/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211221.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 248 Headlines 2 BITS PIZZA: Hiebert Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses 3 RIVERS TELEPHONE: Blackfeet Tribe Members File Class Action AARP SERVICES: Krukas Appeals Dismissal of Insurance Class Suit AERA ENERGY: Class Certification Motion Dates Due April 21, 2023 AETNA LIFE: Patients Seek Class Status in Liposuction Suit ALFI INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 31 Deadline ALLIANZ SERVICE: Smith Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class AMARIN CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline AUSTRALIA: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Bond Investors' Class Suit BERKELEY LIGHTS: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 7 Deadline BOODA ORGANICS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUILT USA: Hector Caro Sues Over TCPA Violation C-THRU WINDOW: Hernandez Sues Over Window Tinters' Unpaid Wages CATALINA SNACKS: Majak Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Products CD PROJEKT: Enters Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Settlement Talks CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces Cabeza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: 632 Metacom Suit transferred to D.R.I. CHAAC PIZZA: Faces Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Minimum Wage CHAD WOLF: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to March 15, 2022 CHEVRON USA: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines Filed CIRCLE K: Feb. 17, 2022 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought CLARKWESTERN DIETRICH: Dutka Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Seeks Class Certification CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid CORECIVIC INC: Settles Class Action Over Jail Scabies Outbreak CRAZY AARON: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CVS PHARMACY: Bell Files Suit in E.D. New York DAHER CLEANING: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response Filing Date DANCING DEER: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVID CASTILLO: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOVER MOTORSPORTS: Morgan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation DXC TECHNOLOGY: 4th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Issues Apology Over Festival Disappointments ELITE HEALTH: Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered FENIX INTERNET: Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over "Sham" Corrosion Warranty FORIS DAX: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Judge Tosses PPP Class Action Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Face Shareholder Class Action in New York INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 31 Deadline JAB GROUP: Franchi to Halt Company Takeover via Share Acquisition JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Hastings School Says KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: FLSA Collective, Rule 23 Class Cert Stricken LLR INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review in Katie Van Suit LOI ESTIATORIO: Denied Benitez Overtime Pay, Paystubs MASCHOFFS LLC: Responds to Biometric Class Action Lawsuit MILWAUKEE BL: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Meggs Claims MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over CVT Problems NEW YORK FAST: Jose Hernandez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Overtime NEW YORK: To Face Private Sector Vaccine Mandate Class Action ON24 INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of January 3 Deadline REALGY LLC: Asks SC to Review Lower Court Ruling in Lindenbaum Suit RESEARCH STRATEGIES: Faces Duverger Class Suit Over Robocalls RW EXPRESS: Faces Llobel Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation SENTINEL INSURANCE: One40 Beauty Appeals Judgment in Insurance Suit STATE FARM: Must Face Life Insurance Class Action Lawsuit STATESIDE TAX: Costa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina STOCKX INC: Data Privacy Claims Must Be Arbitrated, Court Rules TOP TENN: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Hoffman Claims TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Appeals Dismissal in Breach of Contract Suit TUG HILL OPERATING: Rogers Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime UMB BANK: Mississippi Delta Farmers File Class Action UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Faces Class Action Over Doctor's Misconduct VOLKSWAGEN AG: March 7, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set [*] Judge Certifies Instagram Privacy Class Suit Against U.S. Firm ********* 2 BITS PIZZA: Hiebert Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- KAYLEE HIEBERT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. 2 BITS PIZZA LLC, and CHAD BITTNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00492-REP (D. Idaho, December 10, 2021) is a complaint that arises from the defendants' systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses of plaintiff and class members in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that defendants fail to reasonably approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that the drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants from approximately February 2018 to July 2021 as a delivery driver at the defendants' Domino's store located in Emmett, Idaho. The defendants own and operate numerous Domino's pizza franchise stores. The plaintiff is represented by: Steven Fisher, Esq. CRAIG SWAPP & ASSOCIATES 3071 E. Franklin Road, Ste. 302 Meridian, ID 83642 Telephone: (208) 331-0167 Facsimile: (208) 375-2005 E-mail: steven.fisher@craigswapp.com 3 RIVERS TELEPHONE: Blackfeet Tribe Members File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Glacier Reporter, former cooperative members and members of the Blackfeet Tribe have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the State of Montana, Great Falls Division, against 3 Rivers Telephone Cooperative Inc. on Nov. 30. 3 Rivers' headquarters is in Fairfield. The class represents 3 Rivers customers/owners in the former 338 exchange (Browning) who are predominately members of the Blackfeet Tribe. The action alleges that 3 Rivers subjected this group to racial bias and hostility. Most recently, the sale of the 338 exchange to Siyeh Communications, which became effective Dec. 31, 2020, resulted in 3 Rivers retaining millions of dollars of capital credits that belong to the members of the 338 exchange. According to the complaint, 3 Rivers Telephone is a cooperative with approximately 15,000 members located in Montana. While headquartered in Fairfield, they have branch offices in Big Sky, Ennis, Shelby and Conrad. They provide telecommunications services to many smaller communities. Customers of 3 Rivers services are owners of the Cooperative. The co-op is governed by a corporate charter and bylaws adopted by the members who vote on who will serve on the Board of Directors. Lead plaintiff is Harry Barnes, an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe and a customer of services since 1996. Barnes was elected to the 3 Rivers Board of Directors and served on that board for more than 20 years. Mr. Barnes was also Chairman of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council for four years. "Having served on the Board has given me tremendous insight into the operations of this co-op. While the time has given me years of experience, it also has given me years of heartache. As I represented the customers of the 338 exchange over the years, my one voice could not change the course of this company," Barnes said. The complaint alleges that members of typical telephone cooperatives accumulate "capital credits" which are credited to their individual accounts. Earnings above expenses create margins. Each year the Board of Directors vote to return a portion of the margins to the members in the form of capital credits on a pro rata basis. As of Dec. 31, 2020, the members of the Browning exchange had accumulated in excess of $8.8 million. These monies were retained by the Board of Directors of 3 Rivers to assist in the operation of the Company with no input from the members. [GN] AARP SERVICES: Krukas Appeals Dismissal of Insurance Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Helen Krukas, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled HELEN KRUKAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. AARP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1124, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs seek a review of the November 22 order issued by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the case for lack of standing and denied as moot plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additionally, plaintiffs request to review the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2020, granting defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Helen Krukas, et al. v. AARP Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-7136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on November 30, 2021. The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that: -- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT entry of appearance is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on January 18, 2022; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on January 3, 2022; -- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on January 3, 2022. -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on January 18, 2022.[BN] As reported by the Class Action Reporter, plaintiffs brought the putative class action against defendants AARP Inc., AARP Services Inc. ("ASI"), and AARP Insurance Plan ("AARP Trust") (collectively referred to as "AARP"), alleging a violation of the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"), D.C. Code Section 28-3901 et seq., as well as common law claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment, based on their purchase of a Medicare supplemental health insurance policy, also known as a "Medigap" policy, offered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. ("United") and administered by AARP. These claims are predicated on the plaintiffs' allegation that AARP wrongly retained a 4.95% "commission" on the sale of the insurance that AARP was not entitled to receive, and that AARP misled the plaintiffs into buying their insurance policies by failing to disclose the nature and extent of its financial interest in the sale of AARP Medigap policies. On May 10, 2018, plaintiff Krukas filed the original complaint, "individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated," challenging the role of defendants AARP in soliciting, marketing, and administering a supplemental Medicare health insurance program, known as a "Medigap" program. That original complaint raised four claims: Count One alleged that AARP violated the CPPA by misrepresenting material facts about the 4.95% payment and about AARP's lack of license as an insurance broker or agent. Count Two alleged that the defendants' conversion of her ownership right to the 4.95% payment entitled her to damages in the amount she was wrongfully charged. Count Three alleged unjust enrichment based on defendants' retention of the 4.95% payment from the plaintiff. Finally, Count Four alleged fraudulent concealment because the defendants concealed or failed to disclose the 4.95% payment, a material fact that the defendants should have known should be disclosed or not concealed and that they concealed despite their "duty to speak." Plaintiffs-Appellants Helen Krukas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and Andrea Kushim are represented by: Kevin S. Landau, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 E-mail: info@tcllaw.com Defendants-Appellees AARP Services, Inc., AARP Insurance Plan, and AARP, Inc. are represented by: Alec Winfield Farr, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 508-6000 AERA ENERGY: Class Certification Motion Dates Due April 21, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON DICKERSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AERA ENERGY, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01384-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert July 25, 2022 (Class Issues) -- Mid-Discovery Status Conference April 14, 2020 set for: -- Class Certification Motion April 21, 2023 Deadlines: -- Opposition by: June 23, 2023 -- Reply by: July 25, 2023 -- Hearing set for: Aug. 31, 2023 Aera Energy is a natural gas, oil exploration and production company jointly owned by Shell Oil Company and ExxonMobil and headquartered in Bakersfield, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q4HxVf at no extra charge.[CC] AETNA LIFE: Patients Seek Class Status in Liposuction Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit accusing Aetna Life Insurance Co. of wrongly failing to cover liposuction procedures for patients with lipedema should be certified as a class action covering at least 25 people, a patient told a federal judge in California. Michala Kazda wants her Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit certified to cover a class of Aetna plan participants whose claims for liposuction treatment for their lipedema were denied on the grounds the procedure was cosmetic and therefore excluded. Aetna has produced records for at least 25 claim denials, and the total number of class members is likely higher, Kazda said. [GN] ALFI INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 31 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming January 31, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALF, ALFIW): (a) common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's May 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Alfi investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On or about May 4, 2021, Alfi conducted its IPO, selling approximately 3.7 million shares of common stock and 3.7 million warrants at $4.15 per both share and warrant. On October 28, 2021, Alfi revealed that its Board of Directors had placed the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and its Chief Technology Officer "on administrative leave [pending] an independent internal investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other matters." It also stated that on October 28, 2021, Alfi terminated the CTO's employment. On this news, Alfi's stock price fell $1.18, or 22%, to close at $4.42 per share on October 29, 2021, thereby injuring investors. On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed that the Chair of its Audit Committee resigned. The Company also stated that its internal investigation was into "the Company's purchase of a condominium for a purchase price of approximately $1.1 million" and the "Company's commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of $640,000," both of which "were undertaken by the Company's management without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by the Board." On November 15, 2021, Alfi stated that it "received a letter form the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC." On November 16, 2021, Alfi stated that it could not timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2021. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.24, or 5%, to close at $4.37 per share on November 16, 2021. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Alfi maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company and its employees could and did engage in corporate transactions and other matters without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by the Company's Board of Directors; (iii) all the foregoing increased the risk of internal and regulatory investigations into the Company and its employees; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation, financial condition, and ability to timely file periodic reports with the SEC; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alfi securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 31, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] ALLIANZ SERVICE: Smith Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH SMITH, an individual, on behalf of the general public, v. ALLIANZ SERVICE COMPANY, d/b/a 20 ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE; JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08557-AB-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), Local Rule 23-3, and any other applicable rule of civil procedure or law, of the following proposed class defined as: "All persons in the State of California who during the Class Period purchased Event Protection Insurance, offered and sold by any Defendant, on Ticketmaster or Live Nation's websites;" The Class Period dates back four years from the date this action was commenced (August 18, 2020) and continues through the present and the date of judgment. Excluded from the Class are: (a) any officers, directors or employees of Allianz's, Ticketmaster and/or Live Nation; (b) any judge assigned to hear this case (or spouse or immediate family member of any assigned judge); (c) the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff and the putative class and all employees of their law firm; (d) Defendants' counsel and all employees of their law firm; (e) any employee of the Court; and (f) any juror selected to hear this case. 2. designating her as class representative; and 3. appointing Caleb Marker and Hart Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed LLP as class counsel; To the extent the Court disagrees with the definition or the proposed Class or Class Period, or finds Plaintiff to be inadequate on any issues, Plaintiff moves the Court to redefine or modify the definition as appropriate, or to add additional class representatives as may be necessary, as such determinations, the lawsuit says. