/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 16, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 28 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Callens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Eilenfeld Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Roth Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products 521 EIGHTH AVENUE: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 8X8 INC: Labor Suit Settlement Under Wraps After Mediation ABIOMED INC: In Talks to Dismiss Securities Dispute Case ABLENET INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ACTION LAB: Faces Class Action Suit From Comic Creators AIR PRODUCTS: Harden Sues Over Unlawful Use of Background Reports AMD PIZZA: Craighead Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages AMERICAN BANKERS: Withholds Labor Cost as Depreciation, Maffei Says AMERICAN FAMILY: Lambert Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California ARJO INC: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California ARRIVAL SA: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of February 22 Deadline AT&T SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over False Reward Cards' Ads B R RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Bussers BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Charges Overdraft Fees, Ramirez Claims BARRIER GROUP: Camacho Sues Over Unpaid OT for General Laborers BENJAMIN DICHTER: Students Sue Over "Freedom Convoy" Protest BUMBLE INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 25 Deadline BUMBLE INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 25 Deadline CASTLE FOODS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CITIBANK NA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Robocalls CLARITY PRODUCTS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CME INTERNATIONAL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Appeals Tuition Refund Case Dismissal CONVERSE INC: Madeira Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit DESKTOP METAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 22 Deadline DOCUSIGN INC: Collins Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. California ESCHENBACH OPTIK: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York GEICO CHOICE: Jones Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania GOOGLE LLC: Wins Legal Bid to Uncover Budget Behind Class Action HAWAII MEDICAL: Sued for Denying Coverage for Needed Medical Care INSTADOSE PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline KEEFE COMMISSARY: April 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Devices "Defective," Crandell Suit Says MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Wage Violations NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Bachman Law Discusses Discrimination Class Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Civil Rights Leaders Meet Over Rooney Rule NEW ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Barrett Appealed POLAR CORP: Faces Class Action Over Seltzer Deceptive Labeling PREMIUM RETAIL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Fraga Case PROCTER & GAMBLE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Claims QRS INC: J.D. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Terranova Labor Suit Removed to D. Colorado REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Sava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Winter Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey RUSHMORE SERVICE: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois SAHAWNEH DENTAL: Hill Suit Removed to C.D. California SALSA CON FUEGO: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York SAN DIEGO STATE: Female Athletes File Title IX Class Action Suit SANTA MONICA, CA: Settles Lifeguards' Underpayment Class Action SHATTUCK LABS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of April 1 Deadline SKYVIEW CAR: Gutierrez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Car Washers SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Refuerzo Suit Over Wrongful Termination STEPHEN HAYNES: Gibbs Files Suit in E.D. Virginia STUDIO CAHS: Faces Lazri Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Oh Files Suit in N.D. California TAL EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline TAL EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline TALKSPACE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline TELOS CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action TEVA CANADA: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling TEXAS HEALTH: Langham TCHRA Suit Removed to E.D. Texas TIGER BRANDS: Court Overturns Ruling in Listeria Outbreak Suit TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Calchi Files Suit in N.D. Illinois TOYOTA MOTOR: Davis Files Suit in C.D. California TRUGREEN INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Deramo Claims UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Tippins Suit to Fed. Circuit UNITED STATES: J.T.M. Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ZEETOGROUP LLC: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California [*] Court Set to Hear Arguments in Class Action v. Protesters [*] Ontario Court Grants 10-Day Injunction to Silence Honking [*] School Districts Face Suit Over Special Needs' Remote Education ********* 3M COMPANY: Callens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ----------------------------------------------------- Darwina Callens, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00294-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 31, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with breast cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Eilenfeld Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ LARS EILENFELD, individually and as personal representative/administrator/executor of the estate of LORENA J. EILENFELD, deceased, Plaintiff 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-00414-RMG (D.S.C., February 10, 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, per quod claim, and survival and wrongful death claims. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent as a result of her 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 the Decedent, 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, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to her death and/or injuries, trauma and pain and suffering while alive, says the suit. 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 3M COMPANY: Roth Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOAN ANN ROTH, individually and as personal representative/administrator/executor of the estate of TROY ROTH, deceased, Plaintiff 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-00415-RMG (D.S.C., February 10, 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, per quod claim, and survival and wrongful death claims. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent 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 the Decedent, 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, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, says the suit. 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 521 EIGHTH AVENUE: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 521 Eighth Avenue LLC, et al. The case is styled as Stephen Gannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 521 Eighth Avenue LLC, John Doe 1-X, persons yet unknown, limited liability companies, partnerships; Corporations 1-X, entities yet unknown; Case No. 1:22-cv-00880-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 521 Eighth Avenue LLC is a corporation registered with New York State Department of State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Douglas Ford, Esq. FORD & HUFF LC 228 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 287-5913 Email: adam.ford@fordcranelaw.com 8X8 INC: Labor Suit Settlement Under Wraps After Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------- 8x8, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed on February 3, 2022, that the parties in a class action complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior Court reached a preliminary settlement of all claims and discovery is stayed in both actions pending completion of the settlement. