/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220214.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 26 Headlines 3 HOLDINGS LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Hume Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products AETNA INC: Kulwicki Files Suit in D. Connecticut ALABAMA: DOC Commissioner Appeals Omnibus Order in Dunn Suit ALLEGHENY MARKETING: Stryker's Bid to Dismiss Thomas Suit Granted ALLIED POTATO: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERASSIST A/R SOLUTIONS: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Wilhelm Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill. AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Seeks to Certify Insurance Owner Class BAPTIST HEALTH: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holmes ERISA Suit BESSEMER TRUST: Pecou ERISA Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties BINGHAM SERVICES: Sage Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BORTOLAMI LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOSTON, MA: Norkunas Ordered to Post $44K-Appeal Bond in Muehe Suit BOUTCHANTHARAJ CORP: Rattler-Bryceland Sues Over Unpaid Overtime BP EXPLORATION: Eastern District of Louisiana Dismisses Smith Suit BROOK FURNITURE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BROWN COUNTY: Weaver Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Overtime CANDID CARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Thomas FLSA Class Suit CDR MAGUIRE: Filing for Rule 23 Class Certification Due Sept. 23 CENTRAL YETEV: Filing for Conditional/Class Cert. Bids Due May 4 CHURCHILL CORPORATE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COFFEE HOLDING: Indemnified Customer in Suit Over Coffee Volume COLLAGE.COM INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMMUNITY HEALTH: Young FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida COSWAY BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CR INTRINSIC: Court Grants SEC's Bid to Disburse Funds to Pay Fees CVS PHARMACY: Surratt Files Mislabeling Suit Over Infant Formula DASHING DIVA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVIS & LANGDALE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Sues Over More Than 42% Drop of Stock Price ECHO GLOBAL: Cienega Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ENBRIDGE INC: Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 11 ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Parties in "Linde" Seek to Amend Sched Order EQT CORP: Third Circuit Grants Petition to Appeal in Laudato Suit EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Ghazaryan Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Security Guards, Rodriguez Says FPA VILLA: Wins Summary Judgment vs Lawrence FREELAND ENTERPRISES: Scott Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses GENWORTH LIFE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 27 GEORGIA: King, et al., Seek to Certify Prompt Appeal Class GIB'S DISTRIBUTION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GLOBAL PIPELINE: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages GM NAMEPLATE: Faces Ochoa Wage-and-Hour Suit in California GREAT AIR: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GUNS DOT COM: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HABERMAASS CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IBM CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Estle Discrimination Suit INSPIRED BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IT'S A NEW 10: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ITRIA VENTURES: InvenTel.tv Sues Over Misrepresentation of Loans JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Deal With ANZ Certified JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Deal With CBA Certified JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Morgan Deal Certified JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under NAB Accord Certified JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice of Dennis Settlement With Westpac OK'd JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice of Dennis-Morgan Stanley Deal OK'd JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice Plan of Dennis Deal With CBA Granted JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice Plan of Dennis Deal With NAB Approved JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Accepts Class Notice Plan for Dennis-ANZ Deal JPMORGAN CHASE: March 2021 Order on Dennis-JPMorgan Deal Amended JPMORGAN CHASE: March 2021 Order on Dennis-Westpac Deal Amended JULIO H. BAEZ: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Grocery Store Staff JUUL LABS: Faces Mineral Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Leeds City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Raleigh County Claims KMI BRANDS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Giuffre Suit Transferred in W.D. Pennsylvania KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Settlement in Hawkins Gets Final Nod KYMERA BODY BOARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEPRINO FOODS: Bates Seek to Certify Class of Hourly Workers M-I LLC: Order on Class Cert. Briefing, Hearing Dates Entered MACY'S WEST: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hawes Suit MADSPORTSSTUFF LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARIETTA AREA: McCumbers Files Suit in S.D. Ohio MARINO MARBLE: Pereira Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages MARK LINDON: TEUZA Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MATTHEW MARKS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: $44.5K PAGA Settlement in Gilmore Suit OK'd MEDICAL REVIEW: White Files Suit in D. Utah MEREDITH WARD: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOON STAR: Mao Yun Chi Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Helpers NAVIENT CORP: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Securities Suit NEW MILLENNIUM: Accord Over Omitted Exhibit in Farrell Suit OK'd NEW YORK, NY: Jacobson COVID-19 Suit Seeks to Certify Class NEW YORK, NY: Malcolm, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply NP IN FAMILY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York O.B.'S BAKERY: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bakery Staff OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nabozny's FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice PFIZER INC: Adams Files Suit in S.D. New York PFIZER INC: Smith Files Suit in S.D. New York PIZZERIA OF ISLIP: Echevarria Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages PLAINS MARKETING: Wake Energy Files Suit in D. Wyoming PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Kohl's Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice QIHOO 360: Court Approves Service of Altimeo Complaint to Zhou & Qi R.C. QUIGGLE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAINBOW USA: Hicks Suit Removed to S.D. Florida RAPID PALLET: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime REEVES INTERNATIONAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REXALL SUNDOWN: Summary Judgment in Seegert Suit Partly Affirmed ROI SOLUTIONS: Court Resolves Class Notice Issues in Stenulson Suit RUST-OLEUM CORP: Third Amended Case Mng't Sched Order Entered SOCLEAN INC: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania SPORTS UNLIMITED: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATE FARM: March 16 Extension to File Response Sought in Martino STEP2 COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TAL EDUCATION: Faces Sun Suit Over Misleading Reports TAMKO BUILDING: Compelled to Give Responsive Docs in Melnick Suit TERRI BIAS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Suspended in Berry TIPSY JOE: Windheim Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages TOKIDOKI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOROSIAN TECH: Fails to Properly Pay Electricians, Johnson Claims TTEC SERVICES: Anderson Files Suit in D. Colorado TTEC SERVICES: Barocas Files Suit in D. Arizona VALVE CORP: Galway Appeals Lootbox Gambling Case Dismissal VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schell Liability Suit WASHINGTON: HCA Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lynch Suit WEST VIRGINIA: Loses Objection to Protective Order Denial in Baxley WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Hollingsworth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHENEVER COMMUNICATIONS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WILEY X INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WOODLAKE TECHNOLOGIES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Stays Dupree Suit Pending Arbitration ********* 3 HOLDINGS LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3 Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3 Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01101 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a company that produces pornographic films.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com 3M COMPANY: Hume Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HUME and SIMONE HUME, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00381-RMG (D.S.C., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff Michael Hume as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including Mr. Hume, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Hume was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, the suit says. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 855-6060 Facsimile: (732) 726-4860 AETNA INC: Kulwicki Files Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna, Inc. The case is styled as Tara Kulwicki, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aetna, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00229-RNC (D. Conn., Feb. 9, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Aetna Inc. -- https://www.aetna.com/ -- is an American managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical, dental, behavioral health, long-term care, and disability plans, primarily through employer-paid (fully or partly) insurance and benefit programs, and through Medicare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ALABAMA: DOC Commissioner Appeals Omnibus Order in Dunn Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Dunn, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Commissioner Kim Thomas, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections; Ruth Naglich, in her official capacity as Associate Commissioner of Health Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections; and Alabama Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-WKW-TFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons, who are incarcerated in Alabama Department of Corrections prisons. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy, among other things, the Defendants' alleged failure to provide to persons in the custody of the ADOC constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care. In the current appellate case, the Defendants seek a review of Court's Phase 2A Omnibus Remedial Opinion and Order dated December 27, 2021. The appellate case is captioned as Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. v. Joshua Dunn, et al., Case No. 22-10292, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on Jan. 26, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before Feb. 17, 2022 as to Appellant Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before March 3, 2022 as to Appellee Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.[BN] Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and INTERIM ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, are represented by: Steven C. Corhern, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP 1901 6th Ave N Ste 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 - and - Luther M. Dorr, Jr., Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 6th Ave N Ste 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 - and - William R. Lunsford, Esq. Matthew B. Reeves, Esq. Stephen Clarence Rogers, Esq. Kenneth S. Steely, Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin St SW PO Box 18668 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 551-0171 - and - Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Esq. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 301 S Ripley St PO Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130-1501 Telephone: (334) 353-3885 Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM; and ALL PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patricia Clotfelter, Esq. William G. Somerville, III, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BERMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 420 N 20th St Ste 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 250-8314 - and - William Van Der Pol, Jr., Esq. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW PO Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 ALLEGHENY MARKETING: Stryker's Bid to Dismiss Thomas Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge W. Scott Hardy of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants Stryker Corporation's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY MARKETING GROUP, INC., and STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 20-840 (W.D. Pa.). The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered by Magistrate Lisa Pupo Lenihan on Nov. 1, 2021. Plaintiff Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC, a physician's Connecticut limited liability company, first brought the putative nationwide class action against Defendant Allegheny Marketing Group, Inc. ("AMG"), a global marketing research firm and Pennsylvania corporation. The Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to add Stryker Corp., a Michigan medical technology corporation, as an additional Defendant. The Plaintiff's action is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, which makes it unlawful for any person to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. AMG answered the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and Defendant Stryker moved to dismiss with prejudice the claim against it in the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), respectively. The R&R recommends that Defendant Stryker's Motion to Dismiss should be granted because the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails, as a matter of law, to state a claim against Stryker under the TCPA, and Stryker, therefore, should be dismissed as a Defendant in this case. Service of the R&R was made on all parties, and they were informed that any objections to same were due by Nov. 15, 2021. The Plaintiff subsequently moved for, and was granted, an extension of time to file objections by Nov. 29, 2021, and any response by Defendant Stryker was due by Dec. 27, 2021. Thereafter, no party filed any objections to the R&R. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, and a district judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R that has been properly objected to. Here, however, because no party filed any objections to the R&R, the Court reviews the magistrate judge's decision for plain error. In the case, upon careful review of the R&R and the entire record, including the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendant Stryker's Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief, the Plaintiff's Response thereto, and Stryker's Reply, and finding no plain error on the face of the record, the Court will accept Judge Lenihan's recommendation. As such, the Court will adopt the R&R as the Opinion of the Court, and will grant Defendant Stryker's Motion to Dismiss as more specifically set forth. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the R&R is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, it is further ordered that Defendant Stryker's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted, and the Plaintiff's claim against Stryker under the TCPA as alleged in the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymmhp442 from Leagle.com. ALLIED POTATO: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Potato, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rene Garcia Cruz, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Allied Potato, Inc., Arriola Farm Labor, Inc., Case No. BCV-22-100238 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 27, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Allied Potato -- https://alliedpotato.com/ -- is an internationally recognized leading potato grower, packer, shipper, and exporter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 705 Glendale, CA 91203-1989 Phone: 818-230-8380 Fax: 818-230-0308 Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com AMERASSIST A/R SOLUTIONS: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerassist A/R Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Kristina Williams, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Amerassist A/R Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00177-JHE (N.D. Ala., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. AmerAssist A/R Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.amerassist.com/-- is a debt collection company located in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W Pittman, Esq. Brett C Thompson, Esq. Douglas A Dellaccio, Jr., Esq. Taylor Akers Pruett, Esq. CORY WATSON ATTORNEYS PC 2131 Magnolia Avenue South, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-7000 Fax: (205) 324-7896 Email: apittman@corywatson.com bthompson@corywatson.com ddellaccio@corywatson.com tpruett@corywatson.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Wilhelm Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WILHELM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00690 (N.D. Ill., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated fleet service clerks overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a fleet service clerk from 1986 until the present. American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Seeks to Certify Insurance Owner Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation; BAYSIDE INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01709-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action with the Class defined as: "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies that were renewed, issued, or delivered by Defendant in California, and in force on January 1, 2013, and which underwent or will undergo lapse or termination for the non-payment of premium without Defendant first providing all of the notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72;" 2. appointing her as the Class Representative; and 3. appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as class counsel. In this action, the Defendant allegedly systematically failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. American General operates as an insurance company. Bayside Insurance offers custom, comprehensive insurance policy options for homeowners, business, vehicles, and property for the Mid-Shore. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GV0U9H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com BAPTIST HEALTH: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holmes ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit titled Lawanda Holmes and others, Plaintiffs v. Baptist Health South Florida, Inc. and others, Defendants, Case No. 21-22986-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.). In the Employee Retirement Income Security Act breach-of-fiduciary-duty case, the Defendants filed three motions when responding to the complaint: a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to stay, and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addresses only the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, to which the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and the Defendants filed a reply in support. Background Baptist Health South Florida, Inc., employs approximately 23,000 people and, in 1989, created a 403(b) employee retirement plan (the "Plan") to facilitate employee retirement savings. The Plan is a defined contribution plan where each participant has a separate account based on the amounts individually contributed. The Plaintiffs, who purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves, the Plan, and a putative class of similarly-situated individuals, each participated in the Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period--Feb. 3, 2015, to the date of judgment--the Defendants, each a fiduciary of the Plan, breached their fiduciary duties by failing to review and contain costs and by investing in high-cost investment funds despite the availability of similar funds with lower costs or better performance histories. In 2020, the Plan was amended to include, in relevant part, an arbitration agreement. This amendment was made pursuant to the Plan Sponsor's express, unilateral ability to amend the Plan. The arbitration agreement forbids arbitrations brought on a representative or class basis. Moreover, it precludes individuals that bring an arbitration claim from receiving "remedial or equitable relief" that provides additional benefits or monetary relief to any person other than the Claimant. Analysis In arguing that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable, the Plaintiffs raise two challenges. First, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement and its waiver of certain Plan-wide remedies violate the "effective vindication" doctrine. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement is not binding as the agreement was added to the Plan by unilateral amendment in 2020. A. Effective Vindication The "effective vindication" doctrine is a judge-made exception to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") that seeks to balance the competing federal policies in enforcing arbitration agreements and in vindicating plaintiffs' rights to pursue statutory remedies; see Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 235(-); Smith v. Brd. of Dirs. of Triad Mfg., Inc., 13 F.4th 613, 621 (7th Cir. 2021). Though rarely applied, the doctrine holds that courts may invalidate arbitration agreements that "operate as a prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue statutory remedies." The Plaintiffs argue that the Plan's arbitration agreement prevents the effective vindication of rights guaranteed in 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a). The Plaintiffs point to Smith, where the Seventh Circuit held that an arbitration clause, which precluded relief that provided "additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any" other individual, was unenforceable under the effective vindication doctrine, as the clause prohibited plan-wide relief that ERISA expressly permitted. The Defendants argue that such Plan-wide relief is only available to those who bring a class action on behalf of the Plan. And, the Defendants argue, as courts have held that class-action arbitration waivers are permissible, any waiver of a remedy unique to representative or class actions is also permissible. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., notes that the Plaintiffs point to no authority where the Eleventh Circuit has applied the "effective vindication" doctrine to void an arbitration clause. And the Eleventh Circuit has expressed a hesitancy to do so, citing Sierra v. Cruise Ships Catering and Servs., N.V., 631 F. App'x 714, 718 (11th Cir. 2015). Given the FAA's pro-arbitration policy, as well as the rarity with which courts apply the effective vindication doctrine, the Court declines to follow the Smith rationale and holds that the arbitration agreement at issue is valid and enforceable. While the arbitration agreement prohibits the recovery of some Plan-wide monetary relief, such relief is only available to those who bring a representative or class action, Judge Scola holds. And as the Eleventh Circuit has already held that a waiver of the right to bring a class action in arbitration is permissible, the concomitant waiver of remedies associated with class actions is also permissible. In any event, even if the Court were to follow the Seventh Circuit's rationale in Smith, the arbitration clause at issue here is narrower than the one in Smith, Judge Scola finds. The arbitration clause in Smith prohibited relief that provided "additional benefits or monetary or other relief" to anyone besides the claimant. Therefore, certain relief, such as the removal of a fiduciary, was completely barred, as no claimant in an arbitration would have been able to obtain such remedy under the arbitration clause. Here, the arbitration clause only prohibits relief that provides "additional benefits or monetary relief to any person" other than the claimant, Judge Scola holds. Therefore, the specific relief that the Plaintiffs argue has been barred--the ability to seek removal and appointment of the Plan's fiduciaries--is not barred by the arbitration clause. While that sought-after relief has a Plan-wide effect, it does not provide additional benefits or monetary relief as prohibited. Thus, while the arbitration clause in Smith completely denied some types of statute-authorized relief to the Plan, the clause here does not, as individual claimants can each recover the harm to their defined contribution accounts, and they can recover Plan-wide relief that does not provide additional benefits or monetary relief to others. For this reason, the arbitration agreement here is valid and enforceable, Judge Scola concludes. B. Unilateral Amendment Next, the Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration agreement is not binding on them because they did not knowingly agree to it. The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement was unilaterally adopted by amendment in 2020 by Baptist Health, as Plan Sponsor, and that no Plan participant was given the option of consenting to the amendment. Despite the unseemly nature of requiring Plan-participant Plaintiffs to arbitrate a claim that they never personally agreed to arbitrate, the Plan agreed to arbitrate, Judge Scola notes. Section 1109(a) claims belong to the Plan. Therefore, the relevant inquiry is not whether individual participants agreed to the arbitration agreement but whether the Plan agreed to arbitrate. Here, the Plan consented to the 2020 amendment, which added the arbitration clause, as the Plan expressly provided for unilateral amendment by the Plan Sponsor. As the Plan consented to the arbitration agreement, the Plan, and those that bring claims on its benefit, must arbitrate. Last, the Plaintiffs also argue that the arbitration agreement can only be binding on the Plaintiffs, who were participating in the Plan at the time that the arbitration clause was added. Here, Plaintiff Lawanda Holmes was a participant in the Plan during the Class Period, but she was terminated and removed all her funds from the Plan in September 2018, before the arbitration agreement was added to the Plan. However, Judge Scola says, the Plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims are brought on behalf of the Plan. While Plaintiff Holmes never agreed to arbitrate and was not put on notice of an agreement to arbitrate while she was a participant in the Plan, the Plan agreed to arbitration, and any claims on behalf of the Plan, including those brought by Plaintiff Holmes, must be brought in arbitration. For these reasons, the Court holds that the Plan consented to arbitrate and that the Plaintiffs, who bring claims on behalf of the Plan, must arbitrate their claims. Conclusion In total, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Court orders the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration. The case is stayed pending arbitration, and the Court orders the parties to advise the Court once the arbitration is terminated or once the claims are otherwise resolved. In the meantime, the Clerk is directed to administratively close the case. All pending motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8fxw9b from Leagle.com. BESSEMER TRUST: Pecou ERISA Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUBRIL PECOU, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Bessemer Trust Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff v. BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY and PROFIT SHARING PLAN COMMITTEE OF BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01019 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2022) is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 arising from the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties and engagement in unlawful self-dealing with respect to the Bessemer Trust Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan, its participants, and its beneficiaries. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to administer the Plan in the best interest of participants and failed to employ a prudent process for managing the Plan. Instead, the Defendants have managed the Plan in a manner that benefits Bessemer Trust at participants' expense, using the Plan as an opportunity to promote Bessemer Trust's Old Westbury mutual fund business and maximize profits in lieu of participants' best interests. By selecting and retaining Old Westbury Funds as investment options within the Plan in lieu of superior alternative options utilized by similarly situated fiduciaries, Defendants have allegedly failed to act in the best interest of participants and exercise appropriate care, costing participants millions of dollars in excess fees and investment underperformance. The Plaintiff resides in Brooklyn, New York and was a participant in the Plan until 2020. As a Plan participant, Plaintiff invested in multiple investment options managed by Bessemer Trust through its Old Westbury Funds and has been financially injured by the Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the suit. Bessemer Trust is a private, independent multi-family office that oversees more than $140 billion for over 2,500 families, foundations and endowments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Steven J. Eiden, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com krichter@nka.com bspecht@nka.com seiden@nka.com BINGHAM SERVICES: Sage Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bingham Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Sage, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Bingham Services, Inc., d/b/a One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning d/b/a Mister Sparky d/b/a Mistersoarky Electric, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22598082 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 9, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Bingham Services Inc. -- https://www.binghamservicesinc.com/ -- offers the most comprehensive service in the contents claims industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com BORTOLAMI LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bortolami LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bortolami LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bortolami -- https://bortolamigallery.com/ -- is in the Art Gallery business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BOSTON, MA: Norkunas Ordered to Post $44K-Appeal Bond in Muehe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MUEHE, ELAINE HAMILTON, CRYSTAL EVANS, and COLLEEN FLANAGAN v. CITY OF BOSTON, Civil Action No. 21-11080-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard D. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts required class member William Norkunas to post an appeal bond of $44,433.25. I. Background On Nov. 2, 2021, the Court entered a final judgment and order approving a class action settlement that will provide extensive injunctive relief -- on an ambitious yet realistic schedule -- to individuals with mobility disabilities who have been denied equal access to the City of Boston's pedestrian right of way because of deficient or missing curb ramps. Class member Norkunas objected to the proposed settlement and now appeals the Court's decision to the First Circuit. Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to require Norkunas to post an appeal bond of $88,866.50 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, claiming that such a bond will secure some of the costs that the Plaintiffs will incur in defending Norkunas' appeal. II. Discussion The Plaintiffs argue that a Rule 7 bond is necessary to ensure that Norkunas will pay their costs, including their attorneys' fees, in defending against Norkunas' frivolous appeal. Norkunas counters that his appeal is not frivolous and suggests, without evidence, that the Plaintiffs' motion is an act of retaliation against him. Judge Stearns concurs with the Plaintiffs. He holds that any argument Norkunas seeks to advance on appeal will be frivolous. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a class member's objections to a proposed settlement must "state with specificity the grounds on which they are based." It follows then that an objector to a class action settlement is only "allowed to appeal that aspect of the district court's order that affects him -- the district court's decision to disregard his objections." Judge Stearns agrees with the Plaintiffs that both Norkunas' written objections and verbal statements at the Fairness Hearing failed to articulate any colorable arguments that would raise a recognizable basis for an appeal. Further, any arguments that Norkunas belatedly raised after the Fairness Hearing -- or, indeed, for the first time on appeal -- are not timely and thus are waived. Nevertheless, Judge Stearns concludes that the two issues Norkunas has signaled he is likely to appeal -- (1) the adequacy of the City's issuance of notice under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and (2) the Plaintiffs' Article III standing -- would be fruitless even if they had been properly preserved. Technical delays in a defendant's CAFA notice to state and federal officials are excusable so long as "the substance of the requirements have been satisfied insofar as giving those officials sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard." Substantial compliance in such cases has been achieved where final implementation of the class action settlement is held in abeyance to allow the defendant time to issue notice to the relevant state and federal officials. In the case, Judge Stearns finds that the Court granted the parties' request for a temporary suspension of the implementation of the consent decree so that the City could provide proper CAFA notice. The City sent notice to the necessary state and federal authorities on Nov. 19 and 22, 2021, respectively, and the Court's final order approving the settlement will be held in abeyance until the statutory 90-day period for objections passes. If this period passes without objection from state or federal agencies, the City will have substantially complied with its notice requirements as prescribed under CAFA. Mr. Norkunas's standing arguments -- namely, that the Plaintiffs did not properly allege injury and that they do not have standing under the ADA or Section 504 to seek injunctive relief because they did not encounter every sidewalk corner in the city -- are equally without merit. First, the Complaint, coupled with the named Plaintiffs' declarations, recounts numerous injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs because of the City's noncompliant curb ramp policy and details how this noncompliance harms the entire class. Second, there is no requirement that the named Plaintiffs must encounter every barrier challenged in an ADA class action suit to have standing. Having determined that a Rule 7 bond is necessary to ensure that Norkunas will reimburse the Plaintiffs for the cost of defending against his frivolous appeal, Judge Stearns now considers the bond amount sought by the Plaintiffs: $88,866.50. By balancing Norkunas' statements concerning his financial limitations with the Plaintiffs' anticipated financial burden in defending against a frivolous appeal, he concludes that half of the Plaintiffs' sought bond amount -- $44,433.25 -- is appropriate. III. Conclusion The Plaintiffs' motion to require posting of an appeal bond is granted in part. Norkunas has until Feb. 15, 2022, to post a bond in the amount of $44,433.25 to secure costs, including attorney's fees, that will be payable to the Plaintiffs should they prevail on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckpv4hc from Leagle.com. BOUTCHANTHARAJ CORP: Rattler-Bryceland Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Rattler-Bryceland and Phillip Randall Hampton on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Boutchantharaj Corp., d/b/a DFW Security Protective Force, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00106-R (W.D. Okla., Feb. 4, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to pay proper overtime wages. Ms. Rattler-Bryceland and Mr. Hampton, both individually named Representative Plaintiffs, are employed by the Defendant as unarmed security guard employees in the State of Oklahoma and had been employed by Defendant since 2016 to present and August 2018 to present, respectively. Boutchantharaj Corp., d/b/a DFW Security Protective Force, was founded in 2004. The company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George J. McCaffrey, Esq. MCCAFFREY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC P.O. Box 23865 Oklahoma City, OK 73123 Telephone: (405) 767-3300 Facsimile: (405) 767-3309 E-mail: George@McCaffreyLegal.com - and - Joseph H. Gillespie, Esq. GILLESPIE SANFORD LLP 4803 Gaston Ave. Dallas, TX 75246 Telephone: (214) 800-5111 Facsimile: (214) 838-0001 E-mail: joe@gillespiesanford.com BP EXPLORATION: Eastern District of Louisiana Dismisses Smith Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants BP's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the lawsuit styled WALLACE EDWARD SMITH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., et al., SECTION M (1), Case No. 19-12880 (E.D. La.). Before the Court is a motion by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co. (together, "BP") for summary judgment. The lawsuit is toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On Jan. 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). See Brown v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2019 WL 2995869, at *1 (E.D. La. July 9, 2019). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that permits certain class members, such as clean-up workers, who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions ("LMPC"). Mr. Smith was employed as a clean-up worker from April 2010 to September 2010. On Sept. 30, 2019, he filed this action pursuant to the MSA seeking compensation for his LMPC of prostate cancer, which was diagnosed on Sept. 26, 2016. On Oct. 12, 2021, Wallace's former counsel informed BP's counsel that Wallace was withdrawing his previously designated expert witnesses. Shortly thereafter, Wallace's counsel withdrew from the case and the Court stayed the proceedings for 60 days to allow Wallace time to find new counsel. Wallace did not obtain new counsel. In its motion for summary judgment, BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Johnson cannot offer expert testimony to prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Having withdrawn his experts, Smith cannot present the expert testimony required to prove his claim. Thus, BP is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. The motion was set for submission on Jan. 27, 2022. Local Rule 7.5 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was Jan. 19, 2022. Plaintiff Wallace Edward Smith, who is proceeding pro se, did not file an opposition. Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and it appears to the Court that the motion has merit, BP's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Smith's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jx6tvne from Leagle.com. BROOK FURNITURE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brook Furniture Rental, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brook Furniture Rental, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01109 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brook Furniture -- https://www.bfr.com/ -- is the premier provider of a complete offering of high-quality residential and commercial rental furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BROWN COUNTY: Weaver Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROWN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-SJD (S.D. Ohio, February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated home health aides overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Ms. Weaver was employed by the Defendant as a home health aide from April 2014 to January 2022. Brown County Senior Citizens Council is a home health agency based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com CANDID CARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Thomas FLSA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN THOMAS, v. CANDID CARE CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-05472-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacating the preliminary pretrial conference set for February 9, 2022, and adopting the following schedule: -- The parties shall exchange initial Feb. 11, 2022 disclosures by: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings March 1, 2022 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- The motion for conditional class March 1, 2022 certification under the Fair :Labor Standards Act (FLSA) shall be filed by: -- Discovery Procedures: All discovery shall be completed by 200 days after the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for conditional certification if the Motion is denied, or 275 days after the close of conditional certification notice period if the Motion is granted. Any proposed protective order or clawback agreement shall be filed with the Court by March 15, 2022. -- Dispositive Motions: Any dispositive motions shall be filed by 45 days after the close of discovery. -- Expert Reports: Primary expert reports must be produced by 90 days after the close of fact discovery. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by 60 days after primary expert reports are produced. If the expert is specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert is not specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. -- Settlement: The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by 30 days after receiving the necessary time and payroll data to make a settlement demand. Defendant shall respond within 30 days after the Plaintiff's demand is made. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The Plaintiff brings class and collective claims against Defendant for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Ohio law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not properly pay him and other employees for time spent performing work off the clock. The Defendant denies all of Plaintiff's material allegations and asserts the Defendant properly compensated the Plaintiff and other putative class and collective members for all hours worked. The Defendant also disputes that Representative Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated. There is a jury demand in this case. Candid Care manufactures dental equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gtU93x at no extra charge.[CC] CDR MAGUIRE: Filing for Rule 23 Class Certification Due Sept. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barker v. CDR Maguire Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01720 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order on motion for extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Sept. 23, 2022 Class Certification is due by: -- The Defendant's Motion to Sept. 23, 2022 Decertify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action is due by: The suit alleges violation of the FLSA involving denial of overtime compensation. CDR Maguire Inc. was founded in 1984. The company's line of business includes providing professional architectural services.[CC] CENTRAL YETEV: Filing for Conditional/Class Cert. Bids Due May 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corona Jurez, et al., v. Central Yetev Lev DSatmar Meat, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02633 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order setting deadlines / hearings as follows: -- The Plaintiffs may file any motion May 4, 2022 for conditional/class certification by: -- The Defendant may file any response June 4, 2022 by: -- The Plaintiffs may file any reply June 25, 2022 brief by: -- The deadline to complete depositions July 31, 2022 is: -- The deadline to complete all discovery Sept. 15, 2022 is extended to: -- The last date to take the first Oct. 15, 2022 step in dispositive motion practice is extended to: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] CHURCHILL CORPORATE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Churchill Corporate Services Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Churchill Corporate Services Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01110 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Churchill Corporate Services Inc., doing business as Churchill Living -- https://www.churchillliving.com/ -- operates as integrated relocation service provider and provides comfortable, modern, temporary housing solutions at an unsurpassed level of service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal COFFEE HOLDING: Indemnified Customer in Suit Over Coffee Volume --------------------------------------------------------------- Coffee Holding Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2022, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, that its significant customer was named by a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 2, 2021, concerning the labeling on private label coffee productions they sold to the customer. Coffee Holding Co. Inc. has not been served with the complaint. The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products from the company's customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label coffee products manufactured by the company which falsely described the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased. Coffee Holding Co. was not named as a defendant in the action, but has agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability the customer may suffer as a result. The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as well as other forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest. Coffee Holding Co. Inc. is an integrated wholesale coffee roaster and dealer in New York. COLLAGE.COM INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collage.com, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Collage.com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01089 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Collage.com -- https://www.collage.com/ -- makes custom photo products easy, with great deals and 50+ 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 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Young FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PATRICIA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2022-CA-0004, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00329-SCB-AEP to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by charging the Plaintiff and Class members a hospital emergency room visitation fee. Community Health Systems, Inc. is a provider of general hospital healthcare services, with its principal place of business in Tennessee. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mahlon H. Barlow, Esq. Joel R. Mohorter, Esq. SIVYER BARLOW WATSON & HAUGHEY, P.A. 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2225 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-4242 Facsimile: (813) 227-8598 E-mail: mbarlow@sbwhlegal.com jmohorter@sbwhlegal.com COSWAY BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosway Beauty Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cosway Beauty Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01099 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cosway Beauty Brands -- http://www.coswayco.com/-- is a leading beauty manufacturer overseeing NEUMA, Number 4 High Performance Hair Care and recently acquired, ColorProof.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com CR INTRINSIC: Court Grants SEC's Bid to Disburse Funds to Pay Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Security and Exchange Commission's Motion to Disburse Funds to Pay Fees and Expenses of Distribution Agent in the lawsuit entitled SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. CR INTRINSIC INVESTORS, LLC, MATTHEW MARTOMA, and DR. SIDNEY GILMAN, Defendants, And CR INTRINSIC INVESTMENTS, LLC, S.A.C. CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, S.A.C. CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, S.A.C. INTERNATIONAL EQUITIES, LLC, and S.AC. SELECT FUND, LLC, Relief Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-8466(VM) (S.D.N.Y.). The Clerk of the Court will issue a check on the Court Registry Investment System ("CRIS") account under the case name designation "SEC v. CR Intrinsic, et al." for the amount of $8,273.39 payable to "Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions" for the payment of fees and expenses of the Distribution Agent. The check will contain the notation "SEC v. CR Intrinsic, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-08466-VM, Invoices # 29315 and #29404. The Clerk will send the check by overnight mail to: Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions Dept. 0286 PO Box 120286 Dallas, TX 75312-0286 The Commission's counsel will provide the Clerk of the Court with the necessary overnight shipping information and the SEC's billing number. The Clerk of the Court will terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 285. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mcfus66p from Leagle.com. CVS PHARMACY: Surratt Files Mislabeling Suit Over Infant Formula ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Surratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00650 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2022) is a class action brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the State Consumer Fraud Acts. The lawsuit asserts breach of contract, breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells infant formula with iron to children between 9 and 18 months, identified as "Toddler Beginnings," under the CVS Health brand. Allegedly, the Defendant's Toddler Beginnings is advertised and marketed in a way that is similar and parallel to its Infant Formula, through common and parallel labeling formats, images, design, type size, fonts, claims, call-outs and graphics. The representations further give the incorrect impression that the Toddler Beginnings is what children should be fed in "next stage" beyond infancy. The identical names mislead caregivers by not telling them how the Product may differ from the Infant Formula. Moreover, the Product's labeling is misleading because it displays nutrition information via an infant formula panel, even though it is not intended or recommended for infants, the suit contends. CVS Pharmacy Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health supplement, and other medical products. CVS Pharmacy markets its products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com DASHING DIVA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dashing Diva Franchise Corp. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dashing Diva Franchise Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01100 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dashing Diva Franchise Corp. -- https://dashingdiva.com/ -- produces cutting-edge artificial nails, nail wraps, nail tattoos, fine gel polishes, and nail protection adhesives, to name a few.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com DAVIS & LANGDALE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Davis & Langdale Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Davis & Langdale Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01142 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Davis & Langdale Company, Inc. -- http://www.davisandlangdale.com/ -- is an art gallery specializing in 19th and 20th century American and British works.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Sues Over More Than 42% Drop of Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD R. WESTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements about DocuSign's business and operations with the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade DocuSign securities at artificially inflated prices between June 4, 2020 and December 2, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) much of DocuSign's accelerated growth in 2020 and early 2021 was attributable to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions rather than a sustainable shift in demand for the company's services; (2) demand for DocuSign's services was, in fact, waning as COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were being lifted; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the price of DocuSign common stock plummeted $98.73 per share, or more than 42 percent, from a close of $233.82 per share on December 2, 2021, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021. DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of electronic signatures services, with principal executive offices in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and – Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com bschwartz@ktmc.com ECHO GLOBAL: Cienega Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aris Cienega, et al., v. Echo Global Logistics, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting Echo Global's move to transfer the Cienega case to the Northern District of Illinois. Echo Global employed Aris Cienega and Zakeia Hampton as sales representatives. Cienega is a resident of Sacramento County and worked in Echo's Sacramento Office for two years. Hampton is a resident of Clark County, Nevada and worked in the Chicago office for about five months. Cienega and Hampton allege they "consistently worked more than 8 hours per day and more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation for all the hours they worked." They claim Echo had a policy of "depriving the plaintiffs of their earned overtime wages." They bring this action alleging Echo violated federal, California and Illinois law and "seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for [themselves] and similarly situated co-workers." They identify three classes and collectives: 1. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action claims, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of those who "worked for Echo as an exempt-classified Sales Representative nationwide since December 11, 2016." 2. California Class Allegations, brought on behalf of "all exempt-classified Sales Representatives who are or have been employed by Echo in the State of California at any time since December 11, 2015." 3. Illinois Class Allegations, brought on behalf of "all exempt-classified Sales Representatives who are or have been employed by Echo in the State of Illinois at any time since December 11, 2015." Echo Global provides technology-enabled business process outsourcing (BPO) for transportation and logistics. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J9RGrj at no extra charge.[CC] ENBRIDGE INC: Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 11 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHK Realty, LLC, et al., v. Enbridge, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00642 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff Expert Disclosures shall July 29, 2022 be made by: -- The Defendant Expert Disclosures Aug. 26, 2022 shall be made by: -- All Expert Discovery to be Sept. 30, 2022 completed by: -- The Plaintiffs Deadline to file Nov. 11, 2022 Class Certification Motion: -- The Defendants Deadline for Jan. 14, 2023 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: -- The Plaintiffs Deadline for Reply Jan. 28, 2023 in Support of Class Certification Motion: Enbridge is a multinational pipeline company headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The nature of suit states real property -- torts to land.[CC] ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Parties in "Linde" Seek to Amend Sched Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA LINDE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORP., EMCARE HOLDINGS, INC., and KANSAS EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02661-HLT-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the Phase I Amended Scheduling Order and extending the foregoing deadlines by 30 days such that the new deadlines would be as follows: -- a. Conditional certification and March 16, 2022 class certification motion shall be filed by: -- b. Response to motion for April 15, 2022 conditional and class certification shall be filed by: -- c. Reply in support of conditional May 6, 2022 and class certification shall be filed by: -- d. Mediation notice or confidential March 16, 2022 settlement reports shall be jointly filed by: -- e. Mediation shall be completed by: May 30, 2022 Envision Healthcare is an American healthcare company and national hospital-based physician group. EmCare is an American provider of physician practice management services for emergency departments, inpatient physician services or hospitals, acute care surgery, trauma and general surgery, women's and children's services, radiology / teleradiology programs and anesthesiology services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HCSGEe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Frankie J. Forbes, Esq. FORBES LAW GROUP, LLC 6900 College Boulevard, Suite 840 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 341-8600 Facsimile: (913) 341-8606 E-mail: fforbes@forbeslawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert Chipman, Esq. Denise E. Giraudo, Esq. Jenna N. Mennona, Esq. Brian Murphy, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 228-3724 Facsimile: (310) 228-3977 E-mail: bchipman@sheppardmullin.com dgiraudo@sheppardmullin.com jmennona@sheppardmullin.com bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com EQT CORP: Third Circuit Grants Petition to Appeal in Laudato Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit grants EQT's petition to appeal in the lawsuit entitled DOMENIC LAUDATO, JR. v. EQT CORPORATION; EQUITRANS, L.P.; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; EQM MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., Petitioners, Case No. 21-8047 (3d Cir.). Before the Court is the Petition to Appeal Under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by EQT Corp., Equitrans, L.P., EQT Production Co., and EQM Midstream Partners, L.P. (collectively, "EQT"). I. On July 30, 2018, roughly 100 Pennsylvania landowners filed a class-action complaint against EQT alleging that EQT has been storing natural gas in six separate storage fields, thereby, utilizing the landowners' underground pore space without providing them due compensation. The complaint alleged that EQT injects natural gas into naturally occurring geologic formations consisting of porous and permeable rock on the Plaintiffs' properties when demand is low and withdraws it when demand is high. In May 2020, all landowners except for Domenic Laudato, Jr., voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. And in February 2021, Laudato moved for class certification, seeking approval of a class defined as: All persons and/or entities that own and/or owned real property--and/or natural gas storage rights to real property--located within the certificated boundaries of one or more of the Gas Storage Fields for any period of time not before Defendants' inception of the respective gas storage field, but to whom Defendants have and had failed to compensate for natural gas storage rights within the respective field(s) for the entirety of time of real property or natural gas rights ownership. The District Court agreed with Laudato that it would seem in everyone's best interests to resolve this case on a class basis, and declared that class certification will be granted, with instructions, Order at 1, Asbury v. EQT Corp., No. 2:18-cv-01005-CB (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2021). But it rejected Laudato's proposed class definition, thereby, refusing to grant other downstream requests, such as appointment as class representative, appointment of class counsel, and certain issues' certification. The District Court then directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the establishment of an appropriate class definition. The instant Petition followed. II. The District Court exercised federal-question jurisdiction over claims under the Natural Gas Act, as codified at 15 U.S.C. Sections 717-17z, and supplemental jurisdiction over other, related claims. The District Court's order is not a final order, so any exercise by this Court of jurisdiction over an appeal would be founded in 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(e), through the invocation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), says Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, writing for the Panel. Rule 23(f) permits appeals "from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule, but not from an order under Rule 23(e)(1)." If the District Court's order is not countenanced by Rule 23(f) nor by any other rule, this Court would lack interlocutory jurisdiction. Mr. Laudato argues that the Petition should be denied because this Court would not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the District Court's order, which--he argues--is not a Rule 23 grant or denial of class-action certification. According to Laudato, a plain text reading of the District Court's order in this matter reveals that it falls well short of an appealable certification order under Rule 23(f). But if the order granted class-action certification, Judge Smith holds that the Court will not shield it from review just because it "falls well short of" the requirements of such an order. Here, the order clearly stated a grant of class certification. For example, Judge Smith explains, Laudato focuses on the "preliminary" nature of the District Court's order and places significant weight on such language: it will grant certification; an ultimate class-certification order is forthcoming; etc. Despite the forward-looking language, however, the District Court plainly contemplated that any subsequent certification order would be limited to merely redefining the class. And to the extent Laudato tries to reframe the order as simple case management--directing the parties to meet and confer--the District Court also made clear that the order contained its final word on certification itself, leaving only the action of summarily adopting whatever reasonable proposal might arise from the parties' conference. Accordingly, Judge Smith holds that the order clearly implicates Rule 23(f) and the Court can properly exercise its jurisdiction. III. Next, the Court turns to the standard for permitting a Rule 23(f) appeal. Rule 23(f) states only that a court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but not from an order under Rule 23(e)(1). The Committee Notes from Rule 23's 1998 amendment describe this permission as granting something akin to the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in acting on a petition for certiorari and as giving courts of appeals "unfettered discretion. Despite the Rules Committee's descriptions of the breadth of discretion accorded by Rule 23(f), Laudato argues that the permission must be construed narrowly as an exception to the final-judgment rule, citing this Court's opinion in Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 562 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2009). But Liberty Lincoln concerned an attempted end-around the final judgment rule through exercise of pendant jurisdiction over a partial summary judgment order alongside a preliminary injunction, not class-action certification, Judge Smith holds. Regardless, Laudato would have this Court limit its discretion to only those "rare" cases that justify taking jurisdiction in interlocutory appeals. Contrary to the more limited approaches some other circuits utilize, the Court exercises its "very broad discretion" using a more liberal standard, Judge Smith notes, citing Rodriguez v. Nat'l City Bank, 726 F.3d 372, 376-77 (3d Cir. 2013). EQT argues that the Court should allow the appeal for three reasons. First, review is necessary to correct the district court's manifest and fundamental errors at this pivotal moment in this putative class action. Second, review will enable the Court to re-emphasize the need for a rigorous analysis of all of the Rule 23 requirements based on the legal elements of the claims and the parties' evidence, and clarify that conditional certification of an undefined class pending the parties' joint formulation of a satisfactory class definition is improper. And third, the usual pressure to settle inherent in a grant of class certification is magnified here by the court's avowed effort to leverage certification to drive Defendants to settle. The Court agrees with EQT that interlocutory review is appropriate. Contrary to Laudato's assertion, a class-action-certification order that leaves unresolved a crucial element--the class definition--is no less likely to exert substantial pressure on a defendant to settle than a standard class-action-certification order. Further, an appeal would present the Court with an opportunity to facilitate development of the law on class certification. Because of the apparent pressure the purported certification places on EQT to settle and the Court's opportunity to facilitate development of the law on class certification, review of the District Court's order is appropriate under Rodriguez, Judge Smith holds. IV. For these reasons, the Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Rule 23(f) will be granted. Any such appeal shall be retained by this panel. After docketing the appeal, the Clerk will issue an order advising the parties that the Court is considering summary action. The parties will be given an opportunity to file arguments in support of or in opposition to summary action. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rf9ap9m from Leagle.com. Lucas Liben -- lliben@reedsmith.com -- Devin M. Misour -- dmisour@reedsmith.com -- Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Colin E. Wrabley -- cwrabley@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Counsel for the Petitioners. Jordan H. Walker -- jordan@landownerattorneys.com -- Sever Storey, 881 Third Avenue, Southwest, Suite 101, in Carmel, Indiana 46032, Counsel for the Respondent. EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Ghazaryan Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUSINE GHAZARYAN, as an individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL, an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05658-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class/collective(s): -- National Class "All persons and entities within the United States who purchased or will purchase products from Crate & Barrel, on or after Defendant placed the products into the stream of commerce;" and -- California Subclass "All persons and entities who purchased or will purchase products from Crate & Barrel in California, on or after the date Defendant placed the products into the stream of commerce;" 2. appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the Class; and 3. appointing following firm as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): The Margarian Law Firm. According to the complaint, the Defendant Crate & Barrel engages in a scheme to defraud its customers by perpetually discounting merchandise sold in its store and on its website. Crate & Barrel constantly advertises the merchandise by attaching a price tag to the time with a false reference price and a corresponding sale price immediately following the reference price. The suggested retail price indicates to the consumer that the reference price is a former price of the item that is now being offered at a substantial discount. The reference price conveys to the customer the purported regular price or former price of the item. The sale price conveys to the customer a deeply discounted price at which the item is presently being offered for sale. Plaintiff's investigation of Crate & Barrel revealed that the merchandise sold at Crate & Barrel bears a price tag with a false reference price and a substantially discounted sale price printed directly beneath the "crossed out" reference price. The Plaintiff's investigation confirmed that the product Ghazaryan purchased, the Breville Barista Express Espresso Machine, was priced with a false reference price and corresponding discounted price in the 90-day period immediately preceding Plaintiff's purchase. Euromarket, doing business as Crate & Barrel, provides household consumer products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rJtbeZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. Armen Margarian, Esq. Shushanik Margarian, Esq. THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com armen@margarianlaw.com shushanik@margarianlaw.com FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Security Guards, Rodriguez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL VIDAL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20398 (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security guard from November 2017 through January 24, 2022. Florida International Enterprises LLC is a provider of freight forwarding services doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 361-8383 E-mail: Danielfeld.esq@gmail.com - and – Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650 Miami, FL 331624 Telephone: (305) 773-6662 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com FPA VILLA: Wins Summary Judgment vs Lawrence -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FPA VILLA DEL LAGO, LLC, and TRINITY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. e 8:20-cv-01517-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez-Covington entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants FPA Villa Del Lago and Trinity Property Consultants' motion for summary judgment; 2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 3. denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend scheduling order; 4. directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff Justin Lawrence as to all claims in the third amended complaint; and 5. directing the Clerk to terminate any deadlines, deny any outstanding motions as moot, and close the case. The Court said, "Having found summary judgment appropriate on each of Plaintiff's claims, the Court need not address the issue of class certification. District courts have discretion to consider the merits of a case before deciding whether to certify a class. See Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC., 341 F. Supp. 3d 1305, 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (declining to rule on plaintiff's motion for class certification after finding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on all claims). And where the underlying claims lack merit, the district court is within its discretion to deny a motion for class certification as moot. See Telfair v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 216 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir.2000) ("With no meritorious claims, certification of those claims as a class action is moot. Because we agree with the bankruptcy and district courts' disposition of the merits of Telfair's claims, we also affirm the denial of the motion for class.") Thus, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot." FPA Villa Del Lago "owns and operates The Social 2700, a private student housing community in Tallahassee, Florida." Trinity Property manages The Social 2700. The Social 2700 offers two- and four-bedroom apartments. On April 27, 2019, Lawrence -- a student at Tallahassee Community College -- signed a lease at The Social 2700. The lease agreement includes various provisions related to termination of the lease and the use of amenities. Of note, the lease agreement provides that Lawrence would not be released from his rental payment obligations for voluntarily or involuntarily leaving school, that Lawrence would be obligated to continue to pay all rent if he moved out early and until his apartment was re-leased, and that The Social 2700 maintains the discretion to close its amenities. Lawrence's lease term was set to run from August 20, 2019, through July 31, 2020. In March 2020, "Lawrence returned home to his mother's apartment in Tampa, Florida, for spring break." Because of the rapid spread of COVID-19, Lawrence then decided that he would not return to The Social 2700. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34JjpAs at no extra charge.[CC] FREELAND ENTERPRISES: Scott Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Scott, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freeland Enterprises, Inc., Dick Freeland, Deanna Freeland, Todd Hollman, Tyler Freeland, John Doe Corporation 1-10, John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00043 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 4, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana law by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. Mr. Scott worked as a delivery driver at Defendants' Pizza Hut store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from September 2019 to August 2021. Freeland Enterprises, Inc. operates Pizza Hut Pizza franchises in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Misch, Esq. Myra R. Reid, Esq. ANDERSON, AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C. 131 South Taylor South Bend, IN 46601 Telephone: (574) 288-1510 Facsimile: (574) 288-1650 GENWORTH LIFE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McMillan v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00091 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order on motion for extension of time. -- Motion for Class Certification is June 27, 2022 to be filed by: -- Response is due by: Aug. 29, 2022 -- Reply is due by: Oct. 28, 2022. The nature of suit states contract – insurance. Genworth is a stock life insurance company.[CC] GEORGIA: King, et al., Seek to Certify Prompt Appeal Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VON KING, DANIELLE JOHNSON, CHELSEA SHAW, JOY FLOWERS, SUSAN KOLYNO, JACQUELINE PERKINS, ARTHUR WILLIAMS, and JANE/JOHN DOE 1-9, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and COMMISSIONER MARK BUTLER, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-03082-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs Von King, Jacqueline Perkins, Joy Flowers and Does 7-9 ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Prompt Appeal Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), defined as follows: "All individuals who (a) have been partially or totally unemployed between March 1, 2020, and the present; (b) have applied for unemployment benefits distributed by the Georgia Department of Labor; (c) received an initial determination that they were ineligible; (d) filed a timely appeal; (e) did not receive an appellate hearing and determination within four weeks of their initial determination; and (f) are still awaiting a hearing or determination." The Georgia Department of Labor is an administrative agency of the U.S. state of Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B8oG0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason J. Carter, Esq. Juliana Mesa, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 - and - Emily C.R. Early, Esq. Miriam F. Gutman, Esq. THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031-1287 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 GIB'S DISTRIBUTION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gib's Distribution LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gib's Distribution LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01102-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gibs Distribution LLC offers personal grooming products for men, namely, cosmetic hair and skin care preparations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com GLOBAL PIPELINE: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL GUERRERO, ALONSO DE SANTIAGO, ADAN SANDOVAL, JULIO BOCARDO MARTINEZ, JOSE ENRIQUE ZAMORA ESPINOZA, ANTONIO GUERRERO, and DANIEL SANCHEZ LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL PIPELINE, LLC and VINCENT GARZA, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00021 (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as laborers from November 3, 2021 until December 3, 2021. Global Pipeline, LLC is a design, construction, and commissioning oil and gas pipeline provider doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net GM NAMEPLATE: Faces Ochoa Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL R. OCHOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GM NAMEPLATE, INC.; RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BRUCE CLECKLEY, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV394147 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from early May of 2021 until late May of 2021. GM Nameplate, Inc. is a manufacturer specializing in the custom design and manufacture of product identification components, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Randstad North America, Inc. is an engineering services company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Sara Keane, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com skeane@tomorrowlaw.com GREAT AIR: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Air, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Great Air, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01088 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Great Air, Inc. -- http://greatair.com.au/-- offers heating and air conditioning services.[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 GUNS DOT COM: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guns Dot Com, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Guns Dot Com, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01087 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guns.com -- https://www.guns.com/ -- is the easiest place to buy firearms online.[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 HABERMAASS CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habermaass Corporation, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Habermaass Corporation, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01091 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Habermaass -- http://www.habausa.com/-- offer phenomenal collections of kid's toys online that encourage early development, promote learning, and stimulate imaginations.[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 IBM CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Estle Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ESTLE, MARGARET AHLDERS, LANCE SALONIA, CHERYL WITMER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-3372 (2d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the district court's judgment granting IBM's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs are former IBM employees, who entered into severance agreements in which they agreed not to join any collective actions against IBM asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 621-634. The Plaintiffs sued IBM to challenge the validity of those collective-action waivers, arguing that they were not "knowing and voluntary" because IBM failed to make certain disclosures to them as required for the waiver of "any right or claim" under the ADEA. The district court (Gardephe, J.) granted IBM's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the Plaintiffs appealed. I. Background In May 2016, Defendant IBM terminated Plaintiffs Steven Estle, Margaret Ahlders, Lance Salonia, and Cheryl Witmer, all of whom were 56 or 57 years old at the time, as part of a reduction in force. IBM offered a severance package to the Plaintiffs that included a lump-sum payment equal to one month's salary, six to twelve months of health and life insurance coverage, career counseling services, and reimbursement for job-related skills training. In exchange, each Plaintiff agreed to sign a separation agreement containing a collective-action waiver. Each Plaintiff signed the separation agreement. The Plaintiffs sued IBM in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the collective-action waiver in the separation agreement is invalid under the ADEA and an injunction barring IBM from enforcing the waiver against the Plaintiffs. IBM moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the district court granted the motion. The district court relied on 14 Penn Plaza to conclude that--"for purposes of Section 626(f)--'right' means a 'substantive right'" and, because it determined that "the right to bring a collective action is not a substantive right," the district court held that the "Plaintiffs' collective action waiver does not waive a 'right' for purposes of Section 626(f). The Plaintiffs timely appealed. II. Discussion The ADEA generally prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an employee's age. In 1990, Congress amended the ADEA by passing the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), which provides that an individual may not waive any right or claim under the ADEA unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. And if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the employer must provide certain information to the individual for the waiver to be "knowing and voluntary." Specifically, this information consists of: (i) any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by such program, any eligibility factors for such program, and any time limits applicable to such program; and (ii) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program. IBM did not provide the Plaintiffs with this information before they signed the separation agreement containing the collective-action waiver. That waiver is enforceable, then, only if "any right or claim" in Section 626(f)(1) does not include the ability to initiate or participate in collective actions under the ADEA, Circuit Judge Michael Hun Park states. The Panel's analysis in the case flows directly from the Supreme Court's decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009). The issue there was "whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the [ADEA] is enforceable." The Court held that it was. Judge Park holds that the result in this case is governed by 14 Penn Plaza: The phrase "right or claim" as used in Section 626(f)(1) is limited to substantive rights and does not include procedural ones. And collective action, like arbitration, is a procedural mechanism, not a substantive right. A collective-action waiver is, thus, not a waiver of any "right or claim" under the ADEA that triggers the requirements of 29 U.S.C. Section 626(f)(1), Judge Park opines. The Plaintiffs may still bring ADEA age discrimination claims individually, and the fact that they may not pursue them as collective actions does not mean that they have waived the substantive rights or claims themselves. The Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 626(f)(1) in 14 Penn Plaza is nonbinding dicta. The Court of Appeals disagrees. For one, the Court's interpretation of Section 626(f)(1) was essential to distinguishing its holding in 14 Penn Plaza from its earlier, incorrect dicta in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974). Further, the Court's determination that the requirements of Section 626(f)(1) did not apply to waivers of procedural rights was necessary to its conclusion that a collective bargaining agreement's prospective waiver of union members' right to bring ADEA claims in court is enforceable. If the "knowing and voluntary" waiver requirements applied to both substantive and procedural rights, the union-negotiated arbitration agreement would have been unenforceable because it was not made by the individual and it was prospective, Judge Park opines. The Court of Appeals sees no reason to deviate from the Court's unambiguous interpretation of Section 626(f)(1), which is consistent with the decision of every court of appeals to consider the issue. Finally, the Court of Appeals is unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments. The Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of "any right or claim" in Section 626(f)(1) is not limited to "substantive" rights and must include collective action, which the ADEA "explicitly identifies" as a right. The Plaintiffs' argument based on the ADEA's apparent endorsement of a right to collective action is unpersuasive, Judge Park holds. After all, the ADEA also identifies a right to a jury trial. Nevertheless, the Court in 14 Penn Plaza construed "right or claim" in Section 626(f)(1) as referring to substantive rights and concluded that they did not include the right to a judicial forum and, hence, did not include a right to a jury trial. To the extent that the ADEA also identifies a collective-action right, the Plaintiffs fail to explain why it should be treated differently from the right to a jury trial, Judge Park points out. The Plaintiffs' appeal to legislative purpose is likewise unavailing, Judge Park finds. The Plaintiffs have pointed to nothing in the legislative history showing a clear intention of Congress that would support a result other than the one reached here. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth, the district court's judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hcpm9ra from Leagle.com. DAVID G. WEBBERT, Johnson, Webbert & Garvan, LLP, in Augusta, Maine (Carol J. Garvan, Shelby Leighton, Johnson, Webbert & Garvan, LLP, in Augusta, Maine; Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Shaylyn Cochran -- scochran@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Neil Young -- jyoung@solidarity.law -- Solidarity Law, in Cumberland, Maine, on the brief), for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. MATTHEW W. LAMPE -- mwlampe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, in New York City (Traci L. Lovitt -- tlovitt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day , in New York City; Alison B. Marshall -- abmarshall@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, in Washington, D.C., on the brief), for the Defendant-Appellee. INSPIRED BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspired Beauty Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inspired Beauty Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01098 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Inspired Beauty Brands, Inc. -- https://www.inspiredbeauty.com/ -- is a beauty product supplier in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com IT'S A NEW 10: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against It's a New 10, LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. It's a New 10, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01103 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It's a New 10 -- https://itsa10haircare.com/ -- is dedicated to providing high-quality, luxury hair care products for every hair type.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com ITRIA VENTURES: InvenTel.tv Sues Over Misrepresentation of Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- INVENTEL.TV LLC and YASIR ABDUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ITRIA VENTURES LLC, BIZ2CREDIT INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01059 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, civil usury, criminal usury, violation of New York General Business Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, extortion, theft by false pretenses, breach of contract, unfair business practices. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful business practice of fraudulently misrepresenting loans as financing agreements. The Defendants often advertise and market such loans to their customers as future receivables purchases that the customers only need to pay back to Itria from a percentage of future receivables, and importantly, if there are insufficient future receivables the funds do not need to be paid back. However, Itria actually assumes no such risk and deems all funds loaned to be due and payable under all conditions, without respect to the amount of future receivables along with criminally usurious interest rates. As a result of the Defendants' pattern of racketeering activity, the Plaintiffs and Class members of sustained damages, says the suit. InvenTel.tv LLC is a direct response television marketing company, with a principal place of business at 200 Forge Way, Unit 1, Rockaway, New Jersey. Itria Ventures LLC is a provider of financial services, with a principal place of business at One Penn Plaza, Suite 4530, New York, New York. Biz2Credit Inc. is a provider of financial services, with a principal place of business at One Penn Plaza, Suite 4530, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Lubin, Esq. INVENTEL.TV 200 Forge Way, Unit 1 Rockaway, NJ 07866 Tel: (973) 531-4423 Email: jeff@inventel.tv JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Deal With ANZ Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification for Purposes of Class Action Settlement with Defendant Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. The action comes before the Court on the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion and on the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. ("ANZ") dated Dec. 10, 2021, entered into by the Representative Plaintiffs and ANZ in the Action. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, Settlement Agreement, and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against ANZ upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He has read and considered the Stipulation and the attached exhibits and finds that the Motion should be granted. In the Action only and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court: (i) has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs and ANZ, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction over the Action to consider the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits thereto. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in the Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel to such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. He also appoints Citibank N.A as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He preliminarily approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS") will serve as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. The timing, plan, and Rims of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the Unless, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. At a later date, the Class Counsel will submit for the Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Funds. The civil action was commenced after Feb. 18, 2005. Judge Kaplan directs ANZ to notify the appropriate Federal and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 ("CAFA"). The counsel for ANZ shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with CAFA. All proceedings in the Action as to ANZ, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. Pending determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Representative Plaintiffs, the Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. Judge Kaplan orders ANZ to produce documents to the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u3kj2k3 from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Deal With CBA Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification for Purposes of Class Action Settlement with Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The action comes before the Court on the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion and on the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("CBA") dated Dec. 10, 2021, entered into by the Representative Plaintiffs and CBA in the Action. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, Settlement Agreement, and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against CBA upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He has read and considered the Stipulation and the attached exhibits and finds that the Motion should be granted. In the Action only and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court: (i) has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs and CBA, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction over the Action to consider the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits thereto. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in the Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel to such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. He also appoints Citibank N.A as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He preliminarily approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS") will serve as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. The timing, plan, and Rims of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the Unless, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. At a later date, the Class Counsel will submit for the Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Funds. The civil action was commenced after Feb. 18, 2005. Judge Kaplan directs CBA to notify the appropriate Federal and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 ("CAFA"). The counsel for CBA will, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with CAFA. All proceedings in the Action as to CBA, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. Pending determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Representative Plaintiffs, the Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. Judge Kaplan orders CBA to produce documents to the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rwukxa62 from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under Morgan Deal Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification for Purposes of Class Action Settlement with Defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Australia Limited, collectively, "Morgan Stanley." The parties to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Morgan Stanley dated Oct. 1, 2021 entered into by Representative Plaintiffs and Morgan Stanley in the Action. The parties have previously applied for an order conditionally certifying a Settlement Class as to Morgan Stanley Settlement on Dec. 10, 2021. The parties have executed an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement dated Jan. 13, 2022. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, the Settlement Agreement and attached exhibits, and the Amendment and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against Morgan Stanley upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He finds that the Motion should be granted. In the Action only and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court: (i) has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs and Morgan Stanley, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction over the Action to consider the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits thereto. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in the Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel to such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. He also appoints Citibank N.A as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He preliminarily approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS") will serve as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. The timing, plan, and Rims of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the Unless, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. At a later date, the Class Counsel will submit for the Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Funds. The civil action was commenced after Feb. 18, 2005. Judge Kaplan directs Morgan Stanley to notify the appropriate Federal and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 ("CAFA"). The counsel for Morgan Stanley shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with CAFA. All proceedings in the Action as to Morgan Stanley, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. Pending determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Representative Plaintiffs, the Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. Judge Kaplan orders Morgan Stanley to produce documents to the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ef3xvwm from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class in Dennis Suit Under NAB Accord Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL, AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Conditional Class Certification for the purposes of class action settlement with Defendant National Australia Bank Limited. The action comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion and on the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant NAB dated Dec. 10, 2021, entered into by Representative the Plaintiffs and NAB in the Action. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, Settlement Agreement, and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against NAB upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He finds that the Motion should be granted. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in thes Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel to such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. He also appoints Citibank N.A as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He preliminarily approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS") will serve as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. The timing, plan, and Rims of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the Unless, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. At a later date, the Class Counsel will submit for the Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Funds. The civil action was commenced after Feb. 18, 2005. Judge Kaplan directs NAB to notify the appropriate Federal and State officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 ("CAFA"). The counsel for NAB shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with CAFA. All proceedings in the Action as to NAB, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. Pending determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Representative Plaintiffs, the Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. Judge Kaplan orders NAB to produce documents to the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zt46b7u from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice of Dennis Settlement With Westpac OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE, GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendant Westpac Banking Corp. Except for the terms expressly defined therein, Judge Kaplan adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Westpac dated March 1, 2021, as amended on Jan. 13, 2022 (Exhibit 6 to the Joint Declaration of Vincent Briganti and Christopher McGrath, dated Jan. 13, 2022). A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on Oct. 13, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice, which is ordered therein, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator for purposes of the Settlement. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the following: (a) Westpac's and any other Settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be provided by) Westpac and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non-settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; (c) market participants that provided names of counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of the entry of the Order. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to be published a publication notice, without material variation from Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com; and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline. The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described. On July 15, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is filed with the Court. On July 1, 2022 the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in the Order. Any Settlement Class Member that has not requested exclusion and that objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of any term or aspect of the Settlement, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, or who otherwise wishes to he heard or intervene, may appear in person or by his or her attorney at the Fairness Hearing to present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class Counsel and Westpac's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely submitted a valid Request for Exclusion are not Settlement Class Members and arc not entitled to object. All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven business days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, Westpac's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and Westpac's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become available. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice not later than Aug. 15, 2022. The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery, including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits any Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and Westpac's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion (including all documents submitted with such requests), and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later than two business days after receipt. At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list with the Court. All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the mailed notice and must he postmarked no later than 75 days after the Fairness Hearing (Dec. 30, 2022). The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement with any other settlements that may be reached. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3v4jvp from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice of Dennis-Morgan Stanley Deal OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE, BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE, GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Australia Limited. Except for the terms expressly defined therein, Judge Kaplan adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Morgan Stanley dated Oct. 1, 2021, as amended on Jan. 13, 2022 (Exhibit 6 to the Joint Declaration of Vincent Briganti and Christopher McGrath, dated Jan. 13, 2022). A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on Oct. 13, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice, which is ordered therein, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator for purposes of the Settlement. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the following: (a) Morgan Stanley's and any other Settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be provided by) Morgan Stanley and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non-settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; (c) market participants that provided names of counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of the entry of the Order. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to be published a publication notice, without material variation from Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com; and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline. The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described. On July 15, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is filed with the Court. On July 1, 2022 the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in the Order. Any Settlement Class Member that has not requested exclusion and that objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of any term or aspect of the Settlement, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, or who otherwise wishes to he heard or intervene, may appear in person or by his or her attorney at the Fairness Hearing to present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class Counsel and Morgan Stanley's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely submitted a valid Request for Exclusion arc not Settlement Class Members and arc not entitled to object. All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven business days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, Morgan Stanley's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and Morgan Stanley's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become available. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice not later than Aug. 15, 2022. The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery, including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits any Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and Morgan Stanley's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion (including all documents submitted with such requests), and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later than two business days after receipt. At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list with the Court. All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the mailed notice and must he postmarked no later than 75 days after the Fairness Hearing (Dec. 30, 2022). The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement with any other settlements that may be reached. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5h4c8p3n from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice Plan of Dennis Deal With CBA Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendant Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Except for the terms expressly defined therein, Judge Kaplan adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with CBA dated Dec. 10, 2021. A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on Oct. 15, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice, which is ordered therein, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator for purposes of the Settlement. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the following: (a) CBA's and any other Settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be provided by) CBA and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non-settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; (c) market participants that provided names of counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of the entry of the Order. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to be published a publication notice, without material variation from Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com; and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline. The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described. On July 15, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is filed with the Court. On July 1, 2022 the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in the Order. Any Settlement Class Member that has not requested exclusion and that objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of any term or aspect of the Settlement, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, or who otherwise wishes to he heard or intervene, may appear in person or by his or her attorney at the Fairness Hearing to present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class Counsel and CBA's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely submitted a valid Request for Exclusion arc not Settlement Class Members and are not entitled to object. All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven business days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, CBA's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and CBA's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become available. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice not later than Aug. 15, 2022. The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery, including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits any Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and CBA's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion (including all documents submitted with such requests), and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later than two business days after receipt. At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list with the Court. All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the mailed notice and must he postmarked no later than Dec. 30, 2022. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement with any other settlements that may be reached. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytmwb3f6 from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Notice Plan of Dennis Deal With NAB Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendant National Australia Bank Limited. Except for the terms expressly defined therein, Judge Kaplan adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with NAB dated Dec. 10, 2021. A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on Oct. 13, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice, which is ordered therein, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator for purposes of the Settlement. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the following: (a) NAB's and any other Settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be provided by) NAB and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non-settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; (c) market participants that provided names of counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of the entry of the Order. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to be published a publication notice, without material variation from Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com; and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline. The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described. On July 15, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is filed with the Court. On July 1, 2022 the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in the Order. Any Settlement Class Member that has not requested exclusion and that objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of any term or aspect of the Settlement, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, or who otherwise wishes to he heard or intervene, may appear in person or by his or her attorney at the Fairness Hearing to present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class Counsel and NAB's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely submitted a valid Request for Exclusion arc not Settlement Class Members and are not entitled to object. All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven business days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, NAB's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and NAB's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become available. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice not later than Aug. 15, 2022. The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery, including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits any Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and NAB's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion (including all documents submitted with such requests), and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later than two business days after receipt. At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list with the Court. All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the mailed notice and must he postmarked no later than Dec. 30, 2022. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement with any other settlements that may be reached. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p99nwbj from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Accepts Class Notice Plan for Dennis-ANZ Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendant Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. Except for the terms expressly defined therein, Judge Kaplan adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with ANZ dated Dec. 10, 2021. A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on Oct. 13, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice, which is ordered therein, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator for purposes of the Settlement. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the following: (a) ANZ's and any other Settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be provided by) ANZ and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non-settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; (c) market participants that provided names of counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to the Order; and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of the entry of the Order. On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to be published a publication notice, without material variation from Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com; and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline. The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described. On July 15, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is filed with the Court. On July 1, 2022 the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in the Order. Any Settlement Class Member that has not requested exclusion and that objects to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of any term or aspect of the Settlement, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, or who otherwise wishes to he heard or intervene, may appear in person or by his or her attorney at the Fairness Hearing to present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class Counsel and ANZ's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely submitted a valid Request for Exclusion arc not Settlement Class Members and are not entitled to object. All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven business days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, ANZ's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and ANZ's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become available. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice not later than Aug. 15, 2022. The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery, including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits any Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and ANZ's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion (including all documents submitted with such requests), and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later than two business days after receipt. At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list with the Court. All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the mailed notice and must he postmarked no later than Dec. 30, 2022. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2022. The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement with any other settlements that may be reached. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29j3sh7y from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: March 2021 Order on Dennis-JPMorgan Deal Amended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order amending the March 2021 Order and for an Order Issuing Class Notice of Proposed Settlement. The parties to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan") dated Nov. 20, 2018 entered into by the Representative Plaintiffs and JPMorgan in the action, have previously applied for an order conditionally certifying a Settlement Class. The Court has previously issued an order on Nov. 28, 2018 conditionally certifying a Settlement Class. The Representative Plaintiffs and JPMorgan have executed an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and have previously applied for a superseding order conditionally certifying a Settlement. The Court has previously issued a superseding order on March 30, 2021 conditionally certifying a Settlement Class. The Parties have executed a Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement, dated Jan. 13, 2022. The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for an Order Amending the March 2021 Order and for an Order Issuing Class Notice of Proposed Settlement. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, the Settlement Agreement and attached exhibits, the Amendment and attached exhibits, and the Second Amendment and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against JPMorgan upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He finds that the Motion is due to be granted. His present Order supersedes the March 2021 Order. In the Action only and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court: (i) has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs and JPMorgan and all the Settlement Class Members, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction over the Action to consider the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits attached thereto. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in the Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel. He also appointed Citibank, N.A. as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Judge Kaplan further appoints Representative Plaintiffs Richard Dennis, Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., FrontPoint Financial Services Fund, L.P., FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, L.P., FrontPoint Financial Horizons Fund, L.P., and Fund Liquidation Holdings, LLC, and any subsequently named Plaintiff(s), including Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS"), as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. All proceedings in the Action as to JPMorgan, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. If the Settlement is approved by the Court following the Fairness Hearing, a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment will be entered as described in the Settlement Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, vacated, not approved, or the Effective Date fails to occur for any reason, then the Parties will be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of June 5, 2018 and the Settlement Amount, and all interest earned in the Settlement Fund on that Settlement Amount, will be refunded, reimbursed, and repaid to JPMorgan to the extent provided in the Settlement Agreement. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. The counsel for JPMorgan shall, at or before the hearing set to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the Settlement and final approval of the Settlement, file with the Court proof of compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Superseding Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrzdwjx from Leagle.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: March 2021 Order on Dennis-Westpac Deal Amended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order amending the March 2021 Order and for an Order Issuing Class Notice of Proposed Settlement. The parties to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant Westpac Banking Corp. dated March 1, 2021 entered into by the Representative Plaintiffs and Westpac in the action, have previously applied for an order conditionally certifying a Settlement Class. The Court has previously issued an order on March 30, 2021 conditionally certifying a Settlement Class. The Representative Plaintiffs and Westpac have executed an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement dated Jan. 13, 2022. The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for an Order amending the March 2021 Order and for an Order Issuing Class Notice of Proposed Settlement. Judge Kaplan has reviewed the Motion, the Settlement Agreement and attached exhibits, and the Amendment and attached exhibits, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against Westpac upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. He finds that the Motion is due to be granted. His present Order supersedes the March 2021 Order. In the Action only and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court: (i) has personal jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs and Westpac and all the Settlement Class Members, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction over the Action to consider the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits attached thereto. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Kaplan certifies a Settlement Class consisting of all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the period Jan. 1, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2016, inclusive, provided that, if the Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified class in the Action in or through any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement, the defined Settlement Class in the Order and the Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Judge Kaplan appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel. He also appointed Citibank, N.A. as the Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. He approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Judge Kaplan further appoints Representative Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS as the representatives of such Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. All proceedings in the Action as to Westpac, other than proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing before the Court to consider any member(s) of the Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement will all be determined by separate order of the Court. If the Settlement is approved by the Court following the Fairness Hearing, a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment will be entered as described in the Settlement Agreement. Except as otherwise provided therein, in the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, vacated, not approved, or the Effective Date fails to occur for any reason, then the Parties will be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of Oct. 27, 2020 and the Settlement Amount, and all interest earned in the Settlement Fund on that Settlement Amount, will be refunded, reimbursed, and repaid to Westpac to the extent provided in the Settlement Agreement. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodial legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, returned to the Person(s) paying the same pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or further order(s) of the Court. Judge Kaplan orders Westpac to produce documents to the Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement. If any deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such deadline will be extended until the next Business Day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Superseding Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2f2kk86b from Leagle.com. JULIO H. BAEZ: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Grocery Store Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ REYNALDO DE SOTO SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JULIO H. BAEZ LOLO GROCERY CORP, B BROTHER GROCERY CORP, RICHARD O. BAEZ, and PASQUALE ORTIZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00700 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide accurate wage notices. The Plaintiff was employed as a deli counter worker, cook, and food preparer at the Defendants' Deli Grocery Store at 325 Quincy Street, Brooklyn, New York from March 22, 2021 until November 6, 2021. Julio H. Baez Lolo Grocery Corp is an owner and operator of Deli Grocery Store, located at 325 Quincy Street, Brooklyn, New York. B Brother Grocery Corp is an owner and operator of Deli Grocery Store, located at 325 Quincy Street, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com JUUL LABS: Faces Mineral Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINERAL COUNTY COMMISSION, MINERAL COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 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. 3:22-cv-00819 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Mineral County Commission is a school district with its offices located at 150 Armstrong Street, Keyser, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Leeds City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- LEEDS CITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00800-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Leeds City Schools is a public school district with its offices located in Leeds, Alabama. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com brebarchak@mtattorneys.com - and – Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com - and – Christina D. Crow, Esq. JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC 219 North Prairie Street Union Springs, AL Zip36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334) 738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Raleigh County Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- RALEIGH COUNTY COMMISSION, RALEIGH COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 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. 3:22-cv-00818 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Raleigh County Commission is a school district with its offices located in Beckley, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com KMI BRANDS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KMI Brands Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KMI Brands Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01097 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KMI -- https://kmibrands.com/ -- is a creator of beauty brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Giuffre Suit Transferred in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case is styled as James Joseph Giuffre, Sr., Petra Marion Merritt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA, Inc., Philips RS North America LLC, Philips RS North America Holding Corporation, WM. T. Burnett Foam LLC, WM.T. Burnett & CO., WM.T. Burnett Management, Inc., WM.T. Burnett Holding LLC, WM.T. Burnett & Co., Incorporated, WM.T. Burnett Fiber LLC, WM.T. Burnett IP LLC, Case No. MDL No. 3014, was transferred from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00152-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (212) 584-0700 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Settlement in Hawkins Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-02320-JM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's final approval of class action settlement and motion for Attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award; 2. directing the Parties to implement the Settlement according to its terms and conditions; 3. approving the Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $79,635, to be paid from the common fund, to Classaura LLC, deducted by an appropriate amount in order to satisfy the two late-mailed claims; 4. approving Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys'fees and costs in the amount of $400,000; and 5. approving an incentive award to Plaintiff Shavonda Hawkins in the amount of $7,000; and The Class Members who timely filed a request to opt out of the settlement are excluded from the class. The court retains continuing jurisdiction over this settlement solely for the purposes of enforcing the agreement, addressing settlement administration matters, and addressing such post-judgment matters as may be appropriate under Court rules and law. This action arises from the labeling of Kroger breadcrumbs. The Plaintiff purchased Kroger breadcrumbs in San Diego about six times per year from 2000 to July of 2015. Beginning in 2008, the front label of the breadcrumbs read "0g 28 Trans Fat." On the back of the breadcrumbs, the nutrition fact label read "Trans Fat 0g" and included partially hydrogenated vegetable oil ("PHO") as an ingredient. Because the breadcrumbs contained PHO, they contained "trace amounts" of trans fat. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging violations of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law ("the UCL"), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff also brought claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty. On March 17, 2016, the court granted Kroger's first motion to dismiss. On November 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On February 8, 2019, Kroger filed a second motion to dismiss which the court denied. On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On November 9, 2020, the court certified the following class: "All citizens of California who purchased, between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumbs containing partially hydrogenated oil and the front label claim "0g Trans Fat." On December 29, 2020, the court denied Kroger's motion to reconsider the court's class certification order. On January 13, 2021, Kroger filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's class certification order to the Ninth Circuit which was denied. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3siozv6 at no extra charge.[CC] KYMERA BODY BOARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kymera Body Board LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kymera Body Board LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01093 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kymera Body Board -- http://www.kymerabodyboard.com/-- is the World's First Electric BodyBoard and remains the most popular high-performance bodyboard on the market.[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 LEPRINO FOODS: Bates Seek to Certify Class of Hourly Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES Bates, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00700-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All non-exempt hourly workers who are currently employed, or formerly have been employed, as non-exempt hourly employees at Leprino's Tracy plant in Tracy, California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of the original complaint until the date the Court grants certification." Leprino is an American company with headquarters in Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GxHXJN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Kitty K. Szeto, Esq. John M. Bickford, Esq. Ryan A. Crist, Esq. PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 E-mail: rrparris@parrislawyers.com kszeto@parrislawyers.com jbickford@parrislawyers.com rcrist@parrislawyers.com - and - Eric Rouen, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 291-3333 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 E-mail: rouenlaw@att.net M-I LLC: Order on Class Cert. Briefing, Hearing Dates Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donovin Last, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. M-I, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-BAK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order regarding class certification briefing and hearing dates as follows: 1. The Defendant's opposition to April 22, 2022 Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by: 2. The Plaintiff's reply to the May 20, 2022 opposition shall be filed by: 3. The hearing on Plaintiff's July 15, 2022 motion for class certification, currently set for May 17, 2022, is continued to: M-I LLC provides services to the oil & gas industry. The Company services include supplying drilling and completion fluid systems and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B7mztL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maryjo L. Roberts, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 596-4195 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 mlr@kullmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lonnie C. Blanchard, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 5211 East Washington Blvd., No. 2262 Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 lonnieblanchard@gmail.com MACY'S WEST: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hawes Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Macy's West Stores, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SARA HAWES et al., Plaintiff v. MACY'S STORES WEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00754, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. This case is a putative class action about the labelling of thread-counts in bedsheets. The backbone of Plaintiff Sara Hawes's claims is that Defendants allegedly misrepresent -- and specifically, inflate -- the thread-counts in sheets to sell them to consumers. The Plaintiff claims these thread counts are misleading. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15, 2021, Plaintiff Hawes asked the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action on behalf of: "each person in California who purchased from Macy's a "Chief Value Cotton" (CVC) cotton-polyester blend sheet supplied by AQ Textiles between November 8, 2013, and the date the class is certified;" and 2. directing the parties to confer about a proposed notice and plan for its distribution to class members. On May 12, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to strike report and exclude opinions of proposed experts Stefan Boedeker and Sean Cormier. On July 21, 2021, the Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike report and exclude opinions of proposed experts Sean Iyer and Tushar Ghosh. On August 4, 2021, the Defendant once again filed a motion to strike report and exclude opinions of proposed experts Messrs. Boedeker and Cormier. On January 22, 2022, the Court entered an order 1) granting Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class; 2) denying Defendant's Motion to Strike (Initial) Reports and Exclude Opinions of Proposed Experts Boedeker and Cormier; 3) denying Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Reports and Exclude Opinions of Proposed Experts Iyer and Ghosh; and 4) granting Defendant's Motion to Strike the Second Reports of Boedeker and Iyer. The Defendant seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Macy's West Stores, Inc., Case No. 22-303, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Feb. 4, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner In re: MACY'S WEST STORES, INC. is represented by: Beth A. Bryan, Esq. TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2838 E-mail: bryan@taftlaw.com Plaintiff-Respondent SARA HAWES, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN, LEGANDO, WILLIAMS & KLANG 1360 W. Ninth Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com MADSPORTSSTUFF LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MadSportsStuff LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MadSportsStuff LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01104 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MadSportsStuff -- https://www.madsportsstuff.com/ -- is an online athletic wear company.[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 MARIETTA AREA: McCumbers Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marietta Area Health Care Inc. The case is styled as Jason McCumbers, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marietta Area Health Care Inc. doing business as: Memorial Hospital System, Case No. 2:22-cv-00385-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other Contract. Marietta Area Health Care Inc. doing business as Memorial Hospital System -- https://mhsystem.org/ -- is a not-for-profit integrated health system and manages a network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians for the provision of emergency care, women's health, cancer treatment, and pediatric services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence Richard Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com MARINO MARBLE: Pereira Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS PEREIRA, VICTOR MANUEL, JAIME ROMERO and WILLIAM HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARINO MARBLE & TILE CORP. and DOMENICO MARINO and ANTHONY RIZZUTO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00650 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay proper minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants with different primary duties. Marino Marble & Tile Corp. is a New York-based tile manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MARK LINDON: TEUZA Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Lindon, et al. The case is styled as TEUZA - A Fairchild Technology Venture Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mark Lindon, Alfred E. Mann Trust, Anoosheh Bostani, Bioventus Inc., David Scott, Joseph Ruble, Mann Group, LLC, Michael Dreyer, Nicholas Terrafranca, Case No. 2022-0130-SG (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Alfred E. Mann Trust -- https://aemf.org/ -- develop and commercialize innovative solutions for significant unmet or poorly met medical conditions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq. Phone: (302) 654-1888 Fax: (302) 654-2067 - and - Michael Walker, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES PO Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 654-1888 Fax: (302) 654-2067 Email: mwalker@ashbygeddes.com MATTHEW MARKS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matthew Marks Gallery, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Matthew Marks Gallery, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01143 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Matthew Marks -- https://matthewmarks.com/ -- is an art gallery located in the New York City neighborhood of Chelsea and the Los Angeles neighborhood of West Hollywood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: $44.5K PAGA Settlement in Gilmore Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled EDMOND TRENT GILMORE AND DANIEL GOWANS, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the State of California Plaintiffs v. McMILLAN-HENDRYX INCORPORATED, dba AMERICAN SEALS WEST, INC., GARY HENDRYX, JUSTIN HENDRYX, DEB C. HALL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00483-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approves the parties' $44,500 PAGA Settlement. On Dec. 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Edmond Trent Gilmore and Daniel Gowans submitted their Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement. Pursuant to the Court's previous order, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief and evidence on Jan. 5, 2022. No opposition was filed. Background The initial complaint was filed on April 3, 2020. On June 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting 13 causes of action, including one under the Private Attorney General's Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code Section 2699, et seq. In their PAGA claim, the Plaintiffs assert they were aggrieved by certain of the Defendants' labor and payroll practices. The proposed settlement includes a total payment of $44,500 by the Defendants on these terms: (a) $23,001.33 to Plaintiff Edmond Trent Gilmore for settlement of his individual claim; (b) $2,091.03 to Plaintiff Daniel Gowans for settlement of his individual claim; (c) $18,362.12 to Mallison & Martinez as attorneys' fees and costs; and (d) $1,045.52 in PAGA penalties ($784.14 to the state of California, $261.38 to the aggrieved employees). The total settlement amount will be paid in three equal installments over ninety days and will accrue 10% interest for non-payment. The Plaintiffs' counsel will distribute the PAGA penalties to the government and to the employees. Counsel represents that in the event funds remain undistributed or uncashed, after reasonably diligent efforts, any funds from uncashed checks will be distributed to the California Unclaimed Property/Wage Fund. Under the Settlement, the named Plaintiffs release any claims they have against the Defendants, including the PAGA claims. No other claims are released. The Plaintiffs' counsel represents that the Settlement clearly leaves individuals unhampered to pursue their own individual wage claims under Arias v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal. 5th 969 (2009). Any monies received by employees is an additional amount to these claims and these payments may encourage individual employees to pursue such claims. No injunctive relief or other non-monetary relief is included in the settlement. Analysis A. Satisfaction of Statutory Notice Requirements The PAGA requires that any proposed settlement be submitted to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) at the same time it is submitted to the court for approval. Judge Barch-Kuchta finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied this requirement. B. Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonable of the Settlement Pursuant to the PAGA, 75% of civil PAGA penalties are paid to the LWDA and 25% are paid to the PAGA employees. The Settlement complies with this requirement. Next, the Court considers whether the settlement of the PAGA claim is fair, adequate and reasonable, as well as meaningful and consistent with the purposes of the PAGA. Despite the Court's concerns regarding the Plaintiffs' minimal transparency regarding the value of the PAGA claim, the proceedings in this action, and the attorney's fees attributable to the PAGA claim, the Court finds the relevant factors weigh in favor of approval. 1. Strength of Plaintiff's Case/Risk and Cost of Further Litigation Counsel's evaluation of the strengths of the Plaintiffs' case and risks of continued litigation is often helpful to a court evaluating the fairness of a settlement. Here, however, the Plaintiffs' counsel includes no information about their experience with PAGA actions, Judge Barch-Kuchta notes. On this point, their memorandum refers to paragraphs 12-14 of counsel's declaration, but these paragraphs identify the exhibits attached to the declaration and do not describe counsel's experience. In any event, in their initial motion, the Plaintiffs do not discuss the strength of the PAGA claim other than to represent that an "intervening" change in law lowered their valuation of the case. The law cited, ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 5th 175, 193 (2019), was obviously issued prior to the filing of this case on April 3, 2020, Judge Barch-Kuchta says. In their supplemental briefing, the Plaintiffs estimate that using liberal assumptions as to the extent and frequency of violations, the Defendants' maximum PAGA exposure was approximately $25,000. The Plaintiffs indicate that given this relatively low amount and the few aggrieved employees, as well as the limitations of the Defendants' recordkeeping, continued litigation of the PAGA claims was not warranted. Judge Barch-Kuchta opines that these calculations and analysis leave extensive room for further explanation. However, the Court recognizes the inherent risks and costs in any litigation matter, and that the award of PAGA penalties is discretionary under Labor Code Section 2699(e) and finds that this factor generally weighs in favor of settlement. 2. Stage of the Proceeding In their Joint Status Report of Jan. 7, 2021, submitted about nine months after the case was filed, the parties represented that they had a "discussion" of Rule 26 initial disclosures--indicating that those disclosures had yet been exchanged nor discovery commenced. In the pending motion, the Plaintiffs represent that by the time of settlement, around August 2021, they had engaged in formal and informal discovery; however, they provide no detail on the scope of such efforts. Judge Barch-Kuchta notes that this representation is somewhat bolstered by the parties' Joint Statement of Aug. 11, 2021, in which they represent that the Plaintiffs "served Defendants with their Requests for Production of Documents, Electronic Information and Tangible Things, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and General and Employment Form Interrogatories, Set One." However, the parties state that the Defendants served responses to this discovery on Aug. 28, 2020--well before the Jan. 7, 2021 Joint Status Report in which they represented they had yet to even exchange initial disclosures. The Plaintiffs' supplemental evidence indicates that they have engaged in informal, if somewhat incomplete, discovery relating to the number of pay periods potentially at issue. They also note that part of the challenge of this case arises from the Defendants' failure to maintain proper records. Thus, the record on the discovery conducted in this case is, at best, muddled. There has been no motion practice--not on the FLSA collective action claim, the PAGA claim, or the Plaintiffs' individual claims, Judge Barch-Kuchta observes. The parties appear to have engaged in informal settlement negotiations. Given the foregoing, Judge Barch-Kuchta holds that this factor is neutral. 3. Amount of PAGA Penalties The PAGA penalties of $1,045.52, with $261.38 going to the employees, is quite low in the abstract, Judge Barch-Kuchta states. With just seven employees included this amounts to an average of $37.34 per employee. The penalties amount to approximately 4.2% of the maximum penalties calculated by the Plaintiffs and 2.3% of the total settlement amount. These are not outside those approved in other actions. Additionally, the LWDA has not objected to the settlement. Therefore, the amount is not unreasonable and weighs in favor of settlement, Judge Barch-Kuchta holds. 4. Allocation and Distribution of Penalties The PAGA penalties will be distributed to employees on a pro-rata basis "based upon the number of pay periods worked during the relevant time period." Because of the limited number of employees, the Plaintiffs' counsel will make the calculations and distribute the awards, eliminating the need for a settlement administrator. Judge Barch-Kuchta holds that this allocation and distribution method is fair and reasonable, and weighs in favor of approval of the PAGA settlement. C. Reasonable Attorney's Fees Because the Court is only required to approve the PAGA penalty, not the individual settlements, the relevant portion of the attorney's fees are those related to the PAGA claim. The Plaintiffs' counsel failed to identify the portion of the PAGA Settlement allocated to fees and, in providing a lodestar amount, failed distinguish between the amount of time spent on the PAGA claim and the time spent on individual claims. Still, Judge Barch-Kuchta notes, because the amount counsel will receive in the settlement is less than a quarter of their lodestar, even if only a few hours of time are allocated to the PAGA claim, the fee request is reasonable. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ordered: (1) The Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is granted; (2) The Plaintiffs will file a declaration providing notice of the PAGA penalty payments made pursuant to Paragraph 1.3 of the Settlement Agreement within 45 days of the date of this Order; and (3) If the Plaintiffs fail to file either a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal or a notice of noncompliance with the settlement within 105 days after the date of this Order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mwcf88p from Leagle.com. MEDICAL REVIEW: White Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Review Institute of America. The case is styled as Shane White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Review Institute of America, Case No. 2:22-cv-00082-DBP (D. Utah, Feb. 9, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Medical Review Institute of America (MRIoA) -- https://www.mrioa.com/ -- delivers technology-enabled review services that increase member satisfaction, decrease the costs of decrease the costs of overutilization, provide benchmarking analytics and empower members by offering them alternative choices through patient-focused virtual second opinion services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles H. Thronson, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 S Main St., Ste. 1800 PO Box 45898 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898 Phone: (801) 532-1234 Email: ecf@parsonsbehle.com MEREDITH WARD: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meredith Ward Fine Art, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Meredith Ward Fine Art, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01144 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meredith Ward Fine Art -- https://www.meredithwardfineart.com/ -- is an art gallery in New York City offering a wide selection of artworks by leading artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal MOON STAR: Mao Yun Chi Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Helpers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAO YUN CHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOON STAR LLC D/B/A MOON STAR CHINESE RESTAURANT, TING LEI ZHENG, TING CHEN, XIU ZHEN YANG, and SAI ZHU LIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00222 (D. Conn., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Wage and Hour Law, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Plaintiff Chi was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen helper at Moon Star Chinese Restaurant from December 2020 to January 30, 2022. Moon Star LLC, doing business as Moon Star Chinese Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator located 20 H Main St., Windsor Locks, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com NAVIENT CORP: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the consolidated case captioned, "In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation," are awaiting final court approval of the deal. A settlement hearing is set for March 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Objections are due February 24, 2022. Proofs of claim must be filed April 13, 2022. The settlements of the consolidated class action lawsuits have been preliminary approved, SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report on Form 10-D for the distribution period from November 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2022. Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned "Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown," and "Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown", both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption "In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation" and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018. In September 2021, Navient reached agreements to settle both cases. The settlements, in which Navient and the other defendants expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing or fault, have been preliminarily approved by the Courts but are still subject to final approval after notice and hearing. Navient expects the settlements to be covered by insurance and can give no assurance whether or when the settlements will receive final approvals. Additional information on the case is available at: https://www.navientsecuritieslitigation.com SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is in to backed securities based in Virginia. Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), is the administrator of its student Loan-Backed Notes. NEW MILLENNIUM: Accord Over Omitted Exhibit in Farrell Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled TARA FARRELL, HENLY VELARDE, and DOUGLAS WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW MILLENNIUM CONCEPTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01691-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approves the parties' stipulation relating to an inadvertently omitted exhibit. Plaintiffs Tara Farrell, Henly Velarde, and Douglas Wells and Defendant New Millennium Concepts, Ltd., enter into this Stipulation regarding the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Inadvertently Omitted Exhibit 7 in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(3) Motions and to Extend or Continue Related Dates. Granting the relief requested would fully resolve and moot the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion. Recitals On Sept. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against the Defendant to assert false advertising and warranty claims on behalf of California and United States consumers. On Nov. 11, 2021, the Defendant filed three motions in response to the Complaint, which were originally set for hearing on Jan. 25, 20221--specifically, a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to challenge personal jurisdiction; a motion to transfer venue; and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to challenge the sufficiency of allegations in the complaint to state a claim. Based on the Jan. 25, 2022 hearing date, the Plaintiffs' oppositions were due on Jan. 11, 2022, and the Defendant's replies were due on Jan. 18, 2022. On Jan. 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the Defendant's Motions, including a single set of evidence (declarations and exhibits) to support the Plaintiffs' oppositions to the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue. On Jan. 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel realized that Exhibit 7 to their oppositions to the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue was inadvertently omitted from the Jan. 11, 2022 filing as a result of their counsel's clerical error alone, and, as such, the counsel immediately initiated communications with the Defendant's counsel via telephone and email to confer regarding the error and propose a stipulation consistent with the relief requested in the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion. At around the same time that the parties were conferring on Jan. 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata that attaches Exhibit 7. Due to the late hour on Jan. 18, 2022, the Defendant's counsel was unable to immediately stipulate to the requested relief. On Jan. 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion, without delay, to provide the Court with the earliest opportunity to issue orders granting relief and basing it, in part, on heavily disputed arguments regarding the import of Exhibit 7 to establish that irreparable harm would result if this Court grants the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion without considering Exhibit 7 due to its untimely filing. The Defendant vigorously disputes the import of Exhibit 7 to the Defendant's pending Rule 12(b)(2) Motion, but in any event, contends that it has already addressed the issues raised in Exhibit 7 in its recently filed reply. Because the Defendant has already addressed the issues raised by Exhibit 7, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs agree that additional time for briefing or a continuance of the originally scheduled hearing are not required as a result of the late-filed exhibit. The Defendant and the Plaintiffs agree that, by this Stipulation, it obviates the need to engage in contentious arguments regarding the relevance of Exhibit 7 in the context of an ex parte motion because the proposed stipulated orders contained here should resolve the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion without burdening the Court with the review of additional papers. On Jan. 19 and 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs' and the Defendant's counsel further conferred via email and telephone regarding the relief requested in the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion and, based upon the totality of their efforts and the facts set forth herein, have reached the following agreement that resolves and moots the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion without requiring the further expenditure of judicial or party resources on this matter. Stipulation Therefore, the parties further stipulate and agree to these proposed orders: i. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7, filed with the Plaintiffs' notice of errata on Jan. 18, 2022, will be considered by the Court as though it were timely filed on Jan. 11, 2022, in connection with the Plaintiffs' oppositions to Defendant New Millennium Concepts, Ltd.'s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue; ii. The current briefing schedule in connection with the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue remain unaltered, unless further notified by the Court; and iii. The relief will avoid any undue prejudice to any party, conserve judicial and party resources, and serve the ends of justice. It is so stipulated. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, it is so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8tjetd from Leagle.com. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C., Katherine A. Bruce -- kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Ryan J. Clarkson -- rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Shireen M. Clarkson -- sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Kelsey J. Elling -- kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com -- in Malibu, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, Michelle C. Jacobs -- michelle.jacobs@haynesboone.com -- Mark D. Erickson -- mark.erickson@haynesboone.com -- Attorneys for the Defendant. NEW YORK, NY: Jacobson COVID-19 Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William A. Jacobson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Mary T. Bassett, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York Department of Health, Case No. 3:22-cv-00033-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the proposed class consisting of: "all individuals in New York State who do not qualify as "non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity" under the New York Department of Health's guidelines for distributing COVID-19 treatments;" and 2. Appointing him as class representative. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is the department of the government of New York City responsible for public health along with issuing birth certificates, dog licenses, and conducting restaurant inspection and enforcement. The New York City Board of Health is part of the department. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B7mgPD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene P. Hamilton, Esq. VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 300 Independence Avenue SE Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org - and - Adam K. Mortara, Esq. LAWFAIR LLC 125 South Wacker Drive Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 750-7154 E-mail: adam@mortaralaw.com - and - James P. Trainor, Esq. TRAINOR LAW PLLC 2452 U.S. Route 9 Malta, NY 12020 Telephone: (518) 899-9200 Facsimile: (518) 899-9300 E-mail: jamest@trainor-lawfirm.com - and - Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 Facsimile: (512) 686-3941 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law - and - Jeffrey Harris, Esq. Michael Connolly, Esq. James Hasson, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Telephone: (703) 243-9423 Arlington, VA 22209 E-mail: jeff@consovoymccarthy.com mike@consovoymccarthy.com james@consovoymccarthy.com NEW YORK, NY: Malcolm, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malcolm, et al., v. City of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-09641-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a reply until February 21, 2022. The reason for this request is that the attorneys responsible for this case and their families contracted covid earlier this year and the interruption has caused a backlog in work, Plaintiffs' counsel say. The current deadline for filing Plaintiff's reply in further support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court authorized notice to the collective is Monday, February 7, 2022. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ryQ1Wn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, PC Telephone: (516) 671-1150 E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com NP IN FAMILY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NP In Family Health on Demand 247 PLLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NP In Family Health on Demand 247 PLLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01095 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NP In Family Health On Demand 247 PLLC is a health care organization in Brooklyn with Nurse Practitioner listed as their primary medical specialization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com O.B.'S BAKERY: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bakery Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- MYRAN RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O.B.'S BAKERY INC., d/b/a OB'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT, and OB EXPRESS, LTD., d/b/a OB'S EXPRESS, and OMAR DICKENS, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00711 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to furnish accurate wage notices, and retaliation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a kitchen assistant from January 2016 until September 10, 2021. O.B.'S Bakery Inc., doing business as OB'S Bakery and Restaurant, is a bakery owner and operator located at 16576 Baisley Boulevard, Jamaica, New York. OB Express, Ltd., doing business as OB'S Express, is a bakery owner and operator located at 2034 Green Acres Road South, Valley Stream, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nabozny's FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY CLARK NABOZNY, Plaintiff v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC d.b.a. QUALIA COLLECTION SERVCES, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-297-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted Optio's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice; and granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. I. Background The lawsuit is a proposed class action in which Plaintiff Nabozny alleges that Defendant Optio, a debt collection agency, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it shared information about Nabozny's debt with a company that processes and mails debt collection letters. Ms. Nabozny alleges that Optio shared information about her debt with RevSpring, a company that processes and mails debt collection letters. The information included the existence of the debt, the amount owed, the alleged creditor, and Nabozny's name and address. Optio could have prepared the letter and sent it without running afoul of the FDCPA. But Nabozny contends that in sharing this information with RevSpring, Optio violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b), which prohibits debt collectors from communication with most third parties. RevSpring, as a provider of clerical services, is not among the expressly permitted third parties Optio moves to dismiss, contending that Nabozny does not have standing because she has not suffered an injury in fact. II. Discussion Optio contends that Nabozny does not have standing to bring the suit. Standing doctrine requires Nabozny to show that she suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Optio contends that Nabozny has not demonstrated an injury in fact, which the Supreme Court has defined as "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized." Ms. Nabozny does not allege that sharing her information caused her to suffer any tangible harm. A "bare procedural violation" of a statute like the FDPCA does not qualify as a concrete injury, even if it gives rise to a statutory cause of action. But "intangible harms can nevertheless be concrete." Nabozny contends that she suffered a concrete harm because sharing information about her debt with RevSpring violated her right to privacy, a concrete interest that the FDCPA was designed to protect. Judge Peterson explains that to determine whether an intangible harm constitutes an injury in fact, the Court must look both to historical conceptions of actionable harms and to the judgment of Congress. The historical inquiry asks "whether the asserted harm has a 'close relationship' to a harm 'traditionally' recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts." As for the judgment of Congress, the Court must afford due respect to Congress's decision to impose a statutory provision on a defendant and grant a plaintiff a cause of action. But a statutory violation causes an injury in fact only if the violation "harmed or presented an appreciable risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest that Congress sought to protect." A. Historical conceptions of actionable harm Ms. Nabozny contends that her alleged harm bears a close relationship to common-law torts for invasion of privacy. It is well-established that "violations of rights of privacy are actionable." But the Seventh Circuit recently clarified that analogy to a broad category of tort, such as "invasion of privacy," is not enough to show that an alleged harm has a close relationship to an action at common law. Instead, the alleged harm must have a close relationship to a specific "theory of wrongdoing." Judge Peterson finds that Nabozny's alleged injury does not have a close relationship to the tort because disclosure to a third party provider of clerical services is not tantamount to disclosure to the public. The harm of the tort is not the mere fact of disclosure. Instead, it is that private facts will become widely known, or at least known by people with a close relationship to the plaintiff. Optio's disclosure to RevSpring would not result in that harm. Nabozny does not have a relationship with RevSpring such that its knowledge of her debt causes Nabozny any amount of embarrassment. Nor is disclosure to a third party vendor the sort of disclosure that is certain -- or even likely -- to reach the public or anyone outside of RevSpring. Indeed, sharing information with a subcontractor is not meaningfully different than sharing the information among Optio's own employees in the course of their work. Judge Peterson agrees with the courts that have concluded that disclosure to a third party provider of clerical services differs from disclosure to the public in kind, not merely in degree. A debt collector that outsources the mechanical tasks of preparing and mailing letters that the debt collector itself is authorized to send does not inflict any concrete injury on the debtor. B. Judgment of Congress Courts must respect Congress' decision to create a statutory obligation and a corresponding cause of action, because Congress is well-positioned to identify intangible harms that are nevertheless concrete. But courts must still independently decide whether a plaintiff alleges an injury in fact as opposed to a mere injury in law. As for the FDCPA, a violation causes an injury in fact only if the violation "harmed or presented an appreciable risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest that Congress sought to protect." Judge Peterson opines that the harm that Nabozny alleges does not harm an interest the FDCPA sought to protect. The FDCPA was passed "to protect consumers from a host of unfair, harassing, and deceptive debt collection practices without imposing unnecessary restrictions on ethical debt collectors." To be sure, the FDCPA was concerned with "invasions of individual privacy," as a general matter. But the concrete interest protected by a statute is defined with an eye toward the actual harms Congress sought to prevent. And in the case, Congress identified the third-party disclosures that rose to the level of "collection abuse": "disclosing a consumer's personal affairs to friends, neighbors, or an employer." Those kinds of contacts are "not legitimate collection practices and result in serious invasions of privacy, as well as the loss of jobs." The record shows that Congress was concerned with disclosures to people who knew the debtor, not limited disclosures to third-party providers of clerical services. The inaction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency tasked with promulgating regulations to implement the FDCPA, is further evidence that Congress did not seek to prevent the use of outside vendors to send collection letters. The CFPB is aware that most debt collection agencies use third-party vendors to send written communications. But the CFPB did not address the practice in the newest regulations implementing the FDCPA, despite creating several other rules related to permissible communications. The CFPB's judgment is not a direct expression of the judgment of Congress. But an agency tasked with implementing a statute is presumed to have unique insight into how to fulfill the statute's purposes. And in the case, the CFPB's inaction suggests that disclosure to a third-party provider of clerical services does not harm an interest the FDCPA was designed to protect. III. Conclusion & Order Judge Peterson concludes that Nabozny has suffered no concrete injury. Sharing information with a third-party provider of clerical services is not analogous to disclosure to the world at large. And disclosure to such vendors is not the sort of harm the FDCPA was meant to prevent. Both history and the judgment of Congress suggest that Nabozny does not have standing to bring the suit. Therefore, Judge Peterson granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. He also granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4chf79ht from Leagle.com. PFIZER INC: Adams Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc. The case is styled as Ida Adams, Virginia Aragon, Golbenaz Bakhtiar, Jonathan Ferguson, Michael Galloway, Alberta Griffin, Ronda Lockett, Ricardo Moron, Richard Obrien, Jeffrey Pisano, Chris Troyan, Gustavo Velasquez, Joshua Winans, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00747-VM (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: melissa@feganscott.com PFIZER INC: Smith Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc. The case is styled as Tammy Smith, Andy Green Jr., Bakhtiar Golbenaz, Richard Obrien, Virginia Aragon, Jeffrey Pisano, Angel Cordero, Gustavo Velasquez, Joshua Winans, Richardo Moron, Roy Armstrong, Sonia Diaz, Kathy Jeffries, Earlene Green, Charles Longfield, Janet Asbury, Randy Jones, Alberta Griffin, Ida Adams, Jerry Hunt, Lakisha Wilson, Donald Northrup, John Scholl, Beverly Crosby, John Rachal, Gaylord Stauffer, Benny Fazio, Mary McCullen, Dennis Robbins, Chris Troyan, Michael Galloway, Nicholas Hazlett, Gloria Colon, Dale Hunter, Kenneth Hix, Sylvia Yoshida, Ronda Lockett, Marianella Villanueva, Dan Zhovtis, Jonathan Ferguson, Steve Fischer, Wendy Quezaire, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00746-VM (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: melissa@feganscott.com PIZZERIA OF ISLIP: Echevarria Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS ECHEVARRIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PIZZERIA OF ISLIP LLC, SCOPA6, LLC d/b/a GINO’S OF COMMACK, and PAUL SACCOCCIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00653 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover damages for violations the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Gino's in 2020 and at the Pizzeria from March 2021 to November 2021. The Defendants own and operate restaurants located throughout the County of Suffolk, State of New York including, but not limited to, Gino's of Commack and The Pizzeria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 PLAINS MARKETING: Wake Energy Files Suit in D. Wyoming ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plains Marketing LP. The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Plains Marketing LP, Case No. 0:22-cv-00025-SWS (D. Wyo., Feb. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Plains Marketing, L.P. -- https://www.plains.com/ -- operates as a midstream energy company. The Company provides energy infrastructure and logistics services for crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas, as well as owns pipeline transportation, terminalling, storage, and gathering assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A Erb , Jr 222 South Gillette Avenue, Suite 310 P O Box 36 Gillette, WY 82717 Phone: (307) 682-0215 Fax: (307) 682-1339 Email: Rick@rickerb.com PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Kohl's Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KOHL and MATTHEW KOHL, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, v. PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, LLC, PLURIS HOLDINGS, LLC, and PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. vacating the Notice of Hearing. On September 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs' Complaint against the Defendants was removed to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). On October 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 13, 2021, the Defendants filed its response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. On January 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their Motion. On January 31, 2022, the undersigned set a hearing on the Motion for February 23, 2022, at 10:00 A.M. On February 1, 2022, upon sua sponte review of the record, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be remanded for failure to adequately establish subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(4)(A). Pluris owns and operates water and wastewater utilities that are regulated by public utility commissions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gxyQhK at no extra charge.[CC] QIHOO 360: Court Approves Service of Altimeo Complaint to Zhou & Qi ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10067-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for an order permitting service of Defendants Hongyi Zhou and Xiangdong Qi. The Lead Plaintiffs filed the motion on Jan. 28, 2022, seeking entry of an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), directing service of the Summons and the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws upon Defendants Hongyi Zhou and Xiangdong Qi. The Lead Plaintiffs are to serve Defendants Hongyi Thou and Xiangdong Qi by publication in the International Edition of the New York Times as outlined in the Motion. They are to serve these Defendants by electronic messages as outlined in the Motion, by the following means: (I) Defendant Zhou through his LinkedIn account; (2) Defendants Zhou through his Weibo account; (3) Defendant Zhou through his Weibo Taiwan account; (4) Defendant Zhou through his 360 Group email address, zhy@360.cn email address; (6) Defendant Zhou through Qihoo's publicly listed email addresses kefu@360.cn and media@360.cn; and (5) Defendant Qi through the 18311062936@163.com email address that several of his businesses use. The Lead Plaintiffs are to serve Defendant Hongyi Zhou through 360 DigiTech, Inc. and through the counsel for Qihoo 360 Technology Co. LTD, as outlined in the Motion. The Court directed the Lead Plaintiffs to effect all of the described methods of service. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfaauh5 from Leagle.com. R.C. QUIGGLE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.C. Quiggle, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. R.C. Quiggle, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01085 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. R.C. Quiggle Inc. doing business as Q-sport Activewear -- https://www.q-sport.com/ -- sells a wide variety of sports clothing, shoes, equipment, and accessories.[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 RAINBOW USA: Hicks Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephanie Hicks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rainbow USA Inc., Case No. CACE-22-000112 was removed from 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 9, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60304-WPD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. Rainbow USA Inc. -- http://www.rainbowshops.com/-- is a privately held, moderately priced American retail apparel chain comprising several lifestyle brands primarily targeting teens and young women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Tonya M. Esposito, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 975 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 828-5375 Email: tesposito@seyfarth.com RAPID PALLET: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID PALLET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00177-RDM (M.D. Pa., Feb. 4, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania common law. The Plaintiff and the Class Members are or were employed by the Defendant as hourly employees to manufacture, produce, construct, and assemble pallets and skids for use in shipping. Rapid Pallet, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-based pallet supplier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Scott E. Brady, Esq. Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com phil@bohrerbrady.com REEVES INTERNATIONAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reeves International, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Reeves International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01111 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reeves International, Inc. -- https://www.breyerhorses.com/ -- distributes games and toys. The Company offers musical toys, arts and crafts, reward charts, and infant products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal REXALL SUNDOWN: Summary Judgment in Seegert Suit Partly Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SANDRA SEEGERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55486 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the district court's order granting summary judgment for Rexall, and remanded the case. Ms. Seegert appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for Rexall. Seegert purchased Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength, a dietary supplement manufactured by Rexall that contains a glucosamine compound and a proprietary ingredient called Joint Shield 5-LOXIN Advanced. Rexall claims on the product label that Osteo Bi-Flex "Shows Improved Joint Comfort within 7 Days!" and "supports joint comfort." Rexall also claims that Osteo Bi-Flex "helps strengthen joints while helping maintain joint cartilage," and helps to strengthen joints, support flexibility, and support mobility. Ms. Seegert alleges, however, that Osteo Bi-Flex and its ingredients do not provide any of these benefits. Thus, Seegert filed the class action suit against Rexall, claiming violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; Cal. Civ. Code Section 1770(a). Both parties submitted expert testimony. Seegert submitted the declarations of Dr. Farshid Guilak and Dr. Timothy McAlindon. Dr. Guilak conducted an in vitro study on pig cartilage and concluded that Osteo Bi-Flex and 5-Loxin "have no effect on cartilage function, in the presence or absence of inflammation." Dr. McAlindon reviewed many studies and meta-analyses of the ingredients in Osteo Bi-Flex and concluded that the product doesn't "support mobility, support flexibility, strengthen joints, or maintain joint cartilage for people with or without arthritis." Both of Seegert's experts also critiqued the studies that Rexall relied on to support its statements, as well as the testimony of Rexall's expert witnesses. Both parties moved to exclude opposing expert testimony. The district court granted summary judgment for Rexall. The court held that Rexall's statements on Osteo Bi-Flex used the correct terms to constitute permissible structure/function claims under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. Section 343. Thus, the district court held that Seegert's state law claims were preempted by the FDCA's express preemption provision. It also rejected Seegert's argument that Rexall's statements, even though they looked like acceptable structure/function claims, made implicit disease claims and thus violated the FDCA. Instead, the court found that "the representations do not suggest treatment or prevention of a disease," and so "the representations are proper structure/function claims according to the federal requirements." The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. It must decide, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the law. It also reviews questions of preemption and statutory interpretation de novo. The Ninth Circuit begins with Seegert's argument that Rexall's representations are implied disease claims and not structure/function claims. "A statement claims to diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure, or prevent disease if it claims, explicitly or implicitly, that the product has an effect on the characteristic signs or symptoms of a specific disease or class of diseases, using scientific or lay terminology." In Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit considered representations that a glucosamine-based supplement "supports flexibility & range of motion" and "supports cartilage health & joint comfort," and concluded that they were structure/function claims, not implied disease claims. It sees no material difference between the structure/function claims in Kroessler and Rexall's representations. Rexall does not represent that Osteo Bi-Flex "reduces joint pain" or affects any other characteristic symptom of osteoarthritis. Nor do any other representations on Osteo Bi-Flex's label suggest that the product treats disease symptoms. And although it may consider extra-label evidence in determining whether a representation is an implied disease claim, the Ninth Circuit holds that the extrinsic evidence Seegert submitted is not relevant to its inquiry. Thus, it affirms the district court's finding that Rexall's representations are structure/function claims, not implied disease claims. To the extent that Seegert argues Rexall's representations are false or misleading because they present implied disease claims, her state law claims are preempted. But the district court erred when it construed Section 343-1(a)(5) as preempting the Plaintiff's state law claims whenever the manufacturer's statement is a structure/function claim, the Ninth Circuit holds. "The FDCA does not preempt California false advertising causes of action simply because the challenged label contains a proper structure/function claim; instead, preemption applies only if the plaintiff's legal claims and factual allegations would hold a defendant to a different 'substantiation' standard than the FDCA." Thus, the district court must decide whether there is a triable issue on substantiation, which requires looking at Seegert's evidence. If a reasonable jury could conclude that Rexall failed to substantiate its claims, then Seegert's state law claims are not preempted. On appeal, Rexall argues that the Ninth Circuit should still affirm the district court's preemption decision because Seegert's evidence is mismatched against the structure/function claims. It contends that Seegert's evidence (1) concerns disease outcomes when Rexall's structure/function claims do not purport to treat disease, and (2) relies on studies involving different formulations of the ingredients in Osteo Bi-Flex. But "only admissible evidence may be considered in deciding a motion for summary judgment," and the NInth Circuit does not yet know whether Seegert's evidence is admissible because the district court has not ruled on the parties' Daubert motions. Because Daubert affords a measure of discretion to the district court, it would be inappropriate for us to decide the admissibility of Seegert's evidence in the first instance on appeal. Thus, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's finding of preemption and remand so that it can decide the admissibility of Seegert's evidence and, if the evidence is admissible, determine whether there is a triable issue on substantiation. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/5583esr9 from Leagle.com. ROI SOLUTIONS: Court Resolves Class Notice Issues in Stenulson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VERONICA STENULSON and MERRILL LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROI SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00614-DBB-JCB (D Utah), Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued Memorandum Decision and Order resolving the parties' disputes concerning the content of the notice and consent form, the notice plan and other issues. I. Background District Judge David Barlow referred the case to Magistrate Judge Bennett under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A). Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Stenulson's proposed notice and consent form and notice protocol, and (2) Defendant ROI's objections to Ms. Stenulson's proposed notice and notice plan. The operative complaint in the case asserts a putative collective action claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well class-action claims under state law. On Dec. 14, 2020, Ms. Stenulson moved for conditional certification of and court-supervised notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs. Judge Barlow held oral argument on several pending motions on Sept. 24, 2021, including Ms. Stenulson's motion. At the hearing, Judge Barlow granted Ms. Stenulson's motion for conditional certification and notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs. The same day, Judge Barlow issued an order memorializing his ruling. That order required the parties to meet and confer concerning a stipulated notice and submit that notice to the court within 30 days. After the parties were unable to stipulate to a proposed notice, consent form, and notice plan, Ms. Stenulson filed her proposed notice and consent form and notice protocol. ROI filed their objections to Ms. Stenulson's filing the same day. Although the parties agree on most of Ms. Stenulson's proposed notice, consent form, and notice plan, they have unresolved disputes about certain issues. II. Analysis Judge Bennett addresses the parties' disputes concerning the notice, consent form, and notice plan. He resolves those disputes, which relate to (i) the content of the notice and consent form, (ii) the notice plan, and (iii) other issues. A. Content of the Notice and Consent Form The parties dispute the following issues regarding the content of the notice and consent form: (A) whether the notice should include the case caption and where the statement about court neutrality should be placed; (B) inclusion of a statement in the notice that individuals who signed an arbitration agreement are ineligible to opt in; (C) inclusion of a statement in the notice that putative collective members should not contact ROI to discuss the action; (D) inclusion of a statement in the consent form authorizing continued use of the form. Before beginning his analysis, Judge Bennett notes that "under the FLSA, the Court has the power and duty to ensure that the notice is fair and accurate, but it should not alter the Plaintiff's proposed notice unless such alteration is necessary." Additionally, Judge Bennett notes that neither party has cited to any binding authority on any of the disputes addressed herein. Thus, he exercises discretion to resolve the disputes based upon his interpretation of the persuasive authority cited by the parties. 1. Case Caption and Statement About Court Neutrality Ms. Stenulson's proposed notice contains the case caption for the matter, along with a disclaimer in bold text at the end of the notice indicating that although the Court has approved the notice, it takes no position on the merits of the claims in the case. Ms. Stenulson argues that inclusion of the case caption is "regularly approved by district courts in the Tenth Circuit." With respect to the placement of the disclaimer language, Ms. Stenulson contends that "it is in the same location required by other courts." ROI objects to the inclusion of the case caption. Alternatively, it argues that, if the case caption is included, the caption should include the name of the document, and the disclaimer language should be placed directly under the case caption. Having considered the authority cited by each party, Judge Bennett is persuaded by the cases Ms. Stenulson cites from district courts in the Tenth Circuit indicating that inclusion of the case caption is appropriate. Therefore, Ms. Stenulson is permitted to retain the case caption in the notice. As for inclusion of the name of the document in the caption and placement of the disclaimer language, ROI has failed to show that alteration of Ms. Stenulson's form is "necessary." Indeed, ROI has not cited to any authority indicating that the caption of a notice must contain the name of the document or that disclaimer language in a notice is required to be included below the case caption. Therefore, Ms. Stenulson need not include the name of the document in the case caption. Ms. Stenulson also need not alter the placement of the disclaimer language. 2. Individuals Who Signed an Arbitration Agreement ROI seeks to include in the notice a provision stating that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are not eligible to join the action if they signed a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with ROI. Ms. Stenulson objects to inclusion of such a provision because, among other things: (1) there is no indication whether the arbitration agreements that ROI entered into with its employees are valid and enforceable; (2) each opt-in plaintiff should have the opportunity in this court to raise any challenges he or she has to an arbitration agreement; and (3) "the majority of district courts to have addressed the issue have determined that the fact that some employees have signed arbitration agreements does not preclude conditional certification as to all employees." For the following two reasons, Judge Bennett agrees with Ms. Stenulson's arguments. First, ROI's arguments in support of inclusion of the provision appear to be based upon its assumption that the arbitration agreements at issue are indeed valid and enforceable. However, until an opt-in plaintiff challenges the validity and enforceability of such an arbitration agreement, that issue is not ripe for consideration. Second, Judge Bennett agrees with the approach taken by the majority of other district courts on this issue. Accordingly, Ms. Stenulson need not include in the notice ROI's proposed provision stating that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are not eligible to join the action if they signed an arbitration agreement with ROI. 3. Contact with ROI Ms. Stenulson's proposed notice includes a provision stating that recipients of the notice should not contact ROI to discuss the case. She contends that the provision is appropriate to ensure that ROI does "not cross any ethical barriers by communicating with" the potential opt-in plaintiffs about the merits of the case and their claims. ROI objects to inclusion of that provision. Judge Bennett is not persuaded that the potential opt-in plaintiffs should not be permitted to contact ROI. Importantly, the case Ms. Stenulson cites to support her argument did not address whether the potential opt-in plaintiffs should be advised to not contact the defendant; instead, it addressed whether the Defendant's counsel's contact information should be included in the notice. Furthermore, Ms. Stenulson's arguments concerning the need to prevent ROI from crossing any ethical barriers is speculative. For those reasons, Ms. Stenulson may not retain the provision in the notice that instructs recipients to refrain from contacting ROI. 4. Continued Use of Consent Form Ms. Stenulson's proposed consent form contains a provision stating that the opt-in plaintiff agrees that, if needed, he or she authorizes Ms. Stenulson's counsel in the case to use the consent form to refile his or her claim "in a separate lawsuit or arbitration against ROI." She argues that the provision is a "prophylactic measure" to ensure that the opt-in plaintiffs are not prejudiced and that their claims are adequately protected. ROI contends that the provision is inappropriate because it goes beyond the case. In support of its argument, it relies upon Calvillo v. Bull Rogers, Inc., in which a court in the District of New Mexico struck language related to use of a consent form "in any subsequent action" or "in any subsequent case as necessary." The court concluded that such language was "unnecessary and may be misleading to an individual whose intention is to opt-in to the present litigation" and that the language had "no legal basis to bind the individual." However, the court allowed the consent form to retain language allowing the form to "be used in this case as necessary." Judge Bennett is not persuaded that Ms. Stenulson's inclusion of this provision, as drafted, is appropriate. Like the court in Calvillo, he will not permit inclusion of language that binds the opt-in plaintiffs to use of their consent forms for separate, future litigation or arbitration. Indeed, although individuals may opt into the case, they may not wish to opt into a separate case in the future, or they may wish to do so with different counsel. However, Judge Bennett permits the consent form to include language to allow Ms. Stenulson's counsel to use the consent forms as needed in the case. Thus, Ms. Stenulson's proposed consent form will be altered in accordance with that direction. B. Notice Plan The parties dispute the following issues for the notice plan: (i) whether the notice should be sent to ROI employees who have signed arbitration agreements with ROI; (ii) the inclusion of a link to the notice and consent form with the ability to execute electronically; and (iii) whether a reminder notice should be sent. 1. Individuals Who Signed an Arbitration Agreement ROI contends that the notice should be sent only to employees who have not signed a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with ROI. Judge Bennett rejects ROI's argument. Again, "the majority of district courts to have addressed the issue have determined that the fact that some employees have signed arbitration agreements does not preclude conditional certification as to all employees." Therefore, Judge Bennett concludes that the notice should be sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, not just those who have not signed an arbitration agreement with ROI. 2. Link and Electronic Execution The parties have agreed to distribute the notice and consent form via first class mail and text message; however, the content of the text message is disputed. On the one hand, Ms. Stenulson proposes sending a text message to the potential opt-in plaintiffs with a link to a secure website where they can view the court-approved notice and electronically execute their consent forms. ROI, on the other hand, proposes sending a text message with an attached file or image of the notice and consent form. The parties dispute the relative costs, reliability, and accuracy of their respective proposed methods. ROI's arguments are untenable, Judge Bennett finds. First, ROI has provided only speculative arguments that the notice or consent form might be altered. Second, there are equally challenging technical issues involved with employing ROI's proposed method. Third, ROI's argument about increased and unnecessary costs is not a relevant consideration given that Ms. Stenulson will bear those burdens. Finally, Judge Bennett t is unpersuaded that receiving a file or image of the notice and consent form will somehow ensure that recipients read and understand the documents. For those reasons, he concludes that the text message distribution of the notice and consent form will proceed in accordance with Ms. Stenulson's proposal. 3. Reminder Notice Ms. Stenulson proposes that a reminder notice be sent via text message to all the potential opt-in plaintiffs halfway through the notice period. She contends that this will "ensure" the potential opt-in plaintiffs "are informed of their rights." ROI opposes the sending of a reminder notice as unnecessary and inappropriate because it could be interpreted as court endorsement of joining the action. It further argues that sending the notice by two means (first class mail and text message) will provide sufficient notice. The parties have cited persuasive authority in support of their respective positions, Judge Bennett finds. Having considered that authority, he is persuaded by the authority ROI cites and concludes that a reminder notice is neither necessary nor appropriate. Therefore, Ms. Stenulson will not be permitted to send a reminder notice. C. Other Issues In addition to the foregoing issues, Judge Bennett addresses the following two additional issues: (A) whether ROI should be required to disclose certain Social Security numbers, and (B) whether non-postmarked consent forms must be date stamped. 