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33y6Ya2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Alyssa Leary, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com AMARIN CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (PRNewsfoto/Levi & Korsinsky, LLP) To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Amarin Corporation Plc ("Amarin") (NASDAQ: AMRN) between December 5, 2018 and June 21, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amarin-corporation-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=4 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Amarin Corporation Plc NEWS - AMRN NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) there was an increasingly high risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (ii) once the District Court invalidated certain of Amarin's patents, there was little to no chance of reversing that ruling; (iii) the Company's litigation was preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; (iv) Defendants were downplaying the true threat the ongoing abbreviated new drug application litigation posed to the Company's business and future prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Amarin, you have until December 23, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Amarin securities between December 5, 2018 and June 21, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amarin-corporation-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=4 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] AUSTRALIA: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Bond Investors' Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Chambers, Esq., Dr. Michael Fischer, Esq., Tim L'Estrange, Esq., Annie Leeks, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., Michael Lundberg, Esq., Daniel Moloney, Esq., Leah Ratcliff, Esq., and Holly Sara, Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for JDSupra, report tha there has been a proliferation of climate change-related litigation against Australian government entities over recent years. The majority of these claims involve challenges to administrative decisions with respect to environmental approvals in emissions intensive industries. In mid-2020, a 24-year-old university student commenced a representative action (a form of class action) against the Commonwealth of Australia ("the Commonwealth") and two public officials on behalf of retail investors in Australian sovereign bonds. The claim alleges that the Commonwealth has failed to disclose to investors in relevant disclosure documents material risks caused by climate change. The Result: The Commonwealth sought orders to strike out the action. In October 2021, the Federal Court of Australia in O'Donnell v Commonwealth of Australia struck out two of the three claims, but permitted the third claim to proceed against the Commonwealth as a class action. The claim that will go forward alleges that the Commonwealth engaged in, and continues to engage in, misleading or deceptive conduct by not disclosing certain physical risks and transition risks posed by climate change to the long term investments in relevant disclosure documents. Looking Ahead: This is the first class action worldwide brought against a national government for the alleged non-disclosure of climate change risks to investors in sovereign bonds. If successful, the action could have significant implications for the standard of disclosure required by issuers of bonds and other financial products, including governments and corporations, as well as relevant officers. The Applicant's Claims In July 2020, Ms. Kathleen O'Donnell commenced a representative proceeding on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons who at any time on or since 7 July 2020 have acquired certain types of Australian sovereign bonds with maturity dates in 2047 and 2050 respectively. The claim was founded upon three causes of action, each of which arose from allegations that the Commonwealth had published disclosure documents pertaining to the sovereign bonds which failed to disclose climate change risks that would have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Commonwealth and, in turn, the value of the bonds. The specific actions included: 1. A claim that the Commonwealth had engaged in conduct in relation to a financial service that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of s 12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). Notably, under Australian law, the question of whether a statement is misleading or deceptive is judged by reference to objective facts. There is no need to establish any subjective state of mind, such as knowledge, intent or recklessness. 2. A disclosure duty claim against the Commonwealth and the two Australian Government officials who were also named respondents, on the basis that, as promoters of the bonds, they owed (and owe) a fiduciary duty of utmost candour and honesty to investors who acquire or intend to acquire such bonds ("Disclosure Duty"). The respondents were alleged to have breached and continued to breach the Disclosure Duty. 3. A claim against the two Australian Government officials alleging that they had breached and continued to breach their obligation to exercise their powers, perform their functions and discharge their duties with care and diligence pursuant to s 25(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth) ("PGPA Claims"). Ms. O'Donnell sought declarations to the effect that the alleged conduct and breaches of duty occurred, as well as injunctive relief to restrain the issue of further sovereign bonds until such time as the disclosure documents have been remedied by the inclusion of material climate change information as directed by the Court. No claim was made for damages or compensation. The Court struck out the Disclosure Duty claim and the PGPA Claims on the basis that Ms. O'Donnell lacked standing to bring those claims. Key to the Court's determination was the absence of any evidence adduced by the Applicant to establish that had she been or were she to be provided with the climate change information, such information would likely have been or would likely be material to her decision as to whether to hold or dispose of her bonds. Without such evidence, Murphy J was not persuaded that Ms. O'Donnell had any "real interest" or "special interest" in the declaratory relief sought and concluded that she therefore lacked standing to bring the Disclosure Duty claim and PGPA Claims. Use of Representative Action The Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rule 9.21(1) authorises an applicant to bring a proceeding in a representative capacity, in the following terms: A proceeding may be started and continued by or against one or more persons who have the same interest in the proceeding, as representing all or some of the persons who have the same interest and could have been parties to the proceeding. (Emphasis added) The Commonwealth sought to argue that the Court should exercise its discretion to discontinue the representative action as there was "a lack of commonality of interest" between Ms. O'Donnell and members of the represented group. The argument was premised on the effect of the relief sought which would compel corrective disclosures by the Commonwealth and result in a diminution of the value of the bonds, giving rise to loss on the part of the class members. As Murphy J observed, quoting counsel for the Commonwealth -- Ms. O'Donnell "is not seeking to vindicate anybody's rights based on loss that they have suffered in the past. She is seeking to cause them loss in the future". The Court was not persuaded by this argument and observed that a represented person who had the benefit of a declaration that the respondents had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct would not be disentitled from claiming damages for any loss or damage causally connected to that contravening conduct. Justice Murphy further observed that all represented persons should be given notice of any potential detriment that could result from the relief sought and be provided an opportunity to opt out of the proceeding. His Honour described arguments made by the Commonwealth that the representative proceeding lacked legitimacy because it was an improper attempt to garner public attention in a "pseudo climate change class action" as having little force (at [58]). The Court observed that "class actions and other representative procedures are often utilised by individuals, and groups of people, to bring forward cases based in their view of the public interest, doing so on behalf of a class asserted to have the same or similar legal claims and interests" (at [60]). His Honour ruled that Ms. O'Donnell's misleading or deceptive conduct claim could continue as a class action. Four Key Takeaways 1. Australia has seen an upward-trending number of legal actions on climate change issues over recent years. This trend has accelerated in 2021 and is likely to continue given the ever-increasing focus of regulators, investors and the community on climate change, both domestically and globally. 2. Plaintiffs, including activist shareholders and public interest groups, are finding new ways to deploy litigation to challenge Australian Federal and State governments, corporations and relevant officers on their position on climate-related risks. As a consequence, novel arguments and case theories are being tested which could have implications worldwide. 3. This proceeding against the Commonwealth of Australia will bring into sharp focus whether and how the disclosures made in sovereign bond disclosure documents align with Government policies, data and reports, and statements made by the Australian Treasurer and other senior Government officials, concerning the impact and costs of climate change and Government responses to climate change. Similar comparative analyses and litigation risks may arise in other jurisdictions. The action highlights the importance of consistency in the assessment of climate risks which are documented publicly, and the risks, planning and actions that are documented internally through policies, operational strategies, reports and other communications. 4. There are likely to be significant hurdles to this action succeeding. However, the action highlights the need for the issuers of bonds and other financial products to consider the disclosure and adequacy of disclosure of climate risks, including macroeconomic risks, in addition to product-specific risks. Such disclosures are likely to be representations as to future matters and as such, care should be taken to ensure that there are reasonable grounds for the disclosures. Under Australian law, an absence of reasonable grounds will have the result that the representation is taken to be misleading, giving rise to potential liability on the part of the person or entity which made the disclosure, as well as any directors or officers who facilitated the representation being made. [GN] BERKELEY LIGHTS: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Dec. 8 seeking to represent purchasers of Berkeley Lights, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLI) common stock between July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") and charging Berkeley Lights and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit was commenced on December 8, 2021 in the Northern District of California and is captioned Ng v. Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 21-cv-09497. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than February 7, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns, high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems, limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (ii) Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation systems, including complaints related to the design and manufacturing; (iii) the actual market for Berkeley Lights' products and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented to investors because of, among other things, the relatively high cost of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability to provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these high costs; and (iv) as a result, defendants' statements to investors during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights' business, operations and financial results were materially false and misleading. On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital issued a scathing investigative report, titled "Fleecing Customers And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker, While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0," which criticized Berkeley Lights' technology and questioned the durability of Berkeley Lights' most important business relationships and its business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of Berkeley Lights' largest customers. Among other findings, the report detailed a "trail of customers who allege they were 'tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon" and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute outright fraud." On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common stock fell by nearly 30% over two trading days, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Berkeley Lights common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] BOODA ORGANICS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Booda Organics, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Booda Organics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10583 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Booda Organics Inc. -- https://boodaorganics.com/ -- provides handmade purest body care products.