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company in which she alleges 10 causes of action, on behalf of herself and all of the Company’s non-exempt employees based in California for the last four years, related to violations of California state wage and hour practices and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The class complaint was served on September 29, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the company filed a general denial of all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses. On October 29, 2020, the company removed the matter to Federal Court. On December 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company, in which she alleges six violations of California state wage and hour practices for all of the company's current and former non-exempt employees based in California from September 16, 2019 to the present. Said complaint was served on December 11, 2020. On January 26, 2021, the company filed a general denial of all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses to the PAGA Complaint. A joint mediation for both actions was held in September 2021 and the parties reached a preliminary settlement of all claims. 8x8, Inc. is a Software-as-a-service (SaaS) provider of voice, video, chat, contact center, and application programming interface (API) solutions based in California. ABIOMED INC: In Talks to Dismiss Securities Dispute Case -------------------------------------------------------- Abiomed, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2022, that the company and the lead plaintiff in a securities class action entered into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the said class suit. On or about August 6, 2019, the company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the company's securities between January 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the company's securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff. The complaints alleged that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the company regarding its financial condition and results of operations. On June 29, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the two cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which it proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018 to July 31, 2019. As prescribed by a scheduling order, the company filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2020. On September 21, 2021, the court granted the company's motion, dismissed the amended complaint, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to move to amend the complaint by October 12, 2021. On October 12, 2021, the company and the lead plaintiff entered into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the securities class action and the court ordered dismissal of the case with prejudice on the same day. Under the terms of the stipulation, the lead plaintiff has agreed not to move for leave to amend the complaint and not to appeal the dismissal of the action. Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of medical devices based in Massachusetts. ABLENET INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AbleNet, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AbleNet, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00798-PKC-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AbleNet -- https://www.ablenetinc.com/ -- is a global provider of medical-grade assistive technology that is ableSAFE and ableSTRONG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ACTION LAB: Faces Class Action Suit From Comic Creators ------------------------------------------------------- Bleeding Cool previously covered a number of comic book creators issues with Action Lab Entertainment, the reaction of publisher Bryan Seaton to these issues, and claimed attempts to be putting some of them to right. But in a new class-action lawsuit, almost forty creators are suing Action Lab Entertainment, alleging that Action Lab did not live up to their obligations. And Bleeding Cool gets cited in the second point, "2. ALE claims to have had revenues of more than $1.25 million in 2016 (https://bleedingcool.com/comics/recent-updates/action-lab-announce-death-zombie-tramp-july2018-diamond-summit/)." The class-action suit against Action Lab Entertainment contains repeated claims of lateness, lack of communication, non-payment, lack of statements, changing publishing plans, lack of agreed marketing, and more. Here are a few of the claims made by the plaintiffs against Action Lab. Meant to be a sampling of issues raised by creators against Action Lab, each claim has far more besides the below, and can be read in full at https://www.classaction.org/media/rogers-v-action-lab-entertainment-et-al.pdf: -- Jeremy Whitley, Jason Strutz, Emily Martin of Princeless and Ravan The Pirate Princess, "When confronted about non-payment in the past, ALE has seen fit to unpublish digitally published comics rather than make payments to creators; for example, books are published digitally on a platform called Comixology. When confronted about digitally publishing issues of Raven the Pirate Princess without paying artists, ALE chose to remove them from Comixology rather than make good on the payments they owed. Seaton told Creators that in the year 2020 he shut the entire company down twice, but Creators were never told this or given an explanation as to why this would have been done. Seaton has frequently failed to answer time sensitive questions in a timely manner, despite nothing being able to be done at the company without his say so. Seaton told Creators that his email had been locked for some time and he did not know how to access it and had not pursued getting it unlocked. When Creators asked for their contract to be voided based on non-payment and other issues, Seaton called Creators and threatened to bankrupt them with legal fees." -- Tom Rogers, John Reilly, Dexter Weeks, of Herald: Lovecraft & Tesla. "ALE consistently failed to pay Creators on time throughout the course of their series' publication. For the first three volumes, Creators were paid on a royalties-only basis based on quarterly reports. These quarterly reports were also notoriously late." -- John J. Perez of Archon: Battle Of The Dragon, stating "The total unpaid cost for Archon is in excess of $25,000." -- Joshua Henaman of Bigfoot: Sword Of The Earthman "Creator only received one royalty report, on 9/2/16, that covered April to June of 2016. In that report, Advertising and Promotion was listed as a cost of $520 but no advertising or promotion was ever conducted." -- Rylend Grant of Aberrant, "Despite knowing that preorders were low, Defendant Seaton ordered an absurd number of Series 1 trades and Series 2 individual books, burying this project in hopeless debt. Seaton has told the creator that he must pay for all of those extra issues (at a cost of more than $15,000) in order to get the property back. -- David Schrader, Kristian Horn of Baby Badass, "On September 5, 2021, Creator asked for the rights to the property to be returned and Defendant Seaton offered to pay outstanding royalties of $715.20, demonstrating that ALE and Seaton had been withholding funds from creators." -- Jason Inman, Ashley Victoria Robinson, Ben Matsuya, of Jupiter Jet, "Per the contract ALE was to furnish with quarterly profit reports. Not a single one was sent to these Creators. Creators were only given a link to a Google spreadsheet which was never updated. It frequently included advertising and publicity expenses that Creators did not authorize or know about. No proof of these expenses was ever provided to Creators. The only time ALE ever updated the aforementioned Google spreadsheet when