 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2021) is a class action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who chose accounts in UBS Financial Services, Inc.'s Yield Enhancement Strategy ("YES") program and suffered damages. In inducing the Plaintiff and the Class to choose a YES account and pledge substantial Mandates, the Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class by misrepresenting and failing to disclose to them known risks material to those decisions -- specifically, the risk of substantial losses which were far greater than any positive returns to be gained from choosing a YES account; Defendants' conflict of interest in which Defendants' fees and charges increased substantially as its YES customers' losses increased substantially, placing their respective financial incentives in direct conflict; and concealing that the YES Team had been accused by their former firm, Credit Suisse, of stealing confidential customer information relating to the YES program, which impacted the integrity of the YES Team and was a material fact for UBS customers who were making the decision whether to entrust their Mandate amounts to the YES Team. Those material undisclosed risks known by Defendants manifested and materialized in Plaintiff's and the Class' YES accounts during periods of higher market volatility in late December 2018 and 2019, causing the value of their YES accounts to decline substantially. At the same time, Defendants benefitted unjustly by collecting fee income on top of fee income, and additional margin fees once the Plaintiff's and the Class' portfolios incurred substantial deficits, at which time Defendants knew that it would be difficult for them to stop the losses by exiting the program, as it was designed, says the suit. As a consequence of the undisclosed risks and conflicts, the Defendants' efforts to recruit UBS advisory customers into choosing YES accounts were successful and generated substantial enrollments. At the height of the program, about 1,500 UBS advisory customers reportedly chose YES accounts and pledged about $5.7 billion in in their YES account Mandates. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered the consequences of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentations. In late December 2018, YES accounts suffered significant losses. Those losses continued to pile up in 2019 and eventually reached approximately 20% of the $5.7 billion advisory customer Mandates in the YES accounts, or approximately $1.2 billion. This suit seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and other equitable remedies. UBS and its corporate affiliates had been experiencing years of lagging results and poor performance in its investment banking business, causing UBS to embark on a turnaround plan that completely reoriented the Company's focus from investment banking to brokerage services under the guise of wealth management. That change in emphasis required UBS to generate significant advisory service fee income from its investment advisory client base to make up for the lower revenue generated from its investment banking activities. Like other wealth management companies, UBS maintained a fee structure pursuant to which it charged its clients fees to provide the financial advice they sought, fees that were assessed generally on the value of a client's portfolio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ira M. Press, Esq. Daniel Hume, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dhume@kmllp.com ipress@kmllp.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Phyllis Parker, Esq. Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net bpodell@bm.net pparker@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net UNION PACIFIC: Ct. Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Renard ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RENARD v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-00589-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Court entered preliminary scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline to add parties other than December 15, 2021 putative class members pursuant to any order(s) granting class certification: -- Deadline for motions to transfer: December 27, 2021 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file March 18, 2022 amended pleadings: (A motion for leave to amend is required.) -- Deadline for Defendant to file March 18, 2022 amended pleadings:(A motion for leave to amend is required.) -- Deadline for class certification March 18, 2022 discovery: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to disclose April 15, 2022 expert testimony regarding class certification issues. -- Deadline for Defendant to disclose May 16, 2022 expert testimony regarding class certification issues. -- Deadline for completion of June 17, 2022 depositions of class certification experts: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file July 15, 2022 any class certification motion(s). -- Deadline for Defendant to file August 15, 2022 a response to Plaintiff's class certification motion(s): -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file August 29, 2022 a reply in support of class certification, if any. Union Pacific operates North America's premier railroad franchise, covering 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rXyUy7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: District Court Proceedings Stayed in Sambrano Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for stay of District Court Proceedings. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' motion requests that "the Court stay all pending district court deadlines until 21 days after the Fifth Circuit resolves Plaintiffs' pending appeal." The Court concludes that staying proceedings during appeal will promote judicial economy, especially as a decision from the Fifth Circuit may impact future proceedings before the Court. Defendant's response persuasively argues, however, that Plaintiffs should be required to complete the briefing on their pending motion for class certification. Specifically, the Defendant argues that if the Court were to grant the stay at this point in the proceedings, the Plaintiffs would effectively receive an indefinite extension of time to file their reply brief. To avoid this outcome, the Plaintiffs will be required to file their reply in support of their Motion to Certify Class per the existing deadlines. All other deadlines will be stayed." United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic and international route network spanning cities large and small across the United States and all six continents. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rOmuZf at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 11, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.B. individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 1:21-cv-00553-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- Joinder of Parties due by: Jan. 7, 2022 -- Amended Pleadings due by: Feb. 7, 2022 -- Discovery due by June 1, 2022 -- Class Certification Motion due by: July 11, 2022 -- Deadline for completion of Sept. 22, 2022 Mandatory Mediation: -- Status Report due by: March 18, 2022 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IwA1e7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Stay of Burzdak Pending Arbitration Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KAREN BURZDAK, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SCREEN ARTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02148-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied USA's motion to stay proceedings pending its appeal of the Court's arbitration order. Background Plaintiff Burzdak has filed a class action against Defendant Universal Screen Arts ("USA"), asserting that it has a "practice of deceptively enrolling consumers into a paid and automatically renewing membership program." USA is a "multi-company retailer that owns and operates myriad e-commerce websites and brands including Acorn, Bas Bleu, Daedalus Books, Signals, Support Plus, and What on Earth." After a consumer places and finalizes an order from one of USA's websites, she is presented with a free shipping option. In addition, Ms. Burzdak maintains that cancelling the VIP Insider membership is difficult. A consumer cannot "simply visit the website where she made the purchase and cancel the membership." Instead, a consumer can cancel the membership online only if she first creates an account with a different website (e.g., signalsvipinsider.com). Also, although consumers can call a toll-free number to request cancellation, "some consumers have reported issues reaching a representative and some complain about being charged despite requesting to cancel." Because USA "does not offer a timely and easy-to-use mechanism for cancelling the membership," consumers have suffered "repeat and ongoing unauthorized charges." With respect to Ms. Burzdak specifically, she made a purchase through Bas Bleu (one of USA's e-commerce websites) in October 2020. After she made the purchase, she responded to the pop-up box and enrolled in the VIP Insider membership program. She did not intend to be enrolled in the program and was not aware that she was enrolled "as part of her purchase process." Seven days after her purchase, USA charged Ms. Burzdak's debt card $14.95 for the program. The deduction was automatically made for three months -- November 2020, December 2020, and January 2021. Ms. Burzdak did not see the charges for about three months. When she discovered them, she called USA immediately to cancel the membership. Based on, inter alia, the above allegations, Ms. Burzdak alleges a violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Included in the claim is an allegation that USA has engaged in an unlawful business practice because its conduct constitutes a violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law, codified at California Business & Professions Code Section 17600. Ms. Burzdak seeks to represent a class defined as follows: "All persons in the State of California who were charged for a VIP Insider membership." USA moved to compel arbitration of the case in June 2021. According to USA, Ms. Burzdak agreed to arbitration because, when she was presented with the pop-up screen below, she submitted her email address -- thereby agreeing to the Terms of Use which included an arbitration provision. In August 2021, the Court denied the motion, holding that "USA's pop-up screen did not put a reasonably prudent website user on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use and, therefore, Ms. Burzdak cannot be bound by the Terms of Use which contain the arbitration provision." USA subsequently appealed the arbitration decision to the Ninth Circuit. It now asks the Court to stay proceedings pending its appeal of the Court's arbitration order. Discussion A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits/Serious Legal Questions USA has made several arguments as to why it is likely to succeed on the merits, or why there are at least serious legal questions. For example, USA argues that the Court improperly characterized its Terms of Use as a browsewrap agreement when it was really more like a clickwrap or modified clickwrap agreement. Second, USA contends that, however the Court characterized USA's Terms of Use, the Court applied "the wrong legal standard and failed to give appropriate weight to the fact that Ms. Burzdak was required to provide her affirmative assent to the hyperlinked terms." Finally, USA asserts that the Court improperly decided the arbitration issue by applying the "clear and conspicuous" standard used to evaluate whether there has been a violation of the Automatic Renewal Law. Judge Chen holds that none of these arguments is persuasive. First, he finds that to the extent there may be any confusion from its prior order, he confirms that it does not find USA's Terms of Use is a browsewrap agreement. Rather, the Terms of Use are neither a "pure" browsewrap agreement nor a "pure" clickwrap agreement but rather something in between. Second, Judge Chen finds that the Court focuses on California law alone. Finally, to the extent USA suggests that a court should not consider such factors as size of type and contrasting type in assessing whether a reasonably prudent person was on constructive/inquiry notice, such suggestion would not be consistent with Ninth Circuit authority. B. Injury if Stay Granted v. Injury if Stay Denied USA argues that, if a stay is denied, it will be irreparably harmed because it "would be required to invest significant resources engaging in class discovery to which Ms. Burzdak would not otherwise be entitled and to defend itself against class claims that are ultimately not at issue if USA prevails on appeal." But any such harm can be alleviated if the Court were to defer class discovery and class certification and have the parties focus first on discovery that would likely be produced for arbitration. Discovery into Ms. Burzdak's circumstances and USA's policies/practices would be permissible under the bifurcated approach. C. Public Interest This factor does not weigh in USA's favor to the extent it has a weak position on the likelihood of success on the merits. Conclusion Taking into account the factors, Judge Chen denied USA's motion to stay proceedings pending appeal. That being said, he will give USA some relief, specifically, by staging discovery so that the initial focus in the case is on Ms. Burzdak's claims specifically and USA's policies/practices across its websites and deferring for now class certification discovery. After the parties complete this phase of discovery, the Court will revisit whether discovery should proceed on to, e.g., class claims considering, inter alia, the status of USA's appeal. The Order disposes of Docket No. 44. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckpfvu2 from Leagle.com. USAA FEDERAL: Faces Bulls Suit Over Interest Rate Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP BULLS; DEAN BRINK; CARMIN NOWLIN; AND NICHOLAS PADAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-D (E.D.N.C., Nov. 24, 2021) alleges violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. According to the complaint, to attract and retain the businesses of active military members, the Defendants provide contractual benefits that are more generous than required by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), which the Defendants refer to as USAA's Military Benefits Program. The Defendants market heavily to servicemembers as a bank dedicated to military members, veterans, and their families. The Defendants allegedly breached their statutory and contractual duties to America's fighting forces by charging interest rates and fees that were too high, allowing unlawful charges to improperly inflate servicemembers' principal balances; and charging compound interest on these inflated balances. The Defendants then concealed their overcharges from the thousands of military families victimized by the Defendants' practices. The Plaintiffs and other class members did not discover that the Defendants were violating their rights until 2021, when the Defendants sent misleading correspondence and payment checks to some military families. When the Defendants' actions led the Plaintiffs to investigate the Defendants' compliance with the SCRA and USAA's Military Benefits Program, they learned that the Defendants had committed wholesale violations of the SCRA and other military benefits which caused damages to thousands of military families, the suit added. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Ballew, Esq. Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq. John R. Taylor, Esq. ZAYTOUN BALLEW & TAYLOR, PLLC 3130 Fairhill Drive, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 832-6690 Facsimile: (919) 831-4793 Email: MBallew@zaytounlaw.com RZaytoun@zaytounlaw.com JTaylor@zaytounlaw.com -and- Knoll D. Lowney, Esq. Claire Tonry, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC 2317 E. John Street Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 Email: Knoll@smithandloweny.com Claire@smithandlowney.com VABER MEDICAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vaber Medical Testing LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Vaber Medical Testing LLC doing business as: Vaber Covid Testing NYC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10439 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. VABER COVID Testing NYC's -- https://vabercovidtestingnyc.com/ -- primary objective is to provide our patients with the best experience possible for COVID testing in SoHo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com VENTURE METALS: Powers Sues Over Unpaid OT for Production Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURE METALS, L.L.C. (a/k/a Venture Metals International and Venture Metals International, Inc.), Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-03016-K (N.D. Tex., December 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated production employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a production employee in Dallas County, Texas between approximately January 15, 2021 to approximately October 11, 2021. Venture Metals, LLC, also known as Venture Metals International and Venture Metals International, Inc., is a metal purchasing, scrapping, recycling, and sales company based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile (972) 591-4564 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: FritzCo Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Communications Inc., et al. The case is styled as FritzCo LLC, Los Gatos-Saratoga Community Education and Recreation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Verizon Communications Inc., Cellco Partnership doing business as: Verizon Wireless, Case No. 1:21-cv-10432-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Verizon Communications Inc., commonly known as Verizon -- http://www.verizon.com/-- is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ira N. Glauber, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP (NY) 99 Park Avenue Suite 320 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (917) 675-4252 Fax: (215) 575-7200 Email: iglauber@dilworthlaw.com VF OUTDOOR: Court Tosses Valencia Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order adopting findings and recommendations and granting the defendant's motion to deny class certification as follows: 1. adopting in full the findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2021; 2. granting the Defendant's motion to deny class certification of the classes as defined and proposed in plaintiff's complaint; and 3. referring back case to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. The Plaintiff Briana Valencia brings this putative wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action against defendant. On September 3, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to deny class certification. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b), the pending motion was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations. On November 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion to deny class certification be granted. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy to serve as a class representative of the classes as defined and proposed in her complaint because the plaintiff did not sign an arbitration agreement that most putative class members had signed and she seeks to represent classes of all employees, not just those who also refused to sign the arbitration agreement. VF Outdoor was founded in 2000. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of men's and boy's clothing. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GsocUj at no extra charge.[CC] YEEZY LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yeezy LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Yeezy LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10397 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adidas Yeezy -- https://www.yeezysupply.com/ -- is a fashion collaboration between German sportswear company Adidas and American designer, rapper, entrepreneur and personality Ye (formerly known by the name Kanye West).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com [*] Canada Municipal Governments Expected to See Class Action Spike ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin A. McGivney, Esq., and Natalie Kolos, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that as providers of essential services such as water, sewer, transit, waste management, housing, long-term care and policing, municipalities have more influence on the day-to-day lives of Canadians than any other level of government. The same issues that are making headlines on the news and social media, including climate change, COVID-19, homelessness, privacy, and racism, impact these services. At the same time, municipalities are vulnerable to unproven and sometimes inflammatory criticism that circulates on social media, where everyone has a voice regardless of credibility and algorithms create the impression that problems are larger and more common than they actually are. Impact. A collapse in trust in government services appears to be fuelling an increase in often-tenuous claims against municipalities, including from self-represented and class action litigants. This includes an uptick in defamation and reputational claims against municipal politicians and staff. At the same time, insurance companies are finding it challenging to price the unpredictable impacts of forces such as climate change and civil unrest. As a result, municipalities are having a hard time placing insurance in the market at a reasonable price and more communities are considering self-insurance. Top tip. While it may feel like a thankless distraction from the actual work of local government, municipalities would do well to maintain proactive communication with citizens, working hard to establish themselves as trusted sources of information. To remain credible over the long term, communities will require meaningful civic engagement opportunities, comprehensive risk mitigation and risk management plans, and effective crisis management when the unexpected inevitably occurs. [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 ***