[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 BUILT USA: Hector Caro Sues Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------- HECTOR FRANQUI CARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUILT USA LLC, Case No. 21-005805-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., December 10, 2021) is a complaint that arises from the defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the defendant initiated and directed, or caused to be initiated and directed by its agent(s), telemarketing or advertising text messages into Florida to consumers listed on the National do-not-call registry and after they had opted-out of further messages in violation of the TCPA. Allegedly, the defendant initiated and directed, or caused to be initiated and directed by its agent(s), the transmission of unsolicited text messages to plaintiff in Florida. Built USA LLC is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Harbor. The plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com C-THRU WINDOW: Hernandez Sues Over Window Tinters' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. C-THRU WINDOW FILM, INC., an Illinois Corporation and HANNAH MALIN, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06575 (N.D. Ill., December 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for failing to pay Plaintiff and class members the required prevailing wage and corresponding overtime rate for work performed for government entities. The Plaintiff is a current employee of CTWF who is employed as a window tinter. His primary job duty is manual labor related to installation of window tints, security films, etc. at the locations of Defendants' public and private clients. C-Thru Window Film is a Chicagoland services firm that designs and installs energy control and security solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 CATALINA SNACKS: Majak Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Products ----------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA MAJAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALINA SNACKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-9445 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2021) is a consumer protection and false advertising class action against Defendant regarding its misleading business practices with respect to the labeling, marketing, and sale of its Catalina Crunch Cinnamon Toast cereal product. The Defendant has allegedly marketed, advertised, and labeled the product with representations that lead consumers to believe that the product contains cinnamon, when in fact, it does not. These representations include the name of the product "Cinnamon Toast" -- and the prominent display of cinnamon powder and cinnamon sticks on the front label of the product. Had Plaintiff and other consumers known that the product does not contain cinnamon, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less for it. Therefore, Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of Defendant's alleged deceptive practices. Catalina Snacks Inc. is a maker of keto-friendly cereals and snacks sold primarily under the Catalina Crunch brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com rglezakos@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com CD PROJEKT: Enters Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Settlement Talks --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Peters, writing for The Verge, reports that Cyberpunk 2077 developer CD Projekt Red has entered negotiations to settle a class-action lawsuit over the game's bungled launch. There are still a number of outstanding questions about any potential settlement, according to court documents, including all class certification requirements, the proposed allocation plan for the settlement fund, and how the settlement will be administered. In other words, it's undecided exactly who will be eligible for anything awarded in a settlement or how much those eligible parties may receive. The plaintiffs in the case must next file a preliminary approval of the settlement or an update on its status by January 13th, 2022. Four lawsuits against the company were compiled into one in May. At release (which was almost exactly one year ago), Cyberpunk 2077 had many glitches and ran quite poorly on older consoles. Things were so bad that Sony pulled the game from the PlayStation Store within a week. CDPR has spent much of the year since trying to fix things up with hotfixes and updates, and the game eventually returned to the PlayStation Store after more than six months. The studio also pushed a planned update optimizing Cyberpunk 2077 for next-gen consoles into 2022. [GN] CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces Cabeza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CABEZA, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH FOUNDATION, a California non-profit corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 21STCV44468 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse plaintiff for required expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized statements, failing to pay wages when due, and engaging in unfair competition. The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all of Defendants' current and former non-exempt California employees during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on a date determined by the Court. Central Neighborhood Health Foundation, a California non-profit corporation, is a provider of general primary medical care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Eduardo Garcia, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com egarcia@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. Jackland K. Hom, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com jackland@zakaylaw.com CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: 632 Metacom Suit transferred to D.R.I. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case is styled as 632 Metacom, Inc. doing business as: Hometown Tavern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy No. XSZ146282, Case No. 1:20-cv-03905, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 13, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00487-JJM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Lloyd's -- https://www.lloyds.com/ -- is the world's leading insurance market providing specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200 countries and territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. MILLER SCHRIGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 561-6504 - and - Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Christopher Curtis Shank, Esq. Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 - and - Darren T. Kaplan One Paces West 2727 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 537-3300 Fax: (404) 537-3320 The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. Murphy REGNANTE, STERIO & OSBORNE LLP 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 630 Wakefield, MA 01880 Phone: (781) 246-2525 Fax: (781) 246-0202 - and - Peter Joseph Fazio AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 593-5458 Fax: (212) 593-6970 - and - Jonathan Michael Kinney DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4742 CHAAC PIZZA: Faces Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Howard and Heather Smothers, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Chaac Pizza Midwest, LLC; Luis Ibarguengoytia; Doe Corporation 1–10; John Doe 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00163-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky., December 10, 2021) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on defendants' willful failure to compensate plaintiffs and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and for unjust enrichment under Kentucky common law. The complaint alleges defendants' violations of the federal and state laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. The plaintiffs, and the similarly situated persons they seek to represent, are current and former delivery drivers at the defendants' Pizza Hut stores. The defendants operate approximately 119 Pizza Hut store locations across Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and Ohio. The plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. Riley E. Kane, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com rkane@billerkimble.com CHAD WOLF: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to March 15, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd et al. v. Chad T. Wolf [Alejandro Mayorkas] et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order continuing deadline to file motion for class certification to March 15, 2022. The Court said, "Having received and reviewed the parties' Joint Stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court continues the deadline for filing class certification motions in this matter to March 15, 2022. This appears to be sufficient time given the current state of class certification-related discovery. If genuine, material discovery disputes persist and require more time to resolve, the Court will, upon request, consider further postponing this deadline." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0Kh6M at no extra charge.[CC] CHEVRON USA: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN CLAYBORNE, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees; DAVID POOL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., NEWTRON LLC, PERFORMANCE MECHANICAL, INC., SPECIALTY WELDING AND TURNAROUNDS, LLC, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-07624-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows: Rule 23 Deadline Current Date Proposed Date -- Expert Disclosures Dec. 10, 2021 March 11, 2022 -- Expert Rebuttals Jan. 21, 2022 April 22, 2022 -- Expert Discovery Feb. 4, 2022 May 6, 2022 -- Plaintiffs' Motion Mar. 4, 2022 June 3, 2022 -- Defendants' Apr. 1, 2022 July 1, 2022 Opposition -- Plaintiffs' Reply Apr. 22, 2022 July 22, 2022 -- Hearing May 13, 2022 August 12, 2022 The Plaintiff Clayborne filed a Complaint against Chevron and Newtron on September 20, 2019 in the Contra Costa County Superior Court and filed a First Amended Complaint on November 15, 2019, and Chevron thereafter removed the case to this Court on November 19, 2019. On April 1, 2021, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to extend the Parties' 11 deadlines to hold an early settlement conference pursuant to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") referral, and to complete class certification discovery and briefing. The Parties have been meeting and conferring on the scope of ESI discovery to prepare for class certification but believe they will need an additional three months to continue discussions and resolve any ESI disputes. Chevron USA provides energy services. Newtron provides field engineering and technical services. Performance Mechanical provides single-source industrial mechanical contracting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GK5848 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Moira Heiges-Goepfert, Esq. Jared W. Goldman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com mhg@outtengolden.com jgoldman@outtengolden.com - and - Steven Elster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER 785/E2 Oak Grove Road, No. 201 Concord, CA 94518 Telephone: (925) 324-2159 E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Catherine A. Conway, Esq. Jesse A. Cripps, esq. megan M. Lawson, esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com jcripps@gibsondunn.com mlawson@gibsondunn.com - and - Mollie Burks, Esq. Sat Sang S. Khalsa, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (510) 463-8668 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 E-mail: mburks@grsm.com skhalsa@grsm.com - and - Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. HOPKINS & CARLEY kcogbill@hopkinscarley.com 70 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 299-1310 Facsimile: (408) 998-4790 CIRCLE K: Feb. 17, 2022 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the existing Scheduling Order, Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings filed on August 23, 2021, as follows: To extend by 30 days the date by which Plaintiff is to file his Motion for Class Certification, from the currently scheduled deadline of January 18, 2022, to February 17, 2022, or to whichever date the Court deems appropriate. This case involves the Plaintiff's allegations that Circle K violated California's Unfair 16 Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law by failing to honor the advertised discount on 2-pack purchases of certain cigarette brands, upon the purchase of a carton of cigarettes. The Defendant denies any liability. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dWyRdO at no extra charge.[CC] 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 - and - Stephen B. Morris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN B. MORRIS 2305 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 930-5499 E-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com - and - Peggy J. Reali, Esq. REALI LAW, A.P.C. 1804 Garnet Ave., Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: (858) 255-8099 Facsimile: (619) 923-3400 E-mail: preali@realilaw.com CLARKWESTERN DIETRICH: Dutka Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ClarkWestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gilberto Rueda, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ClarkWestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00311942-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 30, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." ClarkWestern Dietrich Building Systems -- https://www.clarkdietrich.com/ -- is the largest manufacturer of cold-formed steel framing in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn Bekam, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM BLACKWELL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION SPECIALISTS, INC., a California corporation, and CLIMATE PROS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01968-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order: 1. determining that a class action is proper as to all causes of action in the operative complaint on the grounds that: (1) the class is ascertainable and sufficiently numerous, (2) common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, (3) the class representative's claims are typical of the class, (4) the class representative will adequately represent the interests of the class, and (5) class treatment is superior; 2. certifying a class of: "all Defendants Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc. and Climate Pros LLC's current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title in California at any time during the time period between April 6, 2016 and the present;" and 3. certifying the following subclasses: (a) Rest Break Subclass: all Defendants' current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked 3.5 hours or more in a day in California during the period from April 6, 2016, to the present; As an alternative to Subclass (a): all Defendants' current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked 3.5 hours or more in a day in California without receiving all paid 2 10-minute breaks during which they were relieved of all duties, during the period from April 6, 2016, to the present; (b) Minimum Wage Subclass: all Defendants' current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked in California and were not properly paid all minimum wages during the period from April 6, 2016, to the present; (c) Wage Statement Subclass: all Defendants' current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked in California and received an itemized wage statement during the period from April 6, 2017, to the present; (d) Terminated Employee Subclass: all Defendants' current and formerly employed service technicians, service journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked in California and who were not properly paid all wages on termination or within 72 hours thereof during the period from April 6, 2017, to the present; and (e) On-Call Service Employee Subclass: all Defendants' current and journeymen, service apprentices, and any person performing similar work regardless of job title who worked in California at any time during the period from April 6, 2016 to the present, and who also fielded customer after hours on-call requests to determine immediate need for service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/327Q4y0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: kyoon@yoonlaw.com syasuda@yoonlaw.com CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moses, et al. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension for Con Edison to submit its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and a corresponding extension of time for Plaintiffs to submit any reply in further support of their motion that they deem necessary. On November 19, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation regarding class certification-related briefing, under which Con Edison's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due December 13, 2021, with Plaintiffs' reply due January 17, 2022. Unfortunately, Paul Piccigallo-the senior associate on this case -- suffered a serious family medical emergency on December 8th and will be out of the office for at least the next few days to be with his family. Our firm promptly notified counsel for the other parties of this unfortunate development, and they graciously offered and agreed to a two week extension of Con Edison's opposition deadline to December 27, 2021, with a corresponding extension of Plaintiffs' reply deadline to January 31, 2022, the Defendant's counsel says. None of the parties have previously requested an extension of certification-related briefing deadlines approved by the Court on November 19, 2021, and all parties agree and consent to the above-described schedule modification, which should not interfere with any other presently scheduled dates and deadlines in this matter, the counsel says. Consolidated Edison provides energy-related products and services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GKDGTQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant Edison Company of New York, Inc. is represented by: Eli Z. Freedberg LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: (212) 583-2685 Facsimile: (212) 954-5011 E-mail: efreedberg@littler.com CORECIVIC INC: Settles Class Action Over Jail Scabies Outbreak -------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Brown, writing for Nashville Tennessean, reports that CoreCivic has settled a 2017 class action lawsuit alleging Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility staff failed to provide proper medical treatment and retaliated against prisoners who sought treatment amid a widespread scabies outbreak. The Nashville-based private prison company will pay $150,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by Wendy Snead, who was formerly jailed at the detention facility. Hundreds of prisoners were treated for scabies, a parasitic mite that burrows under the skin, after the 2017 outbreak, which also spread to attorneys and staff at Nashville's courthouse. Concern over the outbreak led judges to delay court hearings and a murder trial. In her lawsuit, Snead alleged she was infected with the parasitic mite after jail employees transferred another woman, who had already complained to staff about a rash in January 2017, into Snead's eight-person cell. A trained nurse held in the same cell identified the rash as scabies, but jail staff ignored pleas for treatment, the lawsuit alleged. By May 2017, the parasite was spreading through the jail, and staff began retaliating against prisoners asking for help, threatening to put women in solitary confinement or take away phone privileges if they mentioned the outbreak to family members. Snead managed to tell her family that she needed to see a doctor, the lawsuit alleged, and the family informed Metro Health Department officials. By May 2017, the parasite was spreading through the jail, and staff began retaliating against prisoners asking for help, threatening to put women in solitary confinement or take away phone privileges if they mentioned the outbreak to family members. Snead managed to tell her family that she needed to see a doctor, the lawsuit alleged, and the family informed Metro Health Department officials. The class action lawsuit was set to go to trial in 2020 but was delayed by COVID-19. Both parties agreed to settle earlier this year, and a federal judge officially approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit. CoreCivic will also pay nearly $10,000 in attorneys fees. "Our employees followed the standard of care and accepted protocols in correctional health care for managing these types of situations, and we're pleased to have reached a resolution in this case," Matt Davio, CoreCivic public affairs manager, said in an emailed statement. CoreCivic no longer manages the facility following a hand-off to Nashville's sheriff office last fall. Snead's attorneys have not yet returned request for comment. [GN] CRAZY AARON: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crazy Aaron Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crazy Aaron Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10586 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Crazy Aaron's Thinking Putty -- https://crazyaarons.com/ -- is a high-quality, silicone-based putty that is safe, nontoxic and will never dry out.[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 CVS PHARMACY: Bell Files Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The case is styled as Monique Bell, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06850 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- is an American retail corporation who distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DAHER CLEANING: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response Filing Date ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OFELIA ALVAREZ and SILVIA ALVAREZ, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and Other similarly situated current and former employees, v. DAHER CLEANING SERVICES OF TENNESSEE COMPANY, A Tennessee Corporation, MARA DAHER-BOYER, individually, and SIEGFRIED A. RICHTER, JT., individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-00479 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on November 5, 2021. Pursuant to the Initial Case Management Order, the Defendants have 45 days to respond to the Motion for Conditional Certification. Due to this approaching deadline, Defendants now request that the deadline be extended an additional 30 days until January 19, 2022 due to the parties' ongoing negotiations. The Defendants would show that the parties' negotiations have been productive and the parties are hopeful for a resolution. Defendants' counsel has consulted with Plaintiffs' counsel, who represented that Plaintiffs do not oppose the extension. This motion is not meant for purposes of delay. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3INwrMV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YIESER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com - and - Marc A. Walwyn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARC WALWYN 412 Georgia Ave. Ste. 102 Chattanooga, TN 37403 Telephone: (423) 954-7266 Facsimile: (423) 763-1615 E-mail: marc@walwynlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. FREEMAN & FUSON 2126 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 298-7272 Facsimile: (615) 298-7274 E-mail: mark@freemanfuson.com DANCING DEER: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dancing Deer Baking Company, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dancing Deer Baking Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10606 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dancing Deer Baking Co. -- https://www.dancingdeer.com/ -- is a leading gourmet baked goods company that serves consumers and businesses alike.[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 DAVID CASTILLO: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Castillo, Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. David Castillo, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10645 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. David Castillo, Inc. -- https://davidcastillogallery.com/ -- is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com DOVER MOTORSPORTS: Morgan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Morgan 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 THOMAS NARDANGELI, Case No. 1:21-cv-10592 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2021), is brought against Dover and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the proposed transaction (the "Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which Dover will be acquired by Speedway Motorsports, LLC, through its subsidiary Speedco II, Inc. ("Purchaser") via a tender offer. On November 8, 2021, Dover announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which, Speedway will acquire Dover for $3.61 in cash for each share of Dover common stock held. The Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59 p.m. (12:00 midnight), Eastern time, on December 21, 2021. On November 23, 2021, Dover filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. The 14D-9, which omits or misrepresents material information concerning, inter alia: (i) Dover management's financial projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. in its financial analyses; (ii) the financial analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Raymond James; (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) Dover insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information renders the 14D-9 false and misleading. For these reasons, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act as Flexion's stockholders need such information in order to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Dover. Dover is a promoter of NASCAR sanctioned and other motorsports events in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 - and - Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 860-9158 Fax: (212) 214-0506 Email: raymond@bespc.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: 4th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on December 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information technology company and certain of its executives. KBC Asset Mgt. NV v. DXC Tech. Co., -- F.4th --, 2021 WL 5626377 (4th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs claimed that the company made misrepresentations regarding its financial health, which plaintiffs alleged were false because the company had undertaken cost-cutting measures that undermined its ability to meet its revenue projections. The district court dismissed the action and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter. Plaintiffs relied on five types of allegations to demonstrate scienter: (1) allegations made by a former executive in a separate lawsuit; (2) statements of unnamed former employees; (3) stock sales by certain executives during the class period; (4) the core-operations theory; and (5) the temporal proximity between the company's challenged revenue projections and its ultimate admission that those forecasts had been overly optimistic. Id. at *3. The Court concluded that none of these allegations, either on their own or viewed holistically, plausibly established that defendants acted with scienter. The Court first determined that the allegations derived from the former executive's lawsuit, including that the former executive had complained about the cost-cutting measures, supported only a weak inference of scienter that defendants knew they could not meet their revenue projections. Id. Given that the company had asserted that the former executive was terminated for performance reasons, including a failure to cut costs sufficiently, the Court concluded that the more persuasive inference was that the former executive, rather than his entire division, was "performing poorly." Id. Moreover, the Court observed that the allegations from this lawsuit "suggest[ed] a mere business disagreement among the executives, which does not amount to securities fraud." Id. With respect to allegations based on alleged statements by unnamed former employees, the Court explained that confidential witness allegations will "only be afforded the weight they are due given their indicia of reliability" and, because the former employees did not claim that they informed defendants of their purported concerns or that defendants were otherwise aware of the problems alleged, the indicia were weak. Id. at *4. The Court further noted that the confidential witnesses' lack of direct contact with defendants also "weaken[ed] the inference of scienter," and that even in one instance where one defendant allegedly acknowledged "mistakes" with a particular client, that did not show that he knew those mistakes related to the cost-cutting measures. Id. The Court reasoned that the more plausible inference was that the company made a business decision to cut costs, which some employees disagreed with. Id. With respect to the alleged stock sales, the Court agreed that plaintiffs' allegations—that one executive sold 77% of his shares after the alleged misrepresentations and before unfavorable public reports emerged about the company, while the other executive sold 17% of his shares during the nine-month class period after selling none in the prior nine-month period—provided a strong motive to defendants to inflate the company's stock price. Id. at *5. The Court concluded, however, that those sales did not establish a strong inference of scienter because (i) the sale of 17% of one executive's holdings was not sufficiently large, and (ii) the other executive had sold more stock during the prior nine months when there was no allegation that alleged misrepresentations had inflated the stock price than he did during the nine-month class period. Id. at *5–6. The Court also noted that both executives had Rule 10b-5 trading plans in place, which could further diminish any inference of scienter, although the Court discounted this factor as the record did not establish whether those plans were put in place prior to the class period. Id. at *6. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument for an inference of scienter based on the core operations theory, under which plaintiffs contended that it was more likely that defendants knew their statements were false because they related to the company's "core operations." Id. The Court explained that, while core-operations allegations "are relevant to the court's holistic analysis of scienter," plaintiffs merely asserted that the alleged misstatements related to the company's "move into the digital space and investment in its human capital," which the company had stated were "key concerns." Id. at *7. The Court determined that, "[e]ven if such broad corporate strategies can constitute core operations, no core-operations inference can be appropriately drawn from these allegations" because the complaint lacked particularized allegations regarding defendants' knowledge of the company's alleged shortcomings regarding those issues. Id. Finally, the Court concluded that plaintiffs' theory of scienter based on the temporal proximity between the alleged misstatements and subsequent disclosures was also insufficient. While noting that temporal proximity "is relevant to the scienter inquiry," the Court declined to find "a strong inference of scienter" based solely on that factor. Id. KBC Asset Mgt. NV v. DXC Tech. Co. [GN] ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Issues Apology Over Festival Disappointments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Skinner, writing for Vulture, reports that after waiting in line for three hours to park her vehicle at the Elements Music and Arts Festival in Lakewood, Pennsylvania, on Friday, September 3, attendee Blair Hemlepp encountered something odd when she finally got to the front of the line -- a parking attendant told her to "manifest" an available spot. Unsurprisingly, it didn't work. There was no spot. Instead, Hemlepp had to park diagonally down a walking trail. She and her group of friends then trekked half a mile to where shuttles were supposed to drive them to the festival grounds, but instead, another worker greeted the group and informed them that the shuttle spot had moved another half mile or so down the mountain. Hemlepp and thousands of her fellow festivalgoers headed down the muddy hill, lugging their camping gear, until they reached a giant grassy lot. They weren't given much instruction there, either. "There was some guy with a megaphone screaming profanities about, like, his penis or something, but he wasn't actually telling anybody what to do," Hemlepp says. Another volunteer told her to sleep in her car and try again the next day. So, she and her group sat in a line of sorts for eight hours, before learning there were no more shuttles coming. She lugged her gear back up the mountain, got in her car, and headed to a hotel about an hour away. She never made it to the three-day festival. Hemlepp is just one of possibly thousands who had an awful experience at the music, arts, and camping festival, which took place Friday through Monday over Labor Day weekend, with a lineup of EDM artists including Diplo, CloZee, Griz, and Chris Lake. The event, held on 150 acres of private land about three hours outside of New York City, began as a one-day event in 2013 and upgraded to a three-day event by 2017. This year, about 7,000 fans attended. Elements' social-media pages are now flooded with those same people demanding a refund. "There are zero staff helping and the few volunteers have no clue what's going on," "(We) were so dehydrated because the free water was out or we had to pay 4$ for a small bottle of water," and "This festival was an unmitigated disaster," were just some of the comments left on Instagram throughout the weekend. Many compared the situation to the Fyre Festival fiasco. Between tickets, parking passes, and a hotel stay, Hemlepp says she spent about $1,500 on the festival. She emailed the festival asking for a refund but hasn't heard back. A representative from Elements told Vulture on Dec. 8 that because of Hurricane Ida, which hit the area earlier in the week, the festival was unable to use two-thirds of its parking area and had to relocate its primary lots on Friday. "No one from our team was instructed to tell anyone to sleep in their cars," a rep told Vulture. The festival disputes all other claims of negligence and mismanagement. Two other attendees, Saliana Rosenfield and Landis Hennessy, did make it inside the festival, but said that by Saturday morning the festival had run out of filtered water to drink and the Porta Potties were full, leaving people to go to the bathroom outside. Space was limited, so some attendees set up their campsites near the overfilled Porta Potties. Defeated by the bad experience, Rosenfield and Hennessy left at 8 p.m. Sunday. On their way out, their car got stuck in the mud; they had to pay a local $80 to tow it out. Three hours later, they were free. An Elements rep told Vulture that some areas of the parking were saturated from the rain and they had a team of towing vehicles prepared to assist with any car that was stuck. "Every vehicle was able to leave by the end of the festival," the rep said, and added that "though certain restroom areas were not serviced as frequently as they could have been by our vendor, there were multiple restroom banks available at all times." Kolby, an attendee who declined to give his last name for professional reasons, says he wants a refund because the festival didn't offer the activities it promised. The site had a lake, which the festival advertised as a place to swim while listening to music played on the nearby Water Stage. But at some point Saturday, Kolby says two EMTs showed up and began instructing everyone to get out of the water, because all water-related activities were canceled. "They started screaming 'Shark!,'" Kolby says. "They started screaming all sorts of different things. They asked everyone on land on the count of three to yell, 'Get out of the water!' with them, because they had no way to project their voices other than yelling." Kolby heard rumors about why they had to evacuate the lake -- because of insufficient staffing, or a dangerous algae bloom, or that one of the septic tanks had burst and drained into the lake -- but nothing was confirmed. The Northern Wayne Fire Company did not return our request for more information, and the Pennsylvania State Police say they did not receive any calls from the festival. "All advertised activities were allowed during the weekend," an Elements rep told Vulture. "People were allowed in the lake within the safest area bordered by the dock." In 2020, Forbes interviewed Elements Festival co-founders Timothy Monkiewicz and Brett Herman about how they planned to host a safe festival in the middle of a pandemic. The two told Forbes they created a consulting service company, called Tested Contained Retreats, to ensure attendees were COVID-19-free. For this year's festival, Elements attendees had to prove they had a negative COVID-19 test or were vaccinated, according to its website, but when it came time to present the proof, Kolby says the festival workers didn't even scan the QR code, leaving him nervous about being in such a large crowd. On top of that, there were no sanitation stations anywhere, he says. One attendee posted on Facebook that since returning from Elements, they had tested positive for COVID-19. "We used CrowdPass to verify attendees during the changeover, and performed offline checks when there were issues with internet availability," an Elements rep told Vulture. Another attendee, Emily L., who declined to give her last name for professional reasons, is vegetarian and said the festival ran out of food options for her, so she ended up eating just the bananas and Nutella she brought. According to the festival's website, attendees were allowed to bring one factory-sealed water bottle, no larger than one liter, because refill stations would be available (according to Emily, there were only three), but when the festival ran out of water, Emily says she found some water bottles near a stage and passed them out to attendees. "Although wait times were longer than we had expected, food and water were available throughout the event," an Elements rep told Vulture. Emily is a regular of festivals; she's been to about 15 total and she likes to rate them based on logistics and safety, music production, and overall vibes. She didn't rate Elements particularly well. "Based on my time with my friends and the social aspect, I would give it a seven [out of ten]. In terms of music and art, that was also a seven. Amazing. Logistics? Zero," she says. Frank Prochilo, a civil litigation attorney in New York, is gathering information from Elements attendees to look into the possibility of filing a lawsuit. He says that because the festival didn't live up to its promises, like having water and food, attendees deserve compensation and a full refund. "With this festival, I've never seen anything like this before," Prochilo says. (That might not be entirely true, of course, if you remember 2017's Fyre Festival, a music festival executed so poorly that the founder, Billy McFarland, pleaded guilty to one count of committing wire fraud to defraud investors and attendees. While attendees were promised luxury villas and nice meals, they received FEMA tents and cheese sandwiches. The disaster produced two documentaries.) The Elements team released a statement apologizing for any disappointments or logistical issues. "We have set up a dedicated email address at elements2021@elementsfest.us, where we welcome your comments and will respond to every email we receive," part of the statement reads. Update, Wednesday, December 8, at 4 p.m.: Billboard reported that Elements attendees filed a class-action lawsuit against festival organizers on December 7. The suit was brought in Manhattan federal court by law firm Geragos & Geragos, which recently represented Fyre Festival attendees in a similar class-action suit. The Elements suit names defendants including Elements Production LLC, BangOn!NYC, Tested Contained Retreats LLC, and founders Brett Herman and Timothy Monkiewicz. A representative for organizers told Billboard they had yet to be served and added, "Thousands of people enjoyed the festival, and we are looking forward to 2022." This is a developing story and will be updated accordingly. [GN] ELITE HEALTH: Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORRAINE MAY LAMPTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELITE HEALTH INSTITUTE LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-06564-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification be continued for a period of 45 days. On March 26, 2021, the Court entered its Scheduling Order. Per the Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on November 1, 2021. On October 16, 2021, the Court granted a joint request to extend that deadline and extended the class certification deadline to December 16, 2021. The Defendant's deposition is presently set for December 13, 2021. However, Defendant's witness will be unavailable such that Plaintiff will be unable to complete the deposition prior to the December 16th deadline. The parties are presently working to coordinate a new date for the deposition. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the deadline for class certification for a period of 45 days given the upcoming holidays and scheduling conflicts. The parties hereto request that the Court continue the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification by a period of forty-five days. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oYWfNX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH Law 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael W. DeWitt, Esq. DEWITT LAW, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 398-2886 Facsimile: (614) 370-4552 E-mail: mdewitt@clarkfox.com FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al., v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07394-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order regarding class certification briefing. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been briefed with an opposition, reply, sur-reply, and motion to strike with anticipated opposition and reply. The Court will request additional briefing if it determines it would be helpful. FINA is the international federation recognized by the International Olympic Committee for administering international competitions in water sports. It is one of several international federations which administer a given sport or discipline for the IOC and international community. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qjaeOn at no extra charge.[CC] FENIX INTERNET: Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Fenix Internet, LLC, Case No. 2021-CH-05635, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-06624 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Fenix Internet -- http://fenixinternet.net/-- is a multifaceted tech company with a focus on staying ahead of the curve.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants is represented by: Sean Gerald Wieber, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Phone: (312) 558-5769 Email: swieber@winston.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over "Sham" Corrosion Warranty ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mircea Panait, writing for Autoevolution, reports that when you're buying a Wrangler, Jeep offers plenty of warranties built into the cost of the vehicle. As far as the corrosion warranty is concerned, painted outer body sheet metal panels are covered for five years while the term for unpainted sheet metal panels is three years. Be that as it may, four plaintiffs have filed a class action lawsuit against Jeep for premature corrosion of the aluminum body panels on their JL/JLU Wrangler and JT Gladiator vehicles. The Orozco et al v. FCA US, LLC class action lawsuit was filed on December 3rd with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan according to the Justia legal platform. The plaintiffs argue that Jeep was aware of the aluminum corrosion and paint issues for many years now, having issued a technical service bulletin in March 2018. According to TSB 31-001-18, authorized retails had to inspect and -- if necessary -- remove corrosion and refinish the suspect aluminum hood, doors, or liftgate panel. Adding insult to injury, the service bulletin was revised to include the fenders of the 2018 to 2019 model year Wrangler JL and JLU. A third revision was issued in November 2018, recommending the replacement of the affected aluminum panel for severe pitting that can't be removed with sandpaper. But wait because we're just getting started here! Fiat Chrysler Automobiles then issued TSB 31-001-19 in July 2019, expanding the population of vehicles beyond those sold in North America. TSB 31-002-20 followed suit in October 2020, adding the 2020 to 2021 model year Jeep Wrangler and the 2020 to 2021 Jeep Gladiator mid-size pickup. The plaintiffs note that FCA's corrosion warranty only applies if the body panel becomes perforated due to corrosion, a warranty that covers the cost of parts and labor needed to repair or replace any sheet metal panels that get holes from rust or other corrosion. There is, however, a problem with that. The plaintiffs correctly present this extended warranty coverage as a "sham" because "it is widely known that aluminum body panels do not perforate from corrosion. Accordingly, the extended warranty coverage provided by FCA was -- in and of itself -- misleading, deceptive and -- at best -- illusory." The warranty procedures allegedly do not correct the corrosions problems experienced by Wrangler and Gladiator owners, and, in turn, Fiat Chrysler does not address the loss of value that occurs from repainting these Jeeps. [GN] FORIS DAX: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foris Dax Capital, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Foris Dax Capital, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06859 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Foris Dax Capital, Inc. is a Pennsylvania Foreign Business Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Judge Tosses PPP Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Barth, writing for Orlando Business Journal, reports that U.S. Small Business Administration-approved commercial lender Fountainhead -- one of Central Florida's largest SBA lenders -- announced it prevailed in a lawsuit filed by a California company related to the federal Paycheck Protection Program. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles granted Lake Mary-based Fountainhead's motion to dismiss plaintiff Elizabeth M. Byrnes Inc.'s second amended complaint with prejudice, according to a news release and a court document filed on Nov. 24. That lined up with Fountainhead's claims that the lawsuit was meritless, the release said. Fountainhead CEO Chris Hurn called the complaint a "baseless suit" in a prepared statement. "The plaintiff attempted on three different occasions to fashion a complaint that could survive a motion to dismiss, but was unable to do so. We see the dismissal with prejudice as a clear victory and are pleased to put this distraction to rest." Elizabeth M. Byrnes, a small business that had applied for a PPP loan of less than $25,000, on May 6 filed a complaint in the California district court alleging Fountainhead fast-tracked the most lucrative PPP loan requests and had ignored small loans until the program funding was exhausted, as previously reported by Orlando Business Journal. The business also sought to assert its claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated businesses, per court documents. Fountainhead is one of 14 SBA-approved nationwide, nonbank, direct commercial lending firms specializing in funding commercial real estate projects and providing growth financing for small to midsize businesses using SBA 7(a), SBA 504 and low LTV conventional loans. Hurn was named one of Orlando Business Journal's CEOs of the Year in recognition of his role in helping get PPP created via legislation and implemented, as well as leading his firm to close 9,500 PPP loans -- many to underserved business owners -- per full-time team member at Fountainhead. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Face Shareholder Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs Group Inc must again face a class action by shareholders who said they lost $13 billion because the Wall Street bank hid conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities before the 2008 financial crisis, a judge ruled on Dec. 8. U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty in Manhattan rejected Goldman's claim that its general statements about its business, including that client interests "always come first" and "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business," were too generic to mislead investors and affect its stock price. Shareholders accused Goldman of concealing its packaging and selling of collateralized debt obligations it wanted to fail so favored clients like hedge fund billionaire John Paulson could secretly bet against them. They said Goldman's stock price fell as the truth became known. Goldman declined to comment. Darren Robbins, a lawyer for shareholders including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, said they were ready to move the 11-year-old case to trial. The case had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June said lower courts could use expert testimony and "a good dose of common sense" in deciding whether generic statements affected stock prices. Applying that decision, Crotty said even Goldman's more generic statements could reinforce misconceptions about its practices, and that Goldman offered no evidence its stock price would have "held fast" had it disclosed its conflicts. Noting Goldman's claim that dozens of blue-chip companies make similar statements, Crotty said he was "hard pressed" to understand why such statements would achieve "such ubiquity" if they had no effect on stock prices. The judge said Goldman did not show it more likely than not that its alleged misstatements "had no price impact whatsoever." In 1988, the Supreme Court said investors could rely on a presumption that all public information about a company was reflected in its stock price. Goldman reached a $550 million settlement in 2010 resolving U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges it concealed Paulson's role in creating the Abacus 2007-AC1 CDO, and that he made $1 billion betting against it. The case is In re Goldman Sachs Group Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-03461. [GN] INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL RAYON GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation; GLOBAL OCEAN WORKS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV45074 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 10, 2021) is a class action for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The plaintiff is a California resident who worked for defendants in Los Angeles, California, as a driver. During the statutory period, defendants allegedly classified plaintiff as non-exempt from California's overtime requirements, and paid plaintiff an hourly wage. International Marine Products, Inc. wholesales and distributes fresh, cured, frozen fish and seafood. Global Ocean Works Co. Ltd. operates aquatic products processing companies. The plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Brett Gunther, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com brett.gunther@moonyanglaw.com IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 31 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 8 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of iQIYI, inc. ("iQIYI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IQ) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the ADR's of iQIYI, inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of iQIYI, inc., you may, no later than January 31, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the ADR's of iQIYI, inc. Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial services institutions that served as prime brokers for Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management, helping Archegos make trades and lending it capital in the form of margin lending. According to the Complaint, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of iQIYI shares during the Class Period while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] JAB GROUP: Franchi to Halt Company Takeover via Share Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Franchi, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Krispy Kreme Inc., Plaintiff, v. Olivier Goudet, David Bell, Patricia Capel, David Deno, Ozan Dokmecioglu, Carl Lee Jr., Paul Michaels, Debbie Roberts, Lubomira Rochet, Michael Tattersfield, Michelle Weese, Henry Yeagley, JAB Indulgence B.V., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Investments S.À R.L., JAB Holding Company S.À R.L., Joh. A. Benckiser B.V., Agnaten SE, and Lucresca SE,, Defendants, Case No. 2021-1057, (Del. Ch., December 3, 2021), seeks expedited relief to prevent a takeover of Krispy Kreme by its largest stockholder, the JAB Group, which has rapidly increased its stake from 38% to over 44% through substantial open-market purchases and a temporary restraining order, enjoining JAB from further purchases unless and until its directors discharge their fiduciary duties and put a protective structure in place to prevent a takeover that will deprive public stockholders of the right to obtain a control premium. Olivier Goudet, David Bell, Patricia Capel, David Deno, Ozan Dokmecioglu, Carl Lee Jr., Paul Michaels, Debbie Roberts, Lubomira Rochet, Michael Tattersfield, Michelle Weese and Henry Yeagley sit in the board of directors of Krispy Kreme. Krispy Kreme is a prominent doughnut brand that went public in 2000. In July 2016, JAB took Krispy Kreme private in a $1.35 billion acquisition. JAB has increased its ownership to 44.3% of the company's outstanding common stock as of November 29, 2021 and could rapidly become a majority owner. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 Email: joel@blockleviton.com - and - Nathan A. Cook, Esq. Mae Oberste, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 499-3601 Email: nathan@blockleviton.com mae@blockleviton.com JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Hastings School Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HASTINGS AREA SCHOOL SYSTEM, 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-09565 (N.D. Cal., December 10, 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. Hastings Area School System is a unified school district with its offices located at 232 West Grand Street in Hastings, 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 KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: FLSA Collective, Rule 23 Class Cert Stricken ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL BRAYMAN, DANA McCARTHY, and ADRIANA PONCE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order striking defendant's motion for decertification, and striking plaintiffs' motions for final certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective and Rule 23 Class Certification. The Court notes that Plaintiffs repeatedly reference lengthy exhibits without providing citations to the specific pages upon which they rely. Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Collective Action and Motion to Certify Class Action, as well as the corresponding response and reply briefs, without prejudice to filing amended motions with proper citations to the record and within the applicable page limits. KeyPoint provides security services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GQDnXt at no extra charge.[CC] LLR INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review in Katie Van Suit --------------------------------------------------- LLR, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-0197-HRH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage. The defendants seek a review of the November 26 order issued by Judge H. Russel Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which denied their motion to certify a question of law to the Alaska Supreme Court. The appellate case is captioned as LLR, Inc., et al. v. Katie Van, Case No. 21-36020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 10, 2021. The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that: -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 10, 2022; -- Transcript is due on February 8, 2022; -- Appellants LLR, Inc. and LuLaRoe, LLC opening brief is due on March 21, 2022; -- Appellee Katie Van answering brief is due on April 19, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] As reported by the Class Action Reporter, on Sept. 5, 2018, Ms. Van commenced the action alleging that LLR engaged in unfair trade practices by billing class members residing in jurisdictions which do not impose a sales tax for a non-existent sales tax as alleged in Count I of plaintiff's second amended complaint. On Aug. 24, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint, in which she asserted claims for common law conversion and violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPA) on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On April 23, 2021, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a class as to her UTPCPA claim only. On Sept. 16, 2021, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a class. It certified a class consisting of "all persons who paid 'tax' on a purchase of LuLaRoe products and whose purchase was delivered into a location in Alaska that does not assess a sales or use tax on the clothing that LuLaRoe sells." On Sept. 30, 2021, the defendants filed the instant motion in which they seek to certify the following question to the Alaska Supreme Court: Is the Voluntary Payment Doctrine (VPD) an affirmative defense to a violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPA)? Defendants-Appellants LLR, INC., DBA LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC are represented by: Michael Baylous, Esq. Brewster H. Jamieson, Esq. LANE POWELL PC 1600 A Street, Suite 304 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 264-3303 E-mail: baylousm@lanepowell.com jamiesonb@lanepowell.com - and - Steven Graham, Esq. Colin Higgins, Esq. Jing Hua, Esq. Randolph T. Moore, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 427-7002 E-mail: sgraham@swlaw.com rmoore@swlaw.com - and - Andrew Martin Jacobs, Esq. SNELL & WILMER, LLP 400 E Van Buren Street, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 Plaintiff-Appellee KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ronald Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON BROWN 222 Broad Street P.O. Box 242 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (724) 730-1753 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com - and - James J. Davis, Jr., Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 308-3395 E-mail: jdavis@njp-law.com - and - Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. CALIFORNIA JUSTICE PROJECT 225 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 432-7243 E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com - and - Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Kelly Iverson, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 LOI ESTIATORIO: Denied Benitez Overtime Pay, Paystubs ----------------------------------------------------- Jose Benitez, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 58 West LLC, Alex Antimisiaris and Maria Loi, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10513, (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, unpaid tips, unpaid overtime, an additional amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. Defendants operate as "Loi Estiatorio," where Benitez worked as a cook. He claims to have worked six days a week, despite scheduled only from Monday through Friday from 11:00am to 10:00pm. He worked sixty-four hours each week throughout his employment and paid a flat $15.00 per hour for all hours worked and never received time and a half for hours over forty or spread of hours pay. Benitez was paid in cash and did not receive any wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse C. Rose, Esq. THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC 3732 Steinway Street, Suite 503 Astoria, New York 11102 Tel: (718) 989-1864 Fax: (917) 831-4595 MASCHOFFS LLC: Responds to Biometric Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Cox, writing for WLDS1180, reports that a Pike County-based pork producer is denying claims made in a federal lawsuit that it violated state laws about biometric privacy, and it's also challenging the law itself. The Journal Courier reports that The Maschoffs argued the description in the legal complaint of its time-tracking system as incomplete or inaccurate in a response filed Friday over a class action suit filed in federal court in Springfield in September. The company denied biometric data from fingerprints was collected and stored or that it was associated with personal identifying information, as the civil claim maintains. According to the response, the system had been in place with the company since 2017 and none of the members of the class action allegedly express concern about the time-tracking system that used fingerprints as a method to clock in and clock out. The lawsuit asks for class-action status, which could allow dozens of former and current workers to join it. The Maschoffs LLC asked the court to deny such status, largely on the grounds that it said no one was harmed by use of the time-tracking system. The company said no biometric information was misused or "subject to an improper sale, lease, trade or profit" or "stored, transmitted or protected in a manner deemed to be unreasonable within the relevant industry or subject to safeguards that are less protective than the manner used to protect defendant's own confidential or other sensitive information." In a notice of constitutional challenge to statute filed along with the response, The Maschoffs contends the privacy act is unconstitutional as applied to the class-action suit's allegations because it says its in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the statutory damages being claimed are grossly excessive and disproportionate in light of the absence of any actual injury or harm. The class-action suit is seeking that every instance of collecting, storing or sharing biometric identifiers or information constitutes a violation and should result in $5,000 in damages for each violation determined to be willful or reckless and $1,000 for each violation considered negligent. The Maschhoffs LLC is headquartered in Pittsfield and has locations in Pike and Cass counties, as well as Carlyle, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri. A conference on the case is scheduled on January 25th. [GN] MILWAUKEE BL: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Meggs Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MEGGS, Plaintiff v. MILWAUKEE BL, LLC and CCN LODGING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03296-KLM (D. Colo., December 8, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's commercial property as a patron/customer, and intends to return to the commercial property and business therein in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the said property. These barriers to access have allegedly endangered his safety. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, added the suit. The Plaintiff is, among other things, a paraplegic and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. The Plaintiff requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. Milwaukee BL, LLC owns and operates a place of public accommodation at 222 Milwaukee St., Denver, Colorado. CCN Lodging LLC owns and operates a hotel business at 222 Milwaukee St., Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 1600 Broadway, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 996-3500 Facsimile: (720) 381-0515 E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com bvirues@lawgmp.com MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over CVT Problems ------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Mitsubishi CVT problems have caused a class action lawsuit which alleges these vehicles jerk, shudder, surge and have acceleration issues because of the continuously variable transmissions. 2014-2017 Mitsubishi Lancer 2014-present Mitsubishi Outlander 2014-present Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 2014-present Mitsubishi Mirage 2018-present Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross The Mitsubishi CVT class action lawsuit was filed by three plaintiffs. New York plaintiff Ryan Hardy purchased a new 2020 Mitsubishi Mirage G4, Michigan plaintiff Troy Lucassian purchased a new 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage and California plaintiff Todd Brown purchased a new 2016 Mitsubishi Outlander. The three plaintiffs claim their vehicles suffered transmission problems due to defects in the CVTs. The Mitsubishi transmission problems allegedly occur due to slippage of the CVT belt, contamination of the hydraulic pressure circuit and other internal components, miscalibration of the CVT control unit and an inadequate CVT cooling system. Mitsubishi drivers describe the transmission problems as "juddering" or "shuddering" when trying to accelerate, allegedly causing severe safety problems when driving. Mitsubishi customers also allegedly hear the transmissions making "clunk" sounds when drivers slow down or accelerate at slow speeds. The Mitsubishi CVTs allegedly completely fail and require replacements that are allegedly as defective as the original transmissions. According to the plaintiffs, since 2014 Mitsubishi has been aware of the CVT problems and how the transmissions need frequent repairs and replacements. And the plaintiffs say even though Mitsubishi knew about the alleged transmission problems, the automaker continued to install the CVTs in vehicles. Consumers had no way of knowing about the alleged CVT problems because Mitsubishi concealed the alleged defects even while sending technical service bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships. Mitsubishi CVT TSBs and Recall In April 2020, Mitsubishi issued TSB 20-23-001 titled, "Potential Transmission Shudder/Surge with Possible DTC (CVT-8)." The lawsuit says the TSB was issued to correct "shudder or surge condition possibly caused by poor reaction of the hydraulic pressure circuit." The bulletin indicated the CVT belt may slip repeatedly when accelerating and abrasion powder may enter the hydraulic pressure circuit. This causes a warning light to illuminate and one of the following diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs): P0776, P0730,P0741, P084A, P0969 and P2719. TSB 20-23-001 also said the shudder/surge condition may also be described as "engine flare, lack of acceleration, and/or car shake." Mitsubishi told dealers to replace the CVTs or replace various transmission components, including the control valves and valve-body assemblies. The Mitsubishi class action lawsuit also references a 2016 recall for transmission problems related to the CVT electronic control units and acceleration problems. According to the CVT recall, the control unit was improperly communicating with the engine control unit "to reduce its torque output to prevent 'shiftshock' and slippage of the CVT metal belt." Mitsubishi dealerships were told to recalibrate the CVT electronic control units, but the class action lawsuit alleges the recall repairs didn't fix the Mitsubishi transmission problems. The Mitsubishi CVT lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Hardy, et al., v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, and Berger Montague. [GN] NEW YORK FAST: Jose Hernandez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK FAST CONCRETE GROUP INC., and OSCAR VELASQUEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06854 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2021) is a complaint that arises from the defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay plaintiff and class members minimum wages and overtime compensation and failing to provide accurate wage statements and wage notices. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a laborer from September 2019 to June 2021. The defendants are engaged in the mixing, pouring, and maintenance of concrete foundations and walls for commercial and residential buildings, throughout Kings, Queens, and New York Counties. The plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO, P.L.L.C. 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 NEW YORK: To Face Private Sector Vaccine Mandate Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Kaden, writing for PIX11, reports that a class action lawsuit targeting New York City's upcoming private sector vaccine mandate could be filed as early as this week, an attorney said on Dec. 8. "People have been told they have three weeks to get a vaccination, or they can no longer work in New York City," attorney Louis Gelormino said. The Staten Island attorney said hundreds of New Yorkers have already sought his help. Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on Dec. 6 that New York City would require all private sector workers to get at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Dec. 27. Details on enforcement are expect from the mayor's office Dec. 15. Gelormino said he hopes to file the lawsuit on Dec. 17. "We will be requesting a temporary restraining order. That is the first thing we will be demanding. That way, if the judge grants it, it will put a stop to this whole thing," Gelormino said. New York City employment attorney Michael Schmidt said companies should be in planning mode. "It's better to spend a little bit of time planning for an eventuality that doesn't happen than to be forced to comply with something that you hadn't considered yet," Schmidt said. De Blasio remained confident on Dec. 8 that the mandate will hold up in court. "I am absolutely convinced this mandate is necessary, and it is going to work," he said. A vaccine mandate for New York City municipal workers, already in place, is once again facing a challenge, too. Those refusing to get vaccinated were put on unpaid leave. A new lawsuit by an NYPD detective aims to get them paid and back to work without the shot. "Right now, it's not changing anything," NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said on Dec. 8. "There is a hearing that is going to take place. But the NYPD attorneys, as well as the city attorneys, will monitor it and go accordingly." The Detective Endowment Association President Paul DiGiacomo said, "We wish he and his attorney the best of luck in their quest to overturn the vaccine mandate. The DEA has steadfastly maintained from the beginning that members should have the freedom of choosing whether or not to be vaccinated." Late on the evening of Dec. 8, the union that represents city correction officers sued to stop the mandate imposed on its workers. Eric Adams, the incoming New York City mayor, has stayed non-committal to the private sector mandate. De Blasio has said he believes the mandates will help prevent another COVID-19 shut down. [GN] ON24 INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of January 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until January 3, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against ON24, Inc. (NYSE: ONTF), if they purchased the Company's shares issued in connection with its February 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased shares of ON24 and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ontf/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by January 3, 2022. About the Lawsuit ON24 and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information in the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things, that the surge in customers leading up to the IPO consisted of a significant number that, driven by COVID-19 related demand, did not fit the Company's traditional customer profile, and, as a result, were significantly less likely to renew their contracts leading to an increase in churn. On August 10, 2021, the Company provided its 2Q2021 financial results including guidance below analysts' expectations and disclosed "higher-than-expected churn and down-sell from customers [it] signed up in the second quarter of last year during the peak of COVID…primarily in the first-time renewal cohort, customers who signed up one-year contracts last year and who were up for renewal." On this news, the Company's share price plummeted approximately 31%, damaging investors. The case is Douvia v. ON24, Inc., 21-cv-08578. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] REALGY LLC: Asks SC to Review Lower Court Ruling in Lindenbaum Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Realgy LLC filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled REALGY, LLC, Petitioner v. ROBERTA LINDENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Intervenor, Case No. 21-866. Response is due on January 10, 2022. Realgy petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case titled Roberta Lindenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-4252. The Sixth Circuit denied Realgy's motion seeking recusal of Judge Branstetter Stranch, one of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel, based on the appearance of impropriety that her inclusion on the panel created. The Sixth Circuit did not dispute any of the facts underlying Realgy's motion but stated that no reasonable lay observer would question Judge Stranch's impartiality. The questions presented are: (i) Did this court sever the government exception retroactively, and if so, is it permissible to reimpose the unequal treatment that this court held "violates the First Amendment" via the fair notice doctrine?; and (ii) Does 28 U.S.C. Section 455 require recusal where a judge's ruling would directly benefit her in contingency fee litigation being prosecuted by a firm that bears the judge's name and which her spouse and son own, in the judge's own circuit? As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Lindenbaum filed a lawsuit entitled Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALGY, LLC (d/b/a REALGY ENERGY SERVICES), a Connecticut limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02862, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. Ms. Lindenbaum sued the defendants to: (1) stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; and (2) obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. The defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited prerecorded calls were, and are, unauthorized as they fail to obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to consumers. Ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these unsolicited prerecorded calls. By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls, the defendants caused the plaintiff and other class members actual harm and cognizable legal injury, according to the complaint. On October 29, 2020, the District Court granted Realgy's motion to dismiss amended complaint. The defendant's request for oral argument is denied as unnecessary. Defendant-petitioner REALGY, LLC is represented by: Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th St. NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7307 E-mail: rwatstein@kcozaw.com mkeilson@kcozlaw.com Respondent-intervenor UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov RESEARCH STRATEGIES: Faces Duverger Class Suit Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARETTE DUVERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESEARCH STRATEGIES, INC., an Alabama corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-62465-RAR (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2021) is a class action complaint to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making robocalls to consumers without consent. According to the complaint, the unauthorized solicitation telephone call that Plaintiff received from or on behalf of Defendant have harmed Plaintiff Duverger in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, occupied her phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware and the consumption of memory on the phone. Research Strategies is a business-to-business market research company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com RW EXPRESS: Faces Llobel Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ RAMON LLOBEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RW EXPRESS LLC d/b/a AIRLINK NEW YORK, VSJ TRANSPORTATION INC., LASANI TRANSPORTATION INC., DIAMOND & GOLD TRANSPORTATION INC, ASHLEY F. & L. INC., TOTAL TRANSPORTATION INC., RIGHT TURN TRANSPORT LLC, SHIMON KLUGER, LIONEL SINGH, ALVIN SINGH, and JACK TULIP, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06815 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges the state and federal law violations of the Defendants by failing to pay the applicable minimum wage for each hour Plaintiffs; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice and paystubs; engaging in unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's pay; terminating Plaintiff shortly after he complained about being improperly paid; and intentionally and unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of age. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants sporadically beginning in 2004 until April 25, 2019 as a driver driving an Airlink passenger van. RW Express LLC, d/b/a Airlink New York, provides transportation services to and from airports in the New York City area. Defendants VSJ, Lasani, Diamond, Ashley, Total, and Right Turn are van operators nominally employed Airlink's drivers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 - and - Beth E. Goldman, Esq. Elissa S. Devins, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 283-4175 SENTINEL INSURANCE: One40 Beauty Appeals Judgment in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff One40 Beauty Lounge, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ONE40 BEAUTY LOUNGE LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-00643, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for its refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, the Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Sentinel, including property coverage, as set forth in Sentinel's Special Property Coverage Form (Form SS 00 07 07 05). Sentinel's Special Property Coverage Form provides various "Time Element Coverages," including "Business Income" coverage, "Civil Authority" coverage, and "Extra Expense" coverage. The Special Property Coverage Form's "Civil Authority" coverage promises to pay for loss caused by the action of a civil authority that prohibits access to the insured premises because of damage to property in the immediate area of the insured premises. The Special Property Coverage Form's "Extra Expense" coverage promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize the suspension of business and to continue operations. The Plaintiff's Sentinel insurance policy also incorporates Sentinel's "Limited Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage" endorsement (the "Virus Coverage Endorsement"), which applies to the Specialty Property Coverage Form. The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at One40 due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil authorities in Nevada. The Plaintiff alleges that Sentinel has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. Indeed, the Plaintiff was told by its insurance agent that Sentinel would not pay under its policy for the losses the Plaintiff suffered due to COVID-19 and the resultant civil authority orders, says the complaint. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 26, 2021, Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therein, the Defendant asserts that the Policy does not provide coverage for the Plaintiff's losses because the Policy contains an applicable "Virus Exclusion." The Plaintiff argues that the Virus Exclusion is ambiguous, but that even if it unambiguously excludes coverage, the Policy still provides coverage for 30 days of losses. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge Dooley. The appellate case is captioned as One40 Beauty Lounge, LLC v. Sentinel Ins Co, Ltd., Case No. 21-3007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant One40 Beauty Lounge, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq. KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 E-mail: knastri@koskoff.com Defendant-Appellee Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is represented by: Anthony Anscombe, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1265 - and - Gerald Parker Dwyer, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8200 E-mail: gdwyer@rc.com STATE FARM: Must Face Life Insurance Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Tay, writing for Law360, reports that State Farm cannot dodge paying $4.5 million in prejudgment interest in a class action over whether the insurer overcharged the class on life insurance policies, the Eight Circuit said on Dec. 8, saying it had previously found the class was entitled to the interest. [GN] STATESIDE TAX: Costa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Costa, individually, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Stateside Tax Group LLC, Case No. 21-CI 204 was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 1, 2021, and assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-03906-JFA. This action involves allegations that either Stateside or Greenlaw Consulting Group Inc. placed telephone calls to him through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system without his consent and in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, he alleges that either Stateside or Greenlaw placed automated calls to his cellphone using a pre-recorded message. The Plaintiff alleges that he did not consent to the calls and that his cellphone number is on a National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Stateside or Greenlaw: violations of the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act; violations of the TCPA. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks class certification and appointment as class representative.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah T. Eibling, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Meridian / 17th Floor 1320 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Email: Sarah.eibling@nelsonmullins.com STOCKX INC: Data Privacy Claims Must Be Arbitrated, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- TFL reports that a U.S. federal court has sided with StockX in connection with the proposed class action lawsuits filed against it in 2019 for allegedly failing to safeguard customers' information and then failing to inform those same consumers after 6.8 million records were hacked from its website, and "instead, tried to hide the fact by telling users to reset their passwords under the guise of 'system updates.'" The data breach was subsequently revealed by TechCrunch, prompting a number of individuals to file privacy-centric suits against it in courts across the U.S. for "intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable data-security measures to ensure its systems were protected, take steps to prevent and stop the breach from happening, monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis, and disclose to customers the fact that it did not have adequate security systems and practices to safeguard [their] data." On the heels of a handful of individual class action lawsuits being combined before a federal district court in Michigan, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts granted Detroit-based StockX's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action and compel arbitration in December 2020 on the basis that the parties are subject to StockX's terms of service, which "always included an arbitration agreement, a delegation provision, a class action waiver, and instructions for how to opt out of the arbitration agreement." However, before the matter could make its way to arbitration, the plaintiffs, two of whom are minors, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing the case, as there is an issue of fact as to whether four of the plaintiffs accepted StockX's terms of service. The plaintiffs further claimed that the defenses of infancy and unconscionability render the company's terms of service, including the arbitration agreement and the delegation provision (i.e., a provision that states that an arbitrator will decide whether the dispute is fit for arbitration), invalid and unenforceable. Beyond that, the plaintiffs also asserted that regardless of their ages, the arbitration agreement, including the delegation provision, is invalid because it is a "contract of adhesion," "comprised of boilerplate language, drafted by StockX," and "lacks the essential element of mutuality," among other things. In short: the plaintiffs argued that an enforceable agreement does not exist between them and StockX, thereby, making arbitration an improper forum. The Sixth Circuit's Decision In its decision dated December 2, a panel of judges for the Sixth Circuit declined to rule on any of the plaintiffs' arguments about the validity or enforceability of StockX's terms. Writing for the court, Judge Ralph Guy stated, "[W]e conclude that a contract exists and that the delegation provision itself" -- which states that "the arbitrator . . . shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of [the arbitration] agreement to arbitrate, any part of it, or of [StockX's] terms [of service] including, . . . any claim that all or any part of [the arbitration] agreement or the terms is void or voidable" -- is valid. "Such language alone is clear and unmistakable evidence requiring that an arbitrator shall decide the 'applicability, enforceability,' or validity of both the arbitration provision and the entire contract," according to Judge Guy, holding that as a result, "the arbitrator must decide in the first instance whether the defenses of infancy and unconscionability allow plaintiffs to avoid arbitrating the merits of their claims." As for the plaintiffs' challenge of the delegation clause, itself, the court held that they have failed to show that "'the basis of [their] challenge [is] directed specifically' to the 'delegation provision," as they "have simply recycled the same arguments that pertain to the enforceability of the agreement as a whole." As a result, the majority determined that the plaintiffs' challenge to the validity or enforceability of the delegation clause under the infancy defense "is for an arbitrator to decide." (Judge Karen Nelson Moore dissented, arguing that "a minor who has disaffirmed a contract is not subject to the contract's delegation provision, [as] arbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties.") With this in mind, the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case and compel arbitration. The win for StockX is the latest in a sting of cases that "strictly enforce delegation provisions," according to Squire Patton Boggs LLP's Ellen Phillips, who points to Swiger v. Rosette, in which a plaintiff sought to avoid arbitration in a case over an allegedly "predatory loan" contract that contained a delegation clause, but "was unable to do so when she failed to mention, let alone challenge, her contract's delegation clause." In March, the Sixth Circuit sided with the defendant, holding that "because Swiger's arbitration agreement includes an unchallenged provision delegating [the] question [of whether the parties must arbitrate their dispute over the loan] to an arbitrator, the district court exceeded its authority when it undertook that task and found the agreement unenforceable." "If one wants a court to determine whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable, they must check if there is a delegation clause, and, if so, specifically challenge it," Phillips states. "Otherwise, they will be left arbitrating whether they should be arbitrating." Esquer v. StockX While the consolidated case will now move to arbitration, one of the cases filed against StockX in connection with the breach was previously determined to not be subject to dismissal on the basis of arbitration. In an order dated June 15, Eastern District of Michigan Judge Victoria Roberts determined that "because application of Michigan law would be contrary to fundamental California policy and California has a materially greater interest in Esquer's claims than Michigan, StockX's choice of law clause is unenforceable, [and] the Court will not compel arbitration of Esquer's claims against StockX." In the complaint that she first filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in September 2019, Esquer accused StockX of running afoul of California's Consumer Records Act and Unfair Competition Law by "fail[ing] to secure and safeguard its customers' private information, including the names, shipping addresses, email addresses, and passwords of those who created accounts on the StockX website." Esquer argued that StockX "knew, or should have known, that its data security measures were inadequate," particularly since the data breach "followed prominent breaches involving other e-commerce websites such as shein.com, panerabread.com, adidas.com, orbitz.com, macys.com, bloomingsdales.com, and zappos.com." StockX, which revealed that it surpassed 6.5 million lifetime buyers and 1 million lifetime sellers in the first half of 2021, has been building out its initially sneaker-focused offerings since its founding in 2016 and expanding internationally. In the wake of its latest funding round, a Series E-1 round that closed in April 2021, the company boasts a valuation of $3.8 billion. The case is In Re: StockX Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 21-1089 (6th Cir.). [GN] TOP TENN: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Hoffman Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TOP TENN, LLC and ERIC HAMILTON, Case No. 4:21-cv-00048 (E.D. Tenn., December 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are or were hourly employees of Defendants. Mr. Hoffman was employed from approximately July 2018 to July 2021. He was paid his regular rate of pay of $11.00 an hour for all hours worked but was not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Top Tenn, LLC is a manufacturing facility that primarily provides plastic injection molding, assembly and distribution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna J. Mikel, Esq. MIKEL & HAMILL, PLLC 600 Lindsay Street, Suite 200 Chattanooga, TN 37403 Telephone: (423) 541-5400 Facsimile: (423) 541-5400 E-mail: dmikel@mhemploymentlaw.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Appeals Dismissal in Breach of Contract Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Mark Yodice filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled as Mark Yodice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touro College & University System, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this class action, the Plaintiff has sued Touro College and University System to recover unrefunded tuition and fees paid for the Spring 2020 semester. During that semester, Touro closed its campuses and moved to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 24, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 4, 2021, the Court entered an order granting Defendant's motion. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Yodice v. Touro College and University Systems, Case No. 21-2986, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 6, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Yodice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Eric Poulin, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM 32 Ann Street, 3rd Floor Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee Touro College and University Systems is represented by: Maraiah L. Passarelli, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 301 Grant Street, 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 620-6502 E-mail: mpassarelli@cozen.com TUG HILL OPERATING: Rogers Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Lastephen Rogers, on of behalf himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tug Hill Operating, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00199 (N.D. Va., December 3, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tug Hill is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating in the Appalachia basin in West Virginia and in South Texas. Rogers worked for Tug Hill starting in approximately January 2019 through July 2020 in Marshall and Wetzel County, West Virginia as an oilfield worker. He claims to be paid a flat amount for each day worked for Tug Hill with no overtime for hours he worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. James S. Nelson, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com UMB BANK: Mississippi Delta Farmers File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Kelly Bennett, writing for SuperTalk, reports that over 300 families in the Mississippi Delta could lose their farms. Don Barrett, a lawyer with the Barrett Law Firm in Lexington is among a consortium of lawyers defending them in a class-action lawsuit. In an interview on The Gallo Show on SuperTalk Mississippi this morning, he told us he believes the evidence will show that UMB Bank propped Express Grain up enough to allow the financially distressed grain elevator to survive into the autumn harvest season, when farmers would be delivering enormous amounts of grain under the expectation that they'd receive prompt payment. "And then they sprung their trap and put the grain elevator into bankrupty, and seized all the grain that was in those elevators," he told us. Barrett believes that all combined, more than 300 farmers were cheated out of over $100-million. The class action will cover all the farms involved, but they will need to sign up individually. You can call Barrett Law Group for more information–or to join the lawsuit–at (662) 834-2488. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Faces Class Action Over Doctor's Misconduct ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Griffin, writing for CTV News, reports that allegations of misconduct by disgraced Ottawa doctor Vincent Nadon were brought to the University of Ottawa "in or about" 1995 and were ignored, according to two sworn affidavits by former patients included in a class-action lawsuit against Nadon, the school, the on-campus clinics where he worked and company that managed them. According to court documents, both women, who are identified by initials A.M.C and C.E.G., and who know each other through a family member, allege Nadon sexually assaulted them at the University of Ottawa Health Services (UOHS) clinic on campus in the 1990s. "I specifically remember the look in his eyes," said A.M.C in a phone interview. "It was almost like he was enjoying what he was doing. And I just thought that was not right." A.M.C. says she and C.E.G. met with a woman who identified herself as a counsellor in her office on campus. Later, A.M.C. says, she received a letter from the woman. "The letter was on University of Ottawa letterhead and it basically said that no further investigation would be conducted," she recalled. "It said Dr. Nadon apologizes if he made me feel uncomfortable during that examination. "For two women to have come forward and shared that very awful experience…we put our trust really in the school to provide help for us and in the end it's obvious that they didn't do that." The details are contained within an updated class-action lawsuit that was certified and had been amended with damages being sought increasing to $500 million, up from $210 million. "All I can hope for is justice for myself, I'm doing this for me and so that I can kind of gain some kind of closure and some sort of power back from what happened," said plaintiff Ellina Rabbat. "I also just want the university and the clinic to be held accountable and to know that it's unacceptable." Nadon pleaded guilty in December 2018 to 14 sexual assault and voyeurism charges relating to 49 victims. He was sentenced to seven years in prison after receiving a one-year credit for time served. Nadon was granted full parole in July 2021. His lawyer Lawrence Greenspon says his client has taken responsibility for his crimes and will continue to cooperate with the civil proceedings. The lawsuit alleges "the University of Ottawa failed to take appropriate steps to prevent the improper conduct from occurring again, including requiring the dismissal of Nadon from the UOHS." uOttawa did not answer specific questions about when it was informed about the allegations about Nadon or how it handled them. "The University is aware of this class action lawsuit but since the matter is before the courts, we cannot comment," said media relations manager Isabelle Mailloux-Pulkinghorn in a statement to CTV News Ottawa. The University of Ottawa, UOHS -- which has since changed its name to the ByWard Family Health Team -- and the management company are referred to as the "Ottawa defendants" and have filed notices of their intent to defend against the claim. "As the class action suit is ongoing, we will decline to comment," wrote Christopher Fisher, the ByWard Family Health Team executive director. The class action also alleges various emotional, physical and psychological harms. The allegations contained within the lawsuit have not been tested in court. Next steps include publicizing the lawsuit with information for those who may want to join it. Those who want to opt out of the class proceedings have until July 15, 2022. "The university right from the very beginning from when Dr. Nadon was arrested took the position that the clinic is an independent service provider and that the university doesn't manage it, operate it, or supervise it and that's absolutely incorrect," said Sean Brown, partner at Flaherty McCarthy LLP. "He only worked there and for the clinic to say 'well he's not an employee he's an independent contractor and for that reason we can't be held responsible' is just simply not acceptable." "There needs to be way more resources and way more support options for students. . . those need to be disclosed very explicitly as soon as a student stepson to campus," said Rabbat, who says she got the runaround from the university after learning of Nadon's plea. "We're all in it together and hopefully this won't happen to other women," said Rabbat. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN AG: March 7, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that consumers sustained economic losses because they purchased or leased vehicles from Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., VW Credit, Inc., Audi AG, or Audi of America, LLC (collectively "Volkswagen") containing allegedly defective airbags manufactured by Takata Corporation and its affiliates ("Takata"). The Settlement includes certain vehicles made by Volkswagen (the "Subject Vehicles"). Volkswagen denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and the Court has not decided who is right. Owners or lessees of Subject Vehicles who have already received a separate recall notice for their Volkswagen or Audi vehicle and have not yet had their Takata airbag repaired should do so as soon as possible. When recalled Takata airbags deploy, they may, in very rare cases and under certain circumstances, spray metal debris toward vehicle occupants and may cause serious injury. However, some Volkswagen and Audi vehicles may be recalled for repair at a later date. Please see www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight#for-consumers-overview for further details about which vehicles have been recalled and, if so, what owners or lessees should do. The Settlement includes the following persons and entities: Owners or lessees, as of November 10, 2021, of a Subject Vehicle that was distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its territories or possessions, and Former owners or lessees of a Subject Vehicle that was distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its territories or possessions, who, between February 9, 2016 and November 10, 2021, sold or returned, pursuant to a lease, a Subject Vehicle. A full list of the Subject Vehicles can be found at www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com. The Settlement does not involve claims of personal injury. Volkswagen has agreed to a Settlement with a value of approximately $42 million, including a 20% credit for the Enhanced Rental Car/Loaner Program. The Settlement Funds will be used to pay for Settlement benefits and cover the costs of the Settlement over an approximately four-year period. The Settlement offers several benefits for Class Members, including (1) payments for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred related to a Takata airbag recall of a Subject Vehicle, (2) a Rental Car/Loaner Program while certain Subject Vehicles are awaiting repair, (3) an Outreach Program to maximize completion of the recall remedy, (4) additional cash payments to Class Members from residual settlement funds, if any remain, and (5) a Customer Support Program to help with repairs associated with replacement airbag inflators. The Settlement Website explains each of these benefits in detail. Class Members must file a claim to receive a payment during the first four years of the Settlement. If a Class Member still owns or leases a Subject Vehicle, they must also bring it to an authorized dealership for the recall remedy, as directed by a recall notice, if they have not already done so. Visit the website and file a claim online or download one and file by mail. The deadline to file a claim will be at least one year from the date the Settlement is finalized. All deadlines will be posted on the website when they are known. Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement must exclude themselves by February 14, 2022. If Class Members do not exclude themselves, they will release any claims they may have against Volkswagen and the Released Parties, in exchange for certain settlement benefits. The potential available benefits are more fully described in the Settlement, available at the Settlement Website. Class Members may object to the Settlement by February 14, 2022. Class Members cannot both exclude themselves from, and object to, the Settlement. The Long Form Notice for the Settlement available on www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com explains how Class Members can exclude themselves or object. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on March 7, 2022 to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the total Settlement Amount. Class Members may appear at the fairness hearing, either by themselves or through an attorney they hire, but don't have to. For more information, including the relief, eligibility and release of claims, in English or Spanish, call 1-888-735-5596 or visit www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com. URL: www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com SOURCE United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida [GN] [*] Judge Certifies Instagram Privacy Class Suit Against U.S. Firm ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Burns, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that a B.C. Supreme Court judge has certified a class action against a U.S.-based company that breached the privacy rules of social media giant Instagram. [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 ***