threatened with legal action in 2021. Upon information and belief, the spreadsheet was incomplete and Creators are entitled to more than what was reported." -- Dillon Gilbertson of Sweetheart, "ALE failed to update sales reports after August 2020. Those reports that were provided contained numerous inconsistencies and incorrect calculations. Creator reviewed these reports and determined that he was owed several thousand dollars. Creator was never sent the sums to which he was owed, despite correspondence from legal counsel. Creator was instead told that ALE had incurred printing and marketing expenses that were not included in the sales reports. Updated reports showed numbers, columns, and categories that did not exist in the previous reports and the newer calculations showed the book was actually selling at a loss, even though according to sales figures the book was selling well." -- Ken Marcus, Justin Carmien of Super Human Resources, "Creators only received a single sales report, in December of 2016. Creators believe that the figures reported by ALE were not accurate based on contacts with retailers and access to Diamond order figures." -- Corey Kalman, Brockton McKinney, Larkin Ford "Creators ordered about 7,000 copies of AmeriKarate books from two stores but the Quarterly Reports from ALE did not reflect these purchases. ALE undercut sales of the printed books by selling digital copies of the trade collections for $0.03 and $0.04." -- Tilly Bridges and Susan Bridges, of Killswitch, "Creators were required to produce forty pages of additional material for the project, at personal cost to themselves, only to have ALE decide not to use the additional material." -- Erica L Schultz of Twelve Devils Dancing " "Creator contacted ALE, and Defendant Seaton told her that the problem was that ALE was changing printers (from Transcontinental to Ave 4) and that Transcontinental refused to release the printed copies even though they had been paid for." -- James Wright, Jackie Crofts of Nutmeg, "In December 2018, Creators received an option offer from Universal Content Productions to adapt Nutmeg into a television series. ALE's involvement slowed this process down to the detriment of the project, ostensibly costing the Creators time and money." -- Riley Biehl of Miranda In The Maelstrom "Creator learned that the first three issues were available for sale on the Comixology platform. Creator was not made aware of this, and had been given the impression that the books would be rolled out in print and digital on the same date. ALE blamed Comixology for the premature release. Issues 4 through 6 were also released digitally, and again Creator received no forewarning. No marketing was ever done by ALE." -- Martheus Wade of Shinobi: Ninja Princess, "The first volume of Shinobi: Ninja Princess was available through Scholastic Books and sold very well. ALE took its cut and paid a portion to Creator. When Creator asked about the status of Scholastic Books making the second volume available, ALE said that the liaison with Scholastic Books had changed. ALE either did not follow up with Scholastic Books, or damaged its relationship with Scholastic Books, thereby resulting in the loss of sales and income to the Creator." -- Massimo Rosi of Cold Blood Samurai, "Creator put Defendant Seaton in contact with an agent for Editions Delcourt in order to sell the license for publishing in France. Editions Delcourt complained of Seaton's unprofessionalism and it took months to conclude the agreement after the parties had already approved the basic terms." -- Chad Perkins of Blue Lullaby, "The only marketing for the book was a single Tweet and an email." -- David Pepose of Spencer & Locke and Going To The Chapel, "Creator is owed monies from ALE for a multimedia option. Excessive legal costs were incurred by ALE without Creator's knowledge or consent. This cost Creator financially during the negotiation phase for the option. Meanwhile ALE injured the option relationship with high-profile production company Legendary Entertainment by refusing to sign any contract that did not give Defendant Seaton executive producer credit and commensurate fees, as well as demanding a percentage of any fees Creator would receive for on-set work as a consulting producer." -- Christopher Mills of Gravedigger, "Beginning in 2019, Creator made multiple attempts to reclaim his publishing rights. He was informed that the book was still selling digitally on Comixology, even though he had received no sales reports for years, including any digital sales. Creator was offered the option of having his rights returned if he purchased all unsold copies sitting at Diamond at wholesale cost plus Diamond storage and shipping fees. This was an exorbitant request, and shows that ALE improperly overprinted the book and failed to properly maintain its inventory at Diamond." -- Anthony Ruttgaizer of The F1rst Hero, "According to ALE financials from March of 2020, Creator's projects were $3,100.00 in debt. This year, Seaton demanded $17,000.00 from Creator to free his property rights. Seaton is charging Creator the wholesale price for books he failed to properly promote and sell, essentially earning the company the level of profit they would have received had they sold the books when they were originally published." -- Anthony Ruttgaizer of Slayer, "Creator saw his own book sold at conventions but was never provided sales reports or royalties for those copies." -- DeWayne Feenstra/Axur Aneas, The Adventures Of Aeo-Girl "ALE offered to release the property rights if Creators purchased existing stock totaling approximately $13,000, although there is no evidence that such stock exists." -- Colleen Douglas of Carmine, "The completed Carmine series was delivered to ALE on February 28, 2020, but at the time Defendant Seaton had allegedly resigned and no one was left in charge of the company. Defendant Seaton claimed to have shut down ALE in March of 2020 and as a result could make no efforts to support the release of Carmine. Carmine was released during the time Seaton allegedly shut down ALE. ALE released all five issues of the Carmine series digitally at the same time on April 22, 2020. That same day, ALE released over 100 titles from dozens of other authors. A deluge of individual titles released on the same day will cause many of them to be overlooked by critics and others who drive comic demand. Upon information and belief, this mass release was done because ALE was experiencing severe financial difficulties brought on by bad management and was in desperate need of cash." -- John Matsuya and Ben Matsuya of Midnight Massacre, "Creators were informed that the book was never printed, that it was not properly set up for the book market by Diamond, and that Seaton was working on publishing the project. They were informed the intent was to publish by October of 2021. The book was never published." -- Rod Espinosa of Adventure Finders, "ALE did not communicate with Creator nearly all of 2020. ALE did not furnish sales reports nearly all of 2020. ALE did not send Creator all complimentary copies to which he was due." -- Steve Bryant of Athena Voltaire, "ALE ran a Kickstarter campaign to launch the Athena Voltaire ongoing series but was late with fulfillment. Defendant Seaton falsely blamed the delays on Creator. -- Steve Bryant and Mark Stegbauer of Ghoul Scouts, "No payments were made in over a year. Digital sales have never been reported or paid." Bryan Seaton of Action Lab was approached for comment two days ago but did not reply. We are happy to add any comments if they are made. UPDATE: Bryan Seaton has given us comment, telling us "Action Lab is reviewing the complaint, is confident that its contracts with the named creators remain in force, and intends to protect its rights vigorously." [GN] AIR PRODUCTS: Harden Sues Over Unlawful Use of Background Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tanasha Harden, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. AIR PRODUCTS WEST COAST HYDROGEN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03922 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., Feb. 1, 2022), is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using background reports without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports (referred to collectively as "credit and background reports") to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California and a resident of the state of California, County of Los Angeles. The Defendant is a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. Alex DiBona, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (323) 857-5900 Fax: (310) 275-6301 Email: bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com dibona@kokozianlawfirm.com AMD PIZZA: Craighead Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY CRAIGHEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMD PIZZA, LLC, NFSM PIZZA, INC., DESERT SUN LLC, CHARLES RIDDLE, JOHN DOE CORPORATION 1‐10, JOHN DOE 1‐10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00083-RJS (D. Utah, February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay earned wages, withholding wages, failure to pay overtime, and unjust enrichment. Mr. Craighead has worked as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store in Pahrump, Nevada from September 2019 to present. AMD Pizza, LLC is an operator of Domino's Pizza stores, headquartered at 14328 S Log Home Lane, Herriman, Utah. NFSM Pizza, Inc. is an operator of Domino's Pizza stores, headquartered at 14328 S Log Home Lane, Herriman, Utah. Desert Sun LLC is an operator of Domino's Pizza stores, headquartered at 14328 S Log Home Lane, Herriman, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall L. Jeffs, Esq. JEFFS & JEFFS, P.C. 90 North 100 East P.O. Box 888 Provo, UT 84603 Telephone: (801) 373‐8848 E-mail: rzjeffs@jeffslawoffice.com - and – Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 325 Edwards Road, Ste. 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651‐3700 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com - and – Frank V. Raimond, Esq. RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 884‐9636 E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com AMERICAN BANKERS: Withholds Labor Cost as Depreciation, Maffei Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARIELLE MAFFEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant, 1:22-cv-20426-KMW (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendant's calculation of its actual cash value payment obligations to its policyholders for structural damage loss by first estimating the cost to repair or replace the damage with new materials and then subtracting the estimated depreciation. The Defendant's practice of withholding costs for both the materials and labor required to repair or replace policyholders' building as depreciation, even though labor does not depreciate in value over time, resulted for policyholders to receive payment for loss in an amount less than what they were entitled to receive under the policy. The Defendant breached its obligations under the policy by improperly withholding the cost of labor as depreciation, says the suit. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida is an insurance company, with its principal place of business at 11222 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William D. Buckley, III, Esq. J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: trey@msb.law brandon@msb.law - and – Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 249 E. Main Street, Suite 150 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and – Douglas J. Winters, Esq. THE WINTERS LAW GROUP, LLC 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 499-5200 Facsimile: (314) 499-5201 E-mail: dwinters@winterslg.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Lambert Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Thera Lambert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00752 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. American Family Insurance, also abbreviated as AmFam -- https://www.amfam.com/ -- is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as investment and retirement-planning products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Dotson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 22STCV00751 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 10, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00923 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Arizona Beverages USA (stylized as AriZona) -- https://drinkarizona.com/ -- is an American producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks based in Woodbury, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Jason H. Wilson, Esq. WILLENKEN LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 955-9240 Fax: (213) 955-9250 Email: jwilson@willenken.com ARJO INC: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Efrain Perez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. Arjo Inc., Case No. 22STCV01261 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 11, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00957 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Arjo -- https://www.arjo.com/en-us/ -- is a global medical technology company with an annual turnover of app.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Allison M Scott, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 457-1800 Fax: (213) 457-1850 Email: ascott@dykema.com ARRIVAL SA: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of February 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC on Feb. 7 disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrival (NASDAQ: ARVL) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the company's securities between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Arrival investors with financial losses in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 715 - 1740, or by email (abell@kaskelalaw.com) or online at https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/arrival/, for additional information about this action and their legal rights and options. According to the complaint, on November 8, 2021, Arrival announced the company's financial results for the third quarter of 2021, including a loss of €26 million (compared to a loss of €22 million during the same quarter a year earlier), and adjusted EBITDA loss for the quarter of €40 million (compared to a loss of €18 million in the third quarter of 2020). The Company also pulled its 2022 revenue goals and significantly scaled back its long-term projections, pushing its production and sales timeline into later time periods. Following this news, Arrival's shares fell $4.33 per share, or 24% in value, to close at $13.46 on November 10, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Arrival's securities during the Class Period may, no later than February 22, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and federal actions throughout the country. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. CONTACT: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 (888) 715 - 1740 (484) 229 - 0750 www.kaskelalaw.com [GN] AT&T SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over False Reward Cards' Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that AT&T and DirecTV's use of reward cards as a means to sign up new customers is the subject of a proposed class action that alleges the telecom giant fails to adequately disclose the cards' myriad restrictions and limitations, and makes it nearly impossible to redeem the advertised benefits. The 19-page lawsuit says that although AT&T heavily advertises that prospective customers will receive a reward card worth between $100 and $400 if they sign up for certain services, the company, in practice, delays sending these cards to customers once they've signed up. Rather than send the promised reward card immediately after a consumer has signed their contract, AT&T either never sends the card, sends it close to or after the card's 150-day expiration period or tries to bait and switch the customer with a card of lesser value, the case alleges. As the suit tells it, AT&T will then refuse to honor or replace expired reward cards. From there, the lawsuit says the process by which a customer can redeem the benefits of an AT&T reward card can begin only after the company sends an email or mail notification. The case claims AT&T will delay sending the necessary notification until "at least a month or more" after a new customer has signed their contract. The AT&T reward card emails, the suit contends, are easily missed in a customer's inbox, and notifications sent by physical mail are similarly "not readily distinguishable" from other junk mail. Once the redemption process actually begins, a customer will run up against a variety of restrictions and usually have to re-send to AT&T documentation and information that the company already has, the suit alleges. One explanation for the allegedly arduous reward card redemption process is AT&T's intent to "create hurdles" for new customers to receive the promised benefits because it's only after the process is complete that the company will actually send the reward card, the lawsuit claims. "Once the redemption process is complete, however, the Reward Card is not immediately delivered," the suit continues. "In many instances, the card is never delivered or is delivered near or after the 150-day use period has elapsed." Even when an AT&T customer is able to activate their reward card, the company will often freeze the card if the consumer spends a "threshold amount," the complaint says. "In each of the foregoing ways, AT&T reduces, if not eliminates, the promised value of the Reward Card and the new customer's ability to fully utilize the card," the case alleges, claiming AT&T's motivation for doing so is to beef up subscriber numbers while minimizing the cost to do so. The case looks to represent all AT&T customers residing in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or any other U.S. territory, and who, within the last four years, purchased bundled telecommunications services from AT&T and never received the promised reward card, received an expired reward card or received a reward card but were unable to activate it. [GN] B R RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Bussers --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B R RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a BRUNO RISTORANTE, NICHOLAS CRISCI, and BRUNO RINALDI, Defendants, 1:22-cv-00771 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 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 overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, misappropriation of tips, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a busser at Bruno Ristorante from January 2016 until September 2021. B R Restaurant Corp., doing business as Bruno Ristorante, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business located at 158-22 Cross Bay Boulevard, Howard Beach, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Charges Overdraft Fees, Ramirez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY RAMIREZ AND MASAKO WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, 5:22-cv-00859-VKD (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to keep its promise of refunding punitive fees that hurt its most vulnerable customers in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, including overdraft and insufficient funds fees. The Defendant continued to levy overdraft charges on their customers, including the Plaintiffs, despite repeated requests to waive such fees. Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway., Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and – Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Lauren Kuhlik, Esq. Glenn E. Chappell, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com lkuhlik@tzlegal.com gchappell@tzlegal.com BARRIER GROUP: Camacho Sues Over Unpaid OT for General Laborers --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS SERGIO CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BARRIER GROUP INC., SUB ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a DRIP DROP WATERPROOFING, and JOEL REICH, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01156 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 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 overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer and water proofer from March 2013 until January 2022. The Barrier Group Inc. is a manufacturer of protective coating products, with its principal executive office located at 435 Bellvale Rd., Chester, New York. Sub Enterprises Inc., doing business as Drip Drop Waterproofing, is a waterproofing company, with its principal executive office located at 435 Bellvale Rd., Chester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 BENJAMIN DICHTER: Students Sue Over "Freedom Convoy" Protest ------------------------------------------------------------ JURIST reports that law students from the University of Ottawa are filing dispatches for JURIST on the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Canada's capital that has paralyzed the city for over a week. Here, 1L Melanie Cantin reports. After a second straight weekend of "Freedom Convoy" protests in Ottawa, there seems to be no true end in sight. Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly has described the forced standstill in Canada's capital as a "siege". Amid struggles by the police to implement solutions addressing downtown gridlock caused by trucks and extreme noise levels from continuous honking, a group of Ottawa residents have decided to take matters into their own hands. This group, spearheaded by Zexi Li, filed a statement of claim for a potential class-action lawsuit on Friday February 4th at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Following an initial meeting of the parties on Saturday, Feb. 5,, the matter was adjourned to Monday afternoon, Feb. 7, to give the defendants time to prepare. The plaintiffs, represented by lawyer Paul Champ, are seeking an injunction to cease the excessive honking from the Convoy's vehicles, as well as $4.8 million in damages for private nuisance and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. As a law student at the University of Ottawa and a resident of the capital for the last four-and-a-half years, I've been following this story closely, because like most people who frequent downtown Ottawa, I've had to pay close attention to road and business closures, as well as safety recommendations from city officials and my university. Indeed, the University of Ottawa stated in an email sent to the student body on Friday February 4th that it was going to close Tabaret Hall and some parking lots on the northern end of campus, near where protests had been taking place. With disturbances occurring for a second weekend in a row, the actions taken by Li and fellow Ottawa residents did not come as a surprise to many who have been living under these difficult circumstances. Li's statement of claim alleges that the incessant honking by the truckers often reaches a level of 105 to 120 decibels, which is enough to cause permanent damage to the human ear when suffered on a sustained basis. The statement contends that the horns are being used "continuously for 12 to 16 hours per day" in a way that has caused "unbearable torment" to downtown Ottawa residents, and that this constitutes a private nuisance that must be addressed quickly and swiftly. Private nuisance is "interference" with someone's "use or enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable" (Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) 2013 SCC 13 at para 18, my underlining). An "interference" can pertain to physical property damage, as well as to "the health, comfort or convenience of the owner or occupier" (para 23). In other words, private nuisance is an infringement of a person's right to the enjoyment of their own property. Based on the statement of claim, Li and her fellow plaintiffs seem to have a good case. If the information regarding the time and volume of the honking is proven, the substantial nature of the interference will almost certainly be recognized by the court. Even in the current absence of such evidence, dozens of stories and videos circulating on social media demonstrate firsthand how insufferable the noise and conditions downtown can be at the protest's peak hours. Elaine Tam is a first-year law student at the University of Ottawa and a downtown resident included in the plaintiff class covered by the class-action. She lives a few streets away from Parliament and said the following when asked to discuss the situation: "To be honest, I feel that the monetary compensation is wholly inadequate for the mental anguish we've suffered, but a successful class action suit would at least serve as a source of vindication for us residents who have been disproportionately affected by these protests." The noise residents are experiencing can certainly be deemed "substantial" and if the court agrees, this would fulfill the first element of private nuisance. When it comes to the "reasonableness" of such noise -- the second element that must be proven to establish that the Convoy is causing a private nuisance -- many factors must be weighed and examined based on the circumstances of the case. According to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Antrim, some of these factors include the severity of the interference with the plaintiff's rights, the characteristics of the neighbourhood it is occurring in, and the utility of the defendant's conduct (para 53). Not all of these factors are necessarily going to be relevant to the court's assessment of whether the interferences on the plaintiffs' properties were so unreasonable as to constitute a private nuisance, but many will. Although the protesters may claim that their honking is directly linked to protesting, a useful activity in a democratic society, its severity and duration may prove more powerful in a judge's eyes, particularly in light of the densely populated location of the demonstrations and the severe impact it is clearly having on residents. As for the injunction request, though it has yet to be properly examined in court, Judge Hugh R. McLean on Feb. 5 spoke to the possibility of limiting the honking to a specific hour every day. However, he also expressed concerns about the feasibility of enforcing an injunction like the one requested, since truckers have constantly been moving in and out of Ottawa, and most of the potential defendants currently remain unidentified. At this time, the statement of claim names four Convoy organizers -- Benjamin Dichter, Patrick King, Tamara Lich, and Chris Barber -- along with 60 currently unidentified truckers who are alleged to have been using their dangerously loud horns on a constant basis. [GN] BUMBLE INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 25 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Bumble Inc. (BMBL) Class: the Company's Class A common stock purchased directly in its September 2021 secondary public stock offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 25, 2022 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-bmbl/ Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp. (ELMS, ELMSW, FIII, FIIIU, FIIIW) Class Period: 2/22/2019 - 2/20/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 4, 2022 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-elms/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN] BUMBLE INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 25 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Bumble Inc. ("Bumble") (NASDAQ: BMBL) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of the Class A common stock of Bumble directly in Bumble's secondary public stock offering which took place on or about September 10, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Bumble, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bumble-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=23372&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Bumble includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Bumble's paying user growth trends had abruptly reversed in 3Q21 and the Company had actually lost tens of thousands of paying users during the quarter; (b) paying users had been more reluctant to sign up for the Bumble app during 3Q21 because of the recent price hike for paid services on the app; (c) a material number of paying users were leaving the Badoo app, a dating-focused social network, and/or could not make payments through the Badoo app due, in substantial part, to problems arising from the Company's transition of its payment platform; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Bumble's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the Registration Statement had represented. DEADLINE: March 25, 2022 Aggrieved Bumble investors only have until March 25, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CASTLE FOODS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Foods LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Castle Foods LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01209 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Castle Foods -- https://castlefoods.com/ -- is a leading global network for sustainable spices and herbs, catered to young professional chefs and restaurants.[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 CITIBANK NA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a number of complaints have been filed and/or settled recently against the nation's largest financial establishments for allegations involving overdraft fees, data protection and conversation recording, among other things. According to the class action lawsuits and the consumers behind them, these banks are the nation's worst offenders: Citibank Accused of Placing Robocalls to Non-Customers Without Consent Certification was given earlier this month to consumers targeting Citibank with a class action lawsuit for allegedly robocalling them without their consent. Consumers, who are not Citibank customers, claim the financial institution has placed unsolicited robocalls to potentially more than 1 million individuals, including those with phone numbers that have been marked as wrong. The lead plaintiff in the case, Christine Head, claims she received more than 100 robocalls from Citibank in 2017 that were in regard to an overdue credit account belonging to a man she didn't know. The robocalls allegedly used by Citibank are either fake or prerecorded, the class of noncustomers alleges. Wells Fargo Settles Bankruptcy Credit Reporting, Unlawful Recording Claims Wells Fargo is another well-known bank that has recently been in the spotlight with the financial institution agreeing to pay $3 million last month to resolve allegations it mishandled customers' bankruptcy credit reporting. The settlement capped off a 2018 class action lawsuit filed by customers who argued Wells Fargo failed to properly update the credit reports for individuals whose debts were sold off after they filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The agreements came on the heels of final approval being given in December for a $28 million settlement between Wells Fargo and customers who claimed the bank recorded them without consent. Customers in that complaint argued telemarketing merchants hired by Wells Fargo recorded them during sales calls without their knowledge or consent. Also in December, attorneys working with Top Class Actions announced they are looking into recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in overdraft fees Wells Fargo allegedly improperly charges its customers annually. Wells Fargo customers who have been charged an overdraft fee on a debit card purchase during the last year are being encouraged to make a claim to join arbitration. PNC Bank Accused Of Keeping Unearned Fees, Overcharging Mortgage Holders In Pandemic Deferral Program Consumers have also filed class action lawsuits against PNC Bank recently with one alleging last month that the bank keeps unearned Guaranteed Automobile Protection (GAP) fees for itself. The plaintiff in that case, Vincent I. Ratulowski, claims PNC charges auto loan customers GAP fees that are included through the end of their original payoff time period even if they pay their account off early. Ratulowski argues PNC should refund these GAP fees to the auto loan customers, and that the bank earns tens of millions of dollars each year that is not rightfully theirs by not providing refunds. The complaint came on the heels of an October class action lawsuit which alleged PNC overcharged mortgage account holders who had enrolled in a deferral program during the pandemic. Homeowners claim PNC simply added deferred payments to their outstanding balances, essentially double charging them and increasing the size of their mortgages. In brighter news for PNC, in December the bank permanently escaped a separate class action lawsuit claiming it had aided and abetted an alleged $75 million Ponzi scheme. JPMorgan Chase Settles Claims It Mismanaged Mortgage Escrows, Conspired To Inflate Out-Of-Network ATM Surcharges JPMorgan Chase, meanwhile, agreed to an $11.5 million settlement last month to resolve claims it went against state interest laws by mismanaging escrow balances. Consumers claim JPMorgan Chase failed to pay interest to customers who had paid money to be held in mortgage escrow by the bank, as required by Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Connecticut. JPMorgan Chase was also part of a $66 million settlement agreement in December, which resolved claims it and other banks charged customers unfair out-of-network ATM fees. Consumers alleged JPMorgan Chase and other major banks had conspired to raise surcharges for using out-of-network ATMs to make a greater profit. Bank of America Accused Of Failing To Protect Customer Data Bank of America is also facing claims filed last month that argue it mishandled New Jersey residents' unemployment benefit debit cards. Plaintiff Cassandra Valerie Beaman claims BoA has cost New Jerseyans thousands of dollars in benefits and led to their personal and account information becoming compromised. The class action lawsuit was filed by Cassandra Valerie Beaman, a New Jersey resident who lost her job in March 2020 after the start of the coronavirus pandemic and began receiving unemployment benefits via a Bank of America LWD debit card. In May 2021, Beaman noticed and reported $300 worth of fraudulent activity on the account. Have you been charged an overdraft fee for a transaction made using your checking account? You may qualify to join a free class action lawsuit investigation! [GN] CLARITY PRODUCTS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarity Products, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Clarity Products, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00801 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clarity -- https://clarityproducts.com/ -- is the world leader in amplified telephones, notification systems and assistive listening devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CME INTERNATIONAL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CME International, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CME International, LLC d/b/a Bob's Watches, Case No. 2:22-cv-00811 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CME International, LLC doing business as Bob's Watches -- https://www.bobswatches.com/ -- is an online marketplace for the resale and trade of watches, with a focus on Rolexes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Appeals Tuition Refund Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Buschauer appeals from a court ruling dismissing his lawsuit styled DAVID BUSCHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03394, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Columbia, a private, nonprofit college with almost 7,000 students in over 60 undergraduate and graduate programs, offers a curriculum that blends creative and media arts, liberal arts, and business. Plaintiff Buschauer, a resident of Lemont, Illinois, decided to attend Columbia as an undergraduate to further his interest in music and art. He attended Columbia during the 2019-2020 school year and anticipated graduating in May 2021 with a degree in entertainment marketing and music business. For the spring 2020 semester, Buschauer registered for classes. Columbia charged him $13,305 in tuition and $613 in mandatory fees. This included a $50 registration fee; $70 health center fee; $150 activity fee to fund student programs, services, clubs, and special events; $153 U-Pass fee that provided full-time students with unlimited CTA rides; $150 technology fee to fund computer labs, software, on-campus internet access, and student technology support; and a $40 instruction resource fee for his Animal Behavior and Marketing Research course, intended to cover course materials and other class-related educational expenses. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, Defendant Columbia shifted its classes online and closed its campus for the remainder of the spring 2020 semester. Unhappy with this change and believing that it negatively affected the value of his education, Mr. Buschauer filed the putative class action on behalf of himself and all Columbia undergraduate and graduate students. He brings claims for breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment, seeking a refund of the tuition and fees he paid for the portion of the spring 2020 semester during which he did not receive on-campus, in-person instruction or access to campus facilities and resources. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint, finding that Buschauer had not sufficiently alleged that Columbia made any specific promise of on-campus, in-person instruction or services to allow him to proceed on a breach of contract claim and that the existence of a contract governing the parties' relationship foreclosed Buschauer's unjust enrichment claim. Mr. Buschauer filed a second amended complaint seeking a refund of a portion of the technology, activity, and health center fees he paid for the spring 2020 semester during which he did not receive any services funded by the fees under a theory of unjust enrichment. On June 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended class action complaint. On Jan. 10, 2022, the Honorable Sara L. Ellis entered an order granting Columbia's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the SAC with prejudice and terminated this case. The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as David Buschauer v. Columbia College Chicago, Case No. 22-1216, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on Feb. 10, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing Statement is due for Appellant David Buschauer today, Feb. 16, 2022; -- Transcript information sheet is due by Feb. 24, 2022; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before March 22, 2022 for David Buschauer.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID BUSCHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Defendant-Appellee COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO is represented by: Monica H. Khetarpal, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 787-4949 CONVERSE INC: Madeira Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bryan Madeira appeals a summary judgment ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside). In November 2018, the Plaintiff Bryan filed this putative wage and hour class action against Defendant Converse, Inc., et al., in San Bernardino Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of current and former hourly Converse employees in California. On January 25, 2019, Converse removed the lawsuit to the District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator at the Converse Distribution Center from December 7, 2015, through July 18, 2018. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Cormac J. Carney on Jan. 11, 2022, granted Converse's motion for summary judgment and ruled that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant violated California rules regarding breaks, and miscalculated overtime pay. There's no evidence that Converse prevented Bryan Madeira from taking a second meal period and a third break when he worked 10-hour shifts, ruled the Court. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55161, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 10, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Bryan Madeira Mediation Questionnaire is due on Feb. 17, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 11, 2022; -- Transcript is due on April 11, 2022; -- Appellant Bryan Madeira opening brief is due on May 20, 2022; -- Appellees Converse, Inc. and Does answering brief is due on June 20, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Irina Kirnosova, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com ikirnosova@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com Defendant-Appellee CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Michael Afar, Esq. Jon D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park, E Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 207-9301 E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com jmeer@seyfarth.com DESKTOP METAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Attention Desktop Metal, Inc. ("Desktop Metal") (NYSE: DM) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between February 17, 2021 and November 15, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Desktop Metal, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/desktop-metal-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23360&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Desktop Metal includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were deficiencies in Desktop Metals' acquisition EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (2) the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: February 22, 2022 Aggrieved Desktop Metal investors only have until February 22, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] DOCUSIGN INC: Collins Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIAN D. COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Case No. 1:21-cv-07071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00851-CRB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade DocuSign securities at artificially inflated prices between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021. DocuSign, Inc. is a cloud-based software company based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ESCHENBACH OPTIK: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eschenbach Optik of America, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eschenbach Optik of America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00799 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eschenbach -- https://www.eschenbach.com/ -- is the leading manufacturer of high quality magnification solutions for the visually impaired.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GEICO CHOICE: Jones Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Isiah A. Jones, III, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Geico Choice Insurance Company, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 11, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00558 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. GEICO Choice Insurance Company -- http://www.geico.com/-- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Ave of the Americas, 38th Fl. New York, NY 10036-7703 Phone: (212) 389-5000 Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com GOOGLE LLC: Wins Legal Bid to Uncover Budget Behind Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gareth Corfield, writing for The Register, reports that Google has partly won a legal bid to uncover the budget behind a not-quite-class-action lawsuit pursuing it for £920m in Britain's Competition Appeal Tribunal. Revealing that Elizabeth Coll's lawyers have £15.4m with which to take on the world's biggest adtech firm, judges dismissed Google's attempt to reveal how much the class-action group would have to pay those lawyers if they win. The decision sheds a little more light on the world of for-profit litigation in London against mostly US-based Big Tech firms. Coll's underlying case is broadly a mirror of Epic Games' lawsuit against Google over the Android giant's 30 per cent cut of app revenues which it takes from user payments made in Google Play Store apps. She is the public face of a lawsuit aimed at squeezing £920m out of Google for alleged anticompetitive behaviour and is suing in the name of 19 million UK-based Android users. Such lawsuits are increasingly common in the UK at the moment. As summarised by Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) judges Bridget Lucas QC, Tim Frazer and Professor Michael Waterson, Google argued, unsuccessfully, that: . . . success fees are particularly significant because they are payable only out of undistributed damages. [Google] maintain that there is therefore a potential conflict of interest between [Coll] and class members, on the one hand, and [Coll]'s lawyers on the other on the basis that there is an incentive for [Coll]'s lawyers to ensure that there is a sufficient pot of undistributed damages so that the success fees are paid in full. The CAT dismissed Google's application to be given sight of Coll's lawyers' after-the-event insurance premiums and the precise level of the lawyers' success fees. Disclosure, said the CAT, would give Google an unfair advantage in the case. All the current UK group litigation cases against Big Tech are brought on the basis that the commercial funder can make tens or hundreds of millions of pounds in profits from the damages. If they win, a hefty cut of those damages is taken by the lawyers as a success fee. Whatever's left after the backer and lawyers take their cut gets divided between the people allegedly wronged. First data protection, now competition law Google's application in this case followed a similar legal line of thinking in the old Lloyd v Google "Safari Workaround" sueball, where at an early stage Google's barrister spelled out exactly which for-profit litigation funder was behind the case and how much it was attempting to claim from the adtech monolith. Ultimately Lloyd and backer Therium Litigation Funding IC failed in the Supreme Court, which set a gate-shutting precedent making it much harder for profit-making litigation funders to use UK data protection law against foreign-headquartered companies. Fans of these group litigation cases say they're the only way for ordinary people to receive damages as a result of abuses by Big Tech; so they say, governmental fines merely enrich the Treasury instead of properly compensating folk who were wronged. One well-known commercial litigation funder, Therium, was behind the Post Office civil lawsuit over the state-owned company's abuses of the criminal law in punishing innocent staffers for the failures of its Fujitsu-made Horizon stocktaking system. Opponents say it is morally wrong for profit-making litigation funders to state they're fighting for oppressed common people's rights when in reality they're hoping to make a profit for investors; famously, the subpostmasters in the Post Office Trial received an £11.5m portion of the GBP57.75m settlement to share between 550 claimants. In the meantime the CAT is filling up with cases based on section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. Coll is yet to be certified as the formal Class Representative in Coll v Google, which is still at an early procedural stage. The case continues. (R) [GN] HAWAII MEDICAL: Sued for