1. Social Security Numbers In a footnote in her briefing on her proposed notice, Ms. Stenulson contends that if mailed notices are returned as undeliverable, ROI should be required to provide Social Security numbers for those opt-in plaintiffs within three business days of her request so that current addresses can be found for the returned notices. ROI objects to that process based on privacy concerns associated with disclosing Social Security numbers. ROI also asserts that Ms. Stenulson should raise the issue with the Court later if it becomes ripe. Judge Bennett agrees with ROI's arguments. First, there are legitimate privacy concerns implicated by disclosing Social Security numbers.36 Second, because the notice is being sent by text message, in addition to being sent by first class mail, it increases the likelihood that the potential opt-in plaintiffs will receive the notice even if their mailed notice is returned as undeliverable. Third, at this point, Ms. Stenulson has not shown a need for the disclosure Social Security numbers. Finally, Ms. Stenulson can raise the issue with the Court at a later date if it becomes necessary. For those reasons, at this point, Judge Bennett will not require ROI to produce Social Security numbers for any undelivered notices.s 2. Date Stamping ROI requests that any non-postmarked consent forms be date stamped upon receipt together with of the name of the person who received it to create a record of receipt. Judge Bennett concludes that this is a reasonable request to ensure an accurate record of receipt of consent forms. Therefore, Ms. Stenulson will be required to date stamp any non-postmarked consent forms along with the name of the person who received it. III. Order Judge Bennett ordered that the content of the notice and the consent form and the notice plan will comply with the requirements he outlined. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cpsd7up from Leagle.com. RUST-OLEUM CORP: Third Amended Case Mng't Sched Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel beeler entered a third amended case management scheduling order as follows: Date Continued Date -- Deadline for Plaintiffs March 18, 2022 July 19, 2022 to File Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to Complete May 2, 2022 Sept. 2, 2022 Expert Discovery regarding Plaintiff's Experts: -- Deadline for Defendant June 14, 2022, Oct. 17, 2022 to File Opposition to Class Certification Motion: -- Deadline to Complete Aug. 1, 2022 Dec. 1, 2022 Expert Discovery regarding Defendant's Experts: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs Sept. 15, 2022 Jan. 18, 2023 to File any Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification: Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for home and industrial use. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HN9ng0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com 228 Hamilton Ave., 3 rd Fl Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (619) 915-9432 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 The Defendant is represented by: Karen M. Sullivan, Esq. MANNING GROSS + MASSENBUEG LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 892-4700 Facsimile: (949) 892-4701 E-mail: ksullivan@mgmlaw.com - and - Anthony j. Monaco, Esq. P. Stephen Fardy, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP 330 N. Wabash, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 321-9100 Facsimile: (312) 321-0990 E-mail: amonaco@smbtrials.com sfardy@smbtrials.com SOCLEAN INC: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jessie Judson Brooks, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00357 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 7, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00228-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Chad Nuce, Esq. PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC 300 West Gordon Street P.O. Box 1168 Thomaston, GA 30286 Phone: (706) 646-3200 Fax: (706) 646-2147 Email: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com - and - John M. Deakle, Esq. PO Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Phone: (601) 544-0631 Fax: (601) 544-0666 Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com - and - Richard H. Bishoff, Esq. 1269 Woodland Rd PO Box 1269 Thomaston, GA 30286 Phone: (404) 272-1901 Fax: (706) 646-2147 Email: rbishoff@bishofflaw.com - and - Ronald Johnson, IV, Esq. PO Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Phone: (601) 325-8992 Email: rvjohnson@djlawms.com The Defendant is represented by: Aiten Musaeva Mcpherson, Esq. 1201 W Peachtree St. NE Ste. 1400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-6716 Email: aiten.mcpherson@bclplaw.com SPORTS UNLIMITED: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sports Unlimited, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sports Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01086 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sports Unlimited Inc. -- https://www.sportsunlimitedinc.com/ -- is a family owned sporting goods retailer that is committed to delivering quality products and outstanding service.[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 STATE FARM: March 16 Extension to File Response Sought in Martino ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MARTINO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00910 (W.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a thirty-day extension of time for State Farm to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in order to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions. The Plaintiff filed her Motion to Certify Class on January 14, 2022. State Farm's response is due on February 14, 2022. The Parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations and believe that such discussions are more likely to be productive if the filing of additional briefing by both parties (i.e., an Opposition and Reply) is briefly delayed. The Parties therefore jointly request an additional 30 days, up to and including March 16, 2022, for State Farm to file its response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. State Farm operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B3NkPU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. J. Brett Milbourn, Esq. Taylor P. Foye, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: bmilbourn@hab-law.com jkronawitter@hab-law.com tfoye@hab-law.com The Defendant is represented by: James F. Bennett Robert F. Epperson, Jr. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com repperson@dowdbennett.com STEP2 COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Step2 Company, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Step2 Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01092 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Step2 -- https://www.step2.com/ -- manufactures & sells indoor and outdoor kid's toys, play kitchens, playhouses, wagons, swing sets, home & garden products, & more.[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 TAL EDUCATION: Faces Sun Suit Over Misleading Reports ----------------------------------------------------- RUOSHUI SUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TAL EDUCATION GROUP, BANGXIN ZHANG, RONG LUO and LINDA HE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01015 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased TAL American Depository Shares between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1934 against TAL and certain of the Company's senior officers and directors. TAL provides K-12 after-school tutoring services in China, mainly covering core academic subjects, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, political science, English and Chinese. According to the complaint, in February 2018, the Chinese government released a set of regulations aimed at reining in excessive tutoring fees and limiting the perceived societal harm resulting from the ubiquity of for-profit tutoring programs in China such as those offered by TAL. Despite Defendants' acknowledgment that it was of material importance to investors that TAL comply with the rules, regulations and proscriptions of the Chinese government, during the Class Period, the Company routinely engaged in illicit business practices designed to artificially inflate the Company's financial results. As a result of its wide-ranging misconduct, TAL was exposed to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse governmental action, as well as immense legal, regulatory and reputational fallout if TAL's illicit business practices were ever publicly revealed. Additionally, says the complaint, the price of TAL ADSs traded at artificially inflated price as a result of the Defendants' alleged scheme to defraud investors and issue materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com TAMKO BUILDING: Compelled to Give Responsive Docs in Melnick Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARTIN and BETH MELNICK, et al., Plaintiffs v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-2630-JWL-KGG (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant to produce certain responsive documents. I. Background In the putative class action, three sets of Plaintiffs have brought the present lawsuit against the Defendant alleging that roofing shingles designed, manufactured, and sold nationwide by the Defendant were defective. The Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations was rejected by Judge Nunley in the Eastern District of California before the case was transferred to the District of Kansas. The Court notes, however, that Judge Nunley stated that "the parties stated the Defendant's sales occurred 'throughout' the country, but have not determined how many states are implicated in the nationwide class, or which states beyond the four Plaintiffs' home states." The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion to certify the class is currently set for Sept. 30, 2022. With the present motion, the Plaintiffs move for an Order compelling the Defendant to produce all documents responsive to their Second Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8, 38-43, 45 and 46, and provide supplemental responses to their First Interrogatories to Defendant Nos. 3, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Request No. 8 seeks documents "sufficient to show which TAMKO's plants and lines produced Heritage Shingles for what geographic areas of the United States at all times during the Relevant Time Period." Requests Nos. 38-43 relate to warranty claims and complaints on the Heritage Shingles. Request No. 45 asks for documents "sufficient to show TAMKO's gross revenue and net profits from sales of each Heritage Shingles product during the Relevant Time Period." Request No. 46 asks for documents "sufficient to show the quantity of each Heritage Shingles product sold by year, including a breakdown of such sales by state and by consumer." Interrogatory No. 3 asks the Defendant to "identify each and every test that TAMKO used or uses to evaluate its Heritage Shingles pursuant to ASTM D3462, including for tear strength, and TAMKO's current or former officers, directors and employees who were or are responsible for such testing, and the dates of such responsibility." Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the identity of "all distributors, wholesalers, retailers and installers" who contacted the Defendant regarding the quality of the shingles, including the dates of such communications. Interrogatory No. 13 asks for the identities of the individuals responsible for handling "warranty claims and other complaints" on the shingles on behalf of the Defendant. Interrogatory No. 14 instructs the Defendant to state its "revenue per year during the Relevant Time Period from the sale of Heritage Shingles, broken down by specific Shingle product." Interrogatory No. 15 asks "the volume of each Heritage Shingle product sold by the Defendant per year during the Relevant Time Period, including a breakdown of such sales by state." II. Analysis A. Arbitration Clause As an initial matter, the Defendant argues that "any post-2015 nationwide discovery would be doubly irrelevant in light of the post-2004 Heritage shingles arbitration clause." What it refers to as the "mandatory arbitration clause" was included on the wrapper of every package of Heritage shingles sold since late 2004. The Plaintiffs do not deny the existence of the clause on the wrapper, but point out state courts -- including those in Oklahoma and Missouri -- that have found the arbitration clause at issue to be unenforceable. As a threshold issue, Judge Gale holds that the Defendant has not established that the homeowners at issue had actual knowledge of the arbitration clause necessary to establish consent to be bound by it. Pursuant to Kansas law, the "a binding contract requires a 'meeting of the minds on all essential elements.'" The Defendant has failed to establish this. As such, further analysis of this issue is in this ruling is unwarranted. The Defendant may raise this substantive issue by appropriate motion to the Court. The Defendant's objection is overruled. B. Nationwide Discovery The Plaintiffs first argue that the Defendant "has refused to produce nationwide (i.) warranty claim and product complaint information, and (ii.) sales and distribution information." They argue that this information is relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims in the nationwide class action. The Defendant responds that nationwide warranty claim files or sales data after 2015 because "there is virtually no chance a nationwide class would be certified in the case" and "any putative class members who purchased their shingles after 2004 would be excluded from the class pursuant to a binding arbitration clause that has been upheld by multiple courts." Judge Gale holds that the Defendant's argument that nationwide discovery should be denied because the Plaintiffs' class will likely fail to be certified is both circular and illogical. The discovery is needed to determine the existence of evidence to support the nationwide class claim. Further, the operative Scheduling Order in the case specifically provides for an "initial period of discovery which will include all discovery necessary to resolve the motion to certify the class and all discovery relevant to the claims of the named plaintiffs." This discovery period continues through Aug. 31, 2022. To honor the principles of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, discovery at this stage should prioritize evidence needed for the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. Discovery relating to damages and other evidence relevant to the merits stage of the case may be deferred to minimize potentially unnecessary expense and burden. Judge Gale, thus, generally overrules the Defendant's objection(s) to nationwide discovery that relates directly to class certification. He, however, sustains the Defendant's objection(s) to nationwide discovery relating to damages and other issues relevant to the merits stage of these proceedings. Within this context, Judge Gale will address the specific discovery requests at issue. C. Requests for Production at Issue 1. Request No. 8. The Defendant objected that the request was overly broad unduly burdensome, and sought irrelevant information by seeking documents "relating to geographic areas of the United States beyond those relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims." It agreed to provide documents reflecting relevant information for shingles shipped to Connecticut, Illinois, and Ohio. Such shingles were shipped from plants in Joplin, MO, Frederick, MD, Dallas, TX, Phillipsburg, KS, and Tuscaloosa, AL "during at least portions of the alleged class period." This nation-wide information would arguably provide evidence relevant to the Plaintiffs' attempt to certify the class. The information provided by the Defendant is insufficient and Defendant's objections are overruled. The Plaintiff's motion is, thus, granted as to Request No. 8. 2. Requests Nos. 38-43 RFP No. 38 asks for all documents relating to written and oral complaints the Defendant received regarding the shingles. Request No. 39 seeks "all warranty claims the Defendant has received concerning Heritage Shingles, and all documents and communications related to such warranty claims." Request No. 40 asks for communications regarding complaints or warranty claims concerning the shingles and the Defendant's "notes or logs of such communications." Request No. 41 asks for documents and communications "concerning damage to homes and structures on which Heritage Shingles are or were installed." Request No. 42 seeks production of the Defendant's "warranty claim and complaint database(s) for Heritage Shingles." Request No. 43 asks for documentation regarding "any and all tests, studies, analyses, inspections or investigations that the Defendant or anyone on its behalf performed on Heritage Shingles or properties that were the subject of warranty claims or other complaints." Judge Gale holds that this nation-wide information would arguably provide evidence relevant to the Plaintiffs' attempt to certify the class. The Defendant's objections are overruled. The Plaintiff's motion is, thus, granted as to Requests Nos. 38-43. 3. Request No. 45 The Defendant raised similar objections as to Request No. 8, and again refused to provide nationwide information, instead limiting its response to Connecticut, Illinois, and Ohio. As Judge Gale discussed, discovery at this stage should prioritize evidence needed for the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. He, thus, denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion regarding Request No. 45 and the attempt to discover nation-wide evidence on the Defendant's gross revenue and net profits from sales of the shingles at issue. The Plaintiff may renew discovery on this subject after the District Court's ruling on the class certification motion. 4. Request No. 46 The Defendant raised similar objections as to Request No. 8, and again refused to provide nationwide information, instead limiting its response to Connecticut, Illinois, and Ohio. Judge Gale finds that this nation-wide information would arguably provide evidence relevant to the Plaintiffs' attempt to certify the class. The information provided by the Defendant is insufficient and Defendant's objections are overruled. The Plaintiff's motion is, thus, granted as to Request No. 46. D. Sufficiency of Responses to Interrogatories 3, 12-15 1. Interrogatory No. 3 The Defendant objects that the Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information as it asks for the identification of "each and every test" the Defendant used to evaluate the shingles and "all individuals who have had some responsibility for such testing over an approximately 20-year period." The Defendant did, however, provide an extensive, narrative response to the Interrogatory. The Plaintiffs argue that while Defendant's Second Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 3 provides certain testing information, "it still does not list who is and was responsible for the testing and when." According to them, the Defendants response "only references two unhelpful organizational charts and identifies one 'individual with knowledge regarding the subject matter of this interrogatory.'" They contend this identifying information is necessary in or der to determine who to depose regarding Defendant's testing of its Heritage Shingles. Judge Gale rules that the information sought is facially relevant and the Defendant has not established its irrelevance. While it may be burdensome for the Defendant to compile a list of such individuals over a 20 year period, it has also failed to establish that the burden would be undue or disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Defendant's objections are overruled and the Plaintiff's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 3. 2. Interrogatory No. 12 The Plaintiffs argue that the information is relevant to their claims "concerning the breadth of the problems with Heritage Shingles." According to them, this discovery would allow them to investigate relevant third party information regarding defects in Heritage Shingles. The Defendant objects that Interrogatory No. 12 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information as it asks for identification of "all distributors, wholesalers, retailers and installers" who have contacted the Defendant regarding the quality of the over a 30-year period. It then identified various responsive documentation produced. Judge Gale states that this interrogatory is both vague and overly broad as it seeks information "regarding the quality of" the shingles at issue. The Defendant's objections are sustained and Judge Gale denies the Plaintiff's motion as to Interrogatory No. 12. 3. Interrogatory No. 13 The Plaintiffs contend that they need this information "so that they can determine which individuals to depose concerning the Defendant's handling of warranty claims and other customer complaints." The Defendant objects that the Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information as it asks for the identification of such individuals over a 20-year period. It then identified various responsive documentation produced and identified David Richins as "an individual with knowledge regarding the subject matter of this Interrogatory." Judge Gale finds that the Defendant's position is not within the spirit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. Even assuming the Plaintiffs are equally able to search and sort the information provided, he says, the Defendant would have innate knowledge of the information and individuals identified therein that the Plaintiff does not possess. Given the breadth of the documents involved, the Defendant is in a better position to parse what is and is not truly responsive. The Defendant's objections are overruled and the Plaintiff's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 13. 4. Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15 The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's responses to these Interrogatories "are inadequate because of its refusal to provide certain nationwide discovery." According to the Plaintiff, remaining missing from the Defendant's Second Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 14 is nationwide Heritage Shingles sales revenue per year from 2015 to the present. In response to Interrogatory No. 15, the Defendant has only provided sales volumes for Connecticut, Illinois and Ohio -- not any other state in the country. As he discussed, Judge Gale holds that the discovery at this stage should prioritize evidence needed for the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. He thus denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion regarding Interrogatory No. 14 and the attempt to discover nation-wide evidence on "revenue per year during the Relevant Time Period from the sale of Heritage Shingles, broken down by specific Shingle product." The Plaintiff may renew discovery on this subject after the District Court's ruling on the class certification motion. Interrogatory No. 15, on the other hand, seeks "the volume of each Heritage Shingle product sold by the Defendant per year during the Relevant Time Period, including a breakdown of such sales by state." This nationwide information would arguably provide evidence relevant to Plaintiffs' attempt to certify the class. The Plaintiff's motion is, thus, granted as to Interrogatory No. 15. III. Conclusion Judge Gale granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as set forth. Supplemental responses are due within 30 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cuz7svu from Leagle.com. TERRI BIAS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Suspended in Berry --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERRY v. TERRI BIAS & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00854 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge L. Patrick Auld entered an order on motion for extension of time To dile motion. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is suspended and shall be re-set in conjunction with the scheduling order. -- The parties should propose a new class certification deadline in their joint or individual reports pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Terri Bias is a real estate company.[CC] TIPSY JOE: Windheim Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA WINDHEIM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIPSY JOE CORP. d/b/a THE TIPSY BOAR GASTROPUB, LUISA F. CASTELLANOS, individually, and JOSE CASTELLANOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-60278 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 5, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay federal minimum and overtime wages and Florida minimum wages for certain hours worked by Plaintiff and the Class members in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from July 19, 2021, until October 10, 2021, at Tipsy Boar Gastropub in Hollywood, Florida. Tipsy Joe Corp., d/b/a The Tipsy Boar Gastropub, is a restaurant in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 266-0908 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com TOKIDOKI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tokidoki LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tokidoki LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01090 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. tokidoki ("sometimes" in Japanese) -- https://www.tokidoki.it/ -- is the Japanese-inspired lifestyle brand created in 2006.[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 TOROSIAN TECH: Fails to Properly Pay Electricians, Johnson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOROSIAN TECH SERVICES, INC. and THOMAS TOROSIAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00154-PP (E.D. Wis., February 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid regular wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Mr. Johnson worked for the Defendants as an electrician in Racine, Wisconsin from March 2018. Torosian Tech Services, Inc. is a repair services company, with a principal place of business at 23 Marilyns Way, Eliot, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com TTEC SERVICES: Anderson Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTEC Services Corporation. The case is styled as David Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TTEC Services Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00547-KAM-AYS (D. Colo., Feb. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. La Flor Products Company, Inc. -- https://www.laflorspices.com/ -- manufactures food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com TTEC SERVICES: Barocas Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTEC Services Corporation. The case is styled as David Barocas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TTEC Services Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00217-JFM (D. Ariz., Feb. 9, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. TTEC -- https://www.ttec.com/ -- is a global customer experience (CX) technology and services company focused on the design, implementation, and delivery of exceptional CX.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C Manifold, Esq. Oana Constantin, Esq. Rachele R Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B St., Ste. 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 239-4599 Fax: (619) 234-4599 Email: manifold@whafh.com VALVE CORP: Galway Appeals Lootbox Gambling Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Grace Galway, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Grace Galway and Brenda Shoss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01941-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The court discussed the factual and procedural background of this proposed class action in detail in its order granting in part Valve's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. In 2017, the Court granted Valve's motion to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and their minor children based on the children's agreement to an arbitration clause in Valve's Steam Subscriber Agreement. The arbitrators found in Valve's favor on all claims. Subsequently, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to set aside the arbitrators' awards and dismissed the case. The Plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's dismissal of the claims that the Plaintiffs brought on behalf of their children but reversed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' individual claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the Court had erred in compelling the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims because they were not users of Valve's Steam gaming platform and thus had not agreed to the arbitration clause in the Steam Subscriber Agreement. After the case was remanded, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In relevant part, they alleged that Valve's "Lootbox" feature, which allows players of Valve's games to buy a "key" to a virtual "weapons case" or "crate" that contains "Skins" (virtual guns and knives with a variety of different looks and textures), constitutes a form of gambling ("Lootbox gambling") that is indistinguishable from playing a slot machine. The Plaintiffs alleged that Valve's acts were deceptive within the meaning of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, ch. 19.86 RCW ("CPA"), because they "created a false impression of fair play, legality, and safety" which induced Plaintiffs to unwittingly provide money to their minor children to purchase Skins and Lootbox keys. The Plaintiffs alleged these claims on behalf of the following proposed class: All persons in the United States who are parents/guardians of a minor child who provided funds to their minor child(ren) for the purchase of Skins and/or> Keys for the games CounterStrike:Global Offensive, Dota2 and Team Fortress 2. On January 7, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice and denied as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Grace Galway, et al. v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 22-35105, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Grace Galway and Brenda Shoss Mediation Questionnaire was due Feb. 11, 2022; -- Appellants Grace Galway and Brenda Shoss opening brief is due on April 6, 2022; -- Appellee Valve Corporation answering brief is due on May 6, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GRACE GALWAY and BRENDA SHOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 - and - Ray W. Kahler, Esq. Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq. STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN 413 8th Street Hoquiam, WA 98550 Telephone: (360) 533-2710 - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC 1205 E Washington Street, Suite 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Defendant-Appellee VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, is represented by: Charles B. Casper, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 772-1500 - and - Gavin W. Skok, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 624-3600 VOLKSWAGEN AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schell Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ADAM SCHELL; ANDREW M. OLSON; ANGELA MATT ARCHITECT INC.; BENJAMIN TYLER DUNN; BRADLEY CONNER; BRENDAN DALY; BRYAN SHEFFIELD; CATHERINE LAMENZO; DARRYL LECOURS; DEREK WINEBAUGH; EDDIE FIELD; GISBEL DE LA CRUZ; INGRID SALGADO; JENNIFER NEMET; JOHN KUBALA; KEN GALLUCCIO; MARK MILLER; MELISSA ST. CROIX; MICHAEL BOWMAN; MICHAEL SKENA; NORBERT KAHLERT; STEPHEN FRANCK; STEVEN FERDINAND; STEVEN RAWCZAK; SVEN HOFMANN; THOMAS SIEHL III; TONYA DREHER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN AG; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (Audi AG); AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, a German corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-17480 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the dismissal of the underlying liability case. Plaintiffs-Appellants Adam Schell, et al., filed this lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of consumers, who bought or leased "clean diesel" automobiles from Volkswagen but disposed of these vehicles before Volkswagen's "clean diesel" emissions fraud was publicized. See In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg. Sales Prac. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing the nature and extent of this emissions fraud). The Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order dismissing this case for lack of evidence of an Article III injury. The appeal concerns Defendant-Appellant Volkswagen's factual challenge to standing under Rule 12(b)(1) (Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 992 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2021)). Once Volkswagen disputed the truth of the Plaintiffs' factual allegations as to Article III standing, the Plaintiffs could no longer rest on mere allegations regarding the existence of such standing. The Plaintiffs instead had the burden to support their jurisdictional allegations with competent proof, and, of course, had the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Even assuming the Plaintiffs correctly asserted at oral argument that the theory of Article III injury before the district court was that Volkswagen fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs into paying a "clean diesel premium" for their cars, the Plaintiffs still had to offer evidence that this price premium exists, the Court of Appeals notes. The Plaintiffs contend that the expert opinion of Ted Stockton is sufficient proof of this injury such that their case should have survived Volkswagen's factual challenge to standing, and that the district court erred in ruling otherwise. The Court of Appeals disagrees. Mr. Stockton admitted in his deposition that he did not calculate the "clean diesel premium" that was necessary to support the Plaintiffs' theory for the Article III injury alleged by them. He instead assumed that his calculation of "excess depreciation" based on the post-emissions-fraud-disclosure decrease in the value of used Volkswagens was a "reasonable proxy for overpayment at the time of initial purchase." This method captures ancillary post-disclosure factors as to the price of used Volkswagen "clean diesel" vehicles, such as fear of regulatory action, loss of brand reputation, and uncertain resale value. According to the Memorandum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, because Stockton's method relied on such post-disclosure factors, it was irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' clean-diesel-premium theory of Article III injury. The Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing even under their own legal standard. They did not prove the only Article III injury that they alleged, and that failure of proof ends the case. The Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in obliging them to prove damages with certainty via Stockton's opinion, and conditioning standing on whether they mitigated their injuries. The Court of Appeals holds that the Plaintiffs are incorrect because the district court did neither. It excluded Stockton's opinion, not for imprecision, but because it was irrelevant, and the district court declined to analyze mitigation because the Plaintiffs offered no proof of a "clean diesel premium." Because the district court properly exercised its discretion when it excluded Stockton's opinion, and the Plaintiffs had neither offered in the district court nor discussed in their Opening Brief any other supportive evidence of damages, the Court of Appeals concludes that they lack any admissible evidence of Article III injury. The Plaintiffs' allegations that they overpaid for "clean diesel" vehicles due to fraud are insufficient because the district court dismissed the case at the post-pleading stage after fact and expert discovery had occurred and the Plaintiffs had a failure of proof as to standing. Hence, dismissal was appropriate here. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykuvbsem from Leagle.com. WASHINGTON: HCA Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lynch Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID LYNCH, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C21-5138 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part Defendants Washington Health Care Authority and Sue Birch's motion for judgment on the pleadings. I. Background Plaintiff Lynch is a wartime veteran who receives medical care and assistance under the Community Options Program Entry System ("COPES") Medicaid program and a Veteran's Administration disability improved pension, which includes Aid and Assistance ("AA") and Unusual Medical Expense ("UME") benefits. He alleges that Defendant Washington Health Care Authority ("the Agency") and its director Defendant Birch have wrongfully taken his AA and UME benefits by defining his VA benefits as a third-party resource, which increases his Medicaid participation amount. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated wartime veterans who have had UME and AA benefits wrongfully taken. Washington State participates in the joint state-federal Medicaid program. As part of this program, Washington provides in-home personal care services to beneficiaries who are both functionally and financially eligible for the service. Lynch receives such in-home personal care services, and the Agency determined that he is eligible for 158 Medicaid in-home care hours per month. Although Lynch receives in-home personal care through Medicaid, the services he receives do not cover all of his medical or in-home care needs. Lynch has an in-home caregiver Monday through Friday for 7.5 hours a day but does not have care on the weekends. He requires assistance on the weekends but does not have the money to pay for an additional caregiver. Lynch also requires dental implants that cost approximately $57,000, but Medicaid does not cover these unreimbursed dental expenses. He took out a loan to cover the cost, which is estimated at $74,733.60 (including interest). To help cover the costs of his dental implants and additional in-home care, Lynch applied for increased pension benefits with the VA. He intended to use his UME benefits to defray the costs of his dental work, and the AA benefits would allow him to hire another personal care attendant. The VA increased Lynch's monthly benefit to $1,029, which includes $218 in pension benefits, $765 in AA benefits, and $46 in UME benefits. The Agency received notice of Lynch's increased VA benefits on Dec. 18, 2019 and sent him a letter the same day informing him that the amount he was required to pay for in-home care would increase to $916 per month, effective Jan. 1, 2020. The Agency calculated that Lynch had a countable monthly income of $1,146 ($928 in social security plus $218 in VA pension benefits). His countable income minus the $1,041 personal needs allowance resulted in a participation amount of $105. The Agency counted Lynch's AA and UME benefits as a third-party resource of $811 and determined that Lynch was required to pay $916 ($105 participation plus $811 third-party resource) towards the cost of care. Lynch thus uses all of his AA and UME monthly benefits for his care provider to pay for continued Medicaid services. Agency benefit determinations are subject to administrative review. First, the appellant (i.e., the challenging benefit recipient) proceeds before the Office of Administrative Hearings and an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). Once an initial decision is issued by the ALJ, either party may request review by a Review Judge with the Board of Appeals. In the case, Lynch challenged the designation of his UME and AA benefits as third-party resources in an administrative hearing. The ALJ ruled in favor of Lynch, but the Review Judge reversed the initial decision. Mr. Lynch subsequently petitioned for judicial review of the Review Judge's decision in Thurston County Superior Court. He brought claims for judicial review of the administrative order entered against him and the applicable Agency rule that designated his AA and UME benefits as third-party resources, as well as other common law and statutory claims. On the Agency's motion, the Thurston County Superior Court severed Lynch's claims for damages from the claims he raised under the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act ("WAPA"), RCW Ch. 34.05. Lynch then refiled his non-administrative claims and added claims under the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Defendants removed the case to the Court. The Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Lynch cannot maintain his federal and state law claims as a matter of law. Lynch argues that the Agency imposes an unauthorized burden on veterans by wrongfully taking UME and AA benefits provided by the VA for non-Medicaid services. II. Discussion A. Federal Claims Mr. Lynch asserts two claims under federal law: A claim for violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Defendants argue that Lynch's federal claims for violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause fail because he has not alleged a taking of property. They appear to concede that the Agency reduces public benefits that Lynch would otherwise receive but assert that no actionable taking has occurred. Lynch, on the other hand, argues that he has adequately alleged a regulatory taking claim or, alternatively, a per se taking claim. 1. Takings Clause The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause prohibits "private property" from being "taken for public use, without just compensation." A classic taking occurs when the "government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain." Beyond a classic taking, the Supreme Court has held in Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922), that "if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." There are three types of regulatory actions "that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking" reflected in the Supreme Court's decisions in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Mr. Lynch argues that he has a viable claim for a Penn Central regulatory taking, or a per se taking claim based on the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine. But for him to have a viable Takings Clause claim, there must be a taking of private property. The Defendants argue that Lynch's "expectation of public benefits does not constitute a protected property right for the purpose of the Takings Clause." Lynch argues that he has "a vested protectable expectation in continuation of the Agency's level of Medicaid benefits" and a "legal entitlement to use his VA benefits without being coerced into using them to pay for Medicaid-covered services." But, Judge Settle holds that Lynch fails to distinguish Bowen, in which the Supreme Court held that there is "no protected property rights to continued benefits at the same level." And as the Defendants highlight, Lynch has not cited any opinion in which a court has held that welfare benefits are protected property rights or that withholding of such benefits constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The two cases he relies primarily on for his theory of the case -- Cordall v. State, 96 Wn.App. 415 (1999), and Edwards v. Griepentrog, 804 F.Supp. 1310 (D. Nev. 1992) -- were not Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claims. While Lynch argues that the Agency cites no federal authority to justify its actions, he has not provided binding or persuasive authority that he has a protected property interest to his benefits under the Takings Clause. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, granted, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice. 2. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 The Defendants next argue that Lynch's standalone Section 1983 claim fails because he has not identified a federal constitutional or statutory right allegedly violated, except for his rights under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Indeed, Lynch simply alleges that "Defendants deprived the class members of their federal constitutional and/or statutory rights as identified in the previous sections." A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Section 1983 is merely a vehicle for enforcing individual rights secured elsewhere, most typically in the United States Constitution. Mr. Lynch's complaint does not specify the federal constitutional and/or statutory rights he claims have been violated outside of the Fifth Amendment and thus does not give Defendants fair notice of what his Section 1983 claim is. Regardless, Lynch clarifies his Section 1983 theories in his response. He asserts that he has a plausible claim against Birch in her individual capacity under four theories: (1) a regulatory and per se taking under the Fifth Amendment; (2) Medicaid Third-Party Liability Law; (3) Medicaid anti-lien statute; and (4) Veteran Benefits anti-assignment statute. Judge Settle has already determined that Lynch does not have a viable Takings Clause claim but will consider his remaining theories, though unpled. Mr. Lynch argues that Ninth Circuit precedent supports his Section 1983 claim to enforce Medicaid rights. Judge Settle Lynch's Section 1983 theories fail to state a claim, Judge Settle finds. First, in regard to his Medicaid Third-Party Liability Law theory, federal law requires states or local administering agencies to take "all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability of third parties" for costs incurred under state Medicaid plans. The intended beneficiary of the Medicaid recoupment statutes is the federal government. This statute does not create a federal right actionable under Section 1983 under the Blessing test. Next, Lynch's theory under the Medicaid anti-lien statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396p(a), fails because he has not alleged that Defendants ever imposed a lien. Finally, and similarly, the Veteran Benefits anti-assignment statute, 38 U.S.C. Section 5301, is inapplicable. The Defendants have not made a claim of an attachment or levy nor have they seized Lynch's VA benefits; the Agency (nor Birch) never actually took possession of Lynch's AA and UME benefits before he received them. Thus, the anti-assignment statute is inapplicable. Under these theories, Lynch's 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim fails as a matter of law. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, granted, and the claim is dismissed with prejudice. 3. State Law Claims Mr. Lynch also brings state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of state vendor payment principle, and writ of mandate. The Defendants argue that Lynch cannot maintain these state law claims in the Court as a matter of law because his petition for judicial review pending in Thurston County Superior Court constitutes "the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action" under the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act ("WAPA"). Lynch asserts that an exception to this rule applies because he is bringing a class action. WAPA excepts certain "ancillary procedural matters before the reviewing court," including class actions, from its exclusivity mandate. Judge Settle declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lynch's state law claims. He has dismissed all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and the parties would not be prejudiced by it declining supplemental jurisdiction. Lynch's WAPA claim is still pending in state court, and the state court is better situated to determine whether Lynch may maintain his non-WAPA state law claims as a class action. The Defendants' motion for judgment on pleadings is therefore denied as to Lynch's state law claims. III. Order Therefore, Judge Settle granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. He dismissed Lynch's Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim with prejudice. Lynch's motion to certify class and motion for extension of time are denied without prejudice to refile in state court. The action will be remanded to the Superior Court for Thurston County, Cause No. 21-2-00175-34. The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of the Order to the Clerk of the Court for Thurston County Superior Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8dmzyb from Leagle.com. WEST VIRGINIA: Loses Objection to Protective Order Denial in Baxley ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN BAXLEY, JR., EARL EDMONDSON, JOSHUA HALL, DONNA WELLS-WRIGHT, HEATHER REED, and DANNY SPIKER, JR., on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-1526 (S.D.W.Va.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order: -- denying the Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Ruling Denying "Motion for Protective Order Objections to Rule 34 Notice of Inspection" and Granting Plaintiffs' "Motion to Extend Deadline to Permit Limited Rule 34 Inspection by Less Than Two Weeks"; -- affirming Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn's Order; and -- denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Stay. Factual Background The action is a certified class action on behalf of all incarcerated people in West Virginia jails, regarding the Defendant's alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and failure to provide adequate mental and medical health care during incarceration. The case has been rife with contentious discovery issues, including the Defendant's objections to inspection of its facilities on similar grounds to those presented, both of which were overruled. Relevant is the Plaintiffs' most recent Notice of Rule 34 Inspection, which seeks to allow their expert, Dr. Venters, to conduct additional inspections at the jails in light of changed COVID-19 policies. This notice was filed after the course of litigation rendered the Plaintiffs' older inspections stale, as detailed by the Court previously. The Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Renewed Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which the Court granted. In response to the Notice of Inspection, the Defendant filed her objections to the notice and an Expedited Motion for a Protective Order, which was referred to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn. The Plaintiffs then also filed a Motion to Extend Deadline to permit inspections past the original deadline contemplated by the scheduling order. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn considered the briefing of the parties and held a motions hearing on the protective order and extension on Jan. 14, 2022. After the hearing, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn entered an order, which denied the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to permit the inspection. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn also extended the expert witness disclosure deadlines. The Defendant objected to the order. In conjunction with the objection, she also filed a Motion to Stay, which sought to stay the inspections ordered by the Magistrate Judge, pending the Court's ruling on the objections. The Plaintiffs have filed responses both to the Motion to Stay and the Objection. Analysis The Defendant filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Order on Jan. 19, 2022. The Objection makes several arguments, including: (1) the Court's order permitting Rule 34 inspections after the Rule 16 deadline was clear error because the Plaintiffs did not show good cause to modify the scheduling order; (2) the Court failed to apply Rule 16 in determining whether to extend the deadline; and (3) the Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Protective Order does not address the legal standard for modification of a Scheduling Order and the requisite evidence necessary to modify the Court's Order was not presented or relied upon by the Magistrate Judge. The Court has considered the discovery motions, orders of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, objections, and the memoranda submitted in support and opposition to the foregoing. Nondispositive orders of Magistrate Judges are afforded great deference, and the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's rulings, nor were they contrary to law. District Judge Robert C. Chambers notes that discovery of the case has been quarrelsome--it is clear from the record that the parties have disagreed at almost every turn. Nevertheless, despite the combative lawyering on both sides of this dispute, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's rulings have been well-reasoned and fair, Judge Chambers finds. The Defendant's contentions can all be addressed by the same analysis because she essentially contends that the Magistrate Judge's decision should have been governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its attendant good cause standard, Judge Chambers notes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that once a scheduling order has been entered, it may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent. This good cause standard focuses on the timeliness of the amendment and the reasons for its tardy submission; the primary consideration is the diligence of the moving party. Here, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, in his Order, noted that there were "substantially changed conditions or circumstances at the jails" and that the Plaintiffs point out that the Court has previously denied the Defendant's objections to similar site inspections and state that the Defendant's conduct has only caused delays; therefore, any issues related to timeliness is caused by the Defendant, a position he found to be "reasonable." Judge Chambers states that this speaks to both the Plaintiffs' diligence and changed conditions forming good cause. Additionally, the Plaintiffs noticed their inspections just three weeks after the adverse ruling on the motion to enforce settlement and two weeks (which included the winter holidays) after they noticed their withdrawal of the motion for preliminary injunction in light of the need for additional inspection. Further, the Plaintiffs specifically noted that Dr. Venters was not able to perform the inspections until Jan. 24, 2022, at the earliest, and their motion for extension was made prior to the deadline of inspection's passing. Further, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn found that inspection would not prejudice the Defendant, but that the Plaintiffs' class action is dependent upon presenting evidence and will be severely prejudiced if their expert is prevented from inspecting these locations where ostensibly, the Defendant has enacted revised measures to address Covid. Consideration of prejudice to parties was also appropriate and cuts in favor of finding good cause to modify the Scheduling Order, Judge Chambers holds. Conclusion The Federal Rules of Evidence and the case law of this Circuit give magistrate judges substantial discretion over nondispositive matters. The Court is not disposed to overrule orders of a magistrate judge where there are not obvious errors of a substantive nature or clear mistakes of law. Judge Chambers holds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's finding that good cause existed and his subsequent decisions to deny the Protective Order and grant the Motion to Extend and modify the Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Defendant's Objection and Appeal is denied. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Memorandum Opinion and Order is affirmed. Given that the Court has ruled on the Objections, the attendant Motion to Stay is denied as moot. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vvtsytt from Leagle.com. WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Hollingsworth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westcare California, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Hollingsworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westcare California, Inc., Case No. BCV-22-100324 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." WestCare -- https://www.westcare.com/ -- is a national nonprofit offering a broad spectrum of behavioral health and human services in 19 States, four U.S. territories, and three countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 WHENEVER COMMUNICATIONS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whenever Communications, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Whenever Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00733 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whenever Communications doing business as Satellite Phone Store -- https://satellitephonestore.com/ -- is a global provider of satellite voice and data communication solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WILEY X INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wiley X, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wiley X, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01094 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wiley X -- https://www.wileyx.com/ -- has been supplying Military, Government, Law Enforcement, Fire and EMS professionals with premium eyewear protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey St, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com WOODLAKE TECHNOLOGIES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodlake Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Woodlake Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00726-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Woodlake Technologies -- https://www.woodlaketechnologies.com/ -- is a leader in providing assistive technology solutions to people with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Stays Dupree Suit Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel arbitration, and stays the lawsuit styled JERRY D. DUPREE, et al., Plaintiffs v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-03290-SRB (W.D. Mo.). Background On Sept. 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Jerry D. Dupree and Terry R. Dupree entered a contract with the Defendant to purchase one of its timeshares in Branson, Missouri. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant used a high-pressure sales presentation designed to keep them from reading the contracts, reflecting or deliberating on the decision to purchase, discussing with each other their decision to purchase and omitting crucial facts about the timeshare. On Nov. 25, 2020, while the Plaintiffs were using their timeshare property, an intruder broke one of the windows and entered the premises. Responding to an emergency call, the Branson Police Department discovered that the timeshare's windows were not properly secured. The Plaintiffs subsequently sued the Defendant in the Circuit Court of Taney County, Missouri. They seek to cancel the contract and recover damages for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based on the Defendant's alleged misleading advertisement and sales tactics (Count I), failure to maintain property (Count II), breach of contract (Count III), and negligence (Count IV). On Nov. 12, 2021, the Defendant removed the case to this Court and filed the pending motion to dismiss, or stay, this case and compel arbitration. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to a binding arbitration provision contained in the timeshare contract. The arbitration provision states that the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") would administer the arbitration under its Consumer Arbitration Rules. The Defendant seeks to dismiss, or stay, this case and compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the timeshare contract's arbitration provision. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing the arbitration provision is invalid. Discussion The Defendant argues, and the Plaintiffs do not dispute, that the arbitration provision covers their claims. However, the Plaintiffs contest the validity of the arbitration provision, arguing it (1) lacks mutual assent; (2) lacks consideration; (3) and is unconscionable. The Defendant disagrees. A. Mutual Assent The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement lacks mutual assent. In Missouri, offer and acceptance require mutual agreement, which is reached when the minds of the contracting parties meet upon and assent to the same thing in the same sense at the same time (Kunzie v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc., 330 S.W.3d 476, 483 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010)). A proposal to enter into a bilateral agreement must be accepted by both parties for a contract to be formed (Baier v. Darden Restaurants, 420 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). The Plaintiffs contend that their case is on point with Baier. As evidence of a lack of mutual assent, the Plaintiffs note that the arbitration provision contains two designated initial lines for the Plaintiffs and two blank initial lines which they argue are for the Defendant's agent to sign. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's lack of initials means the Defendant failed to assent to the arbitration provision. However, unlike the acknowledgement in Baier, the Court finds the purpose of the initial lines in the timeshare contract was not to memorialize the parties' mutual assent to arbitrate. The initial line only exists for the Plaintiffs, not the Defendant. Thus, dissimilar to Baier, which contained an unsigned employer-signature line, the Defendant did not fail to sign or initial lines required as a condition of mutual assent. District Judge Stephen R. Bough adds that the Defendant signed under the line designated for its "Authorized Agent" at the end of the contract. The Defendant relies on more than a self-serving statement to prove mutual assent. In turn, the Court finds the arbitration agreement is supported by mutual assent. B. Consideration The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision lacks consideration because it contains a carve-out clause. They argue that this clause forces them to arbitrate all their claims while the Defendant has excluded its most likely claims from arbitration. They contend that because only they are bound, the arbitration provision lacks consideration. The Court rejects this argument. Even assuming if the carve-out clause functionally eliminates the Defendant's obligation to arbitrate, the Plaintiffs do not argue that the timeshare contract as a whole is not supported by adequate consideration. To be sure, the Court finds the consideration requirement is met. Because the contract is supported by consideration, the carve-out clause does not render the arbitration provision invalid, Judge Bough opines. C. Unconscionability The Plaintiffs argue the arbitration provision is unconscionable because they were subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and the Defendant fraudulently induced their purchase of the timeshare. They also contend that the arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable because it contains a delegation clause, the carve-out clause, and a class-action waiver clause. The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments. Judge Bough states that the Plaintiffs' arguments about the Defendant's sales tactics and misrepresentations apply to the contract as a whole and are not specific to the arbitration clause. Whether the Defendant's sales tactics, misrepresentations, and other allegedly fraudulent behavior renders the contract unconscionable, without evidence of fraud specific to the arbitration clause, must be left for an arbitrator to decide, Judge Bough holds. The Plaintiffs state they specifically challenge the delegation provision based upon the same arguments they are making on the unenforceability of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court finds these arguments fail because, despite the Plaintiffs' statement to the contrary, they are not specific to the delegation clause. The Plaintiffs also argue the delegation clause is unenforceable because the contract incorporates by reference the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules. Judge Bough finds that the existence of the delegation clause does not render the arbitration provision unconscionable. The Plaintiffs contend the carve-out clause is unconscionable for the same reason they argue it lacks consideration. However, Judge Bough opines, lack of mutuality as to the arbitration agreement does not itself invalidate that arbitration agreement. As previously discussed, the carve-out clause does not render the arbitration provision unconscionable because the contract is supported by adequate consideration. Finally, the class-action waiver clause does itself invalidate the arbitration provision unconscionable, Judge Bough states, citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 653 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). The Plaintiffs do not explain why the class-action waiver in this case specifically is unconscionable, and the Eighth Circuit has upheld arbitration agreements with similar language; see Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d 549, 555-56 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court, thus, finds the arbitration provision valid. In turn, the Defendant's motion is granted to the extent it seeks to compel arbitration. However, the Court finds that because the entire dispute may not be resolved in arbitration, a stay is more appropriate than a dismissal of this case. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ordered that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (or Stay Proceedings) and Compel Arbitration is granted and this case is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The Court further ordered that within two weeks of completion of the arbitration proceedings, the parties will advise the Court if further proceedings are necessary or if the matter can then be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 20, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvcatwsj from Leagle.com. ********* 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 2022. 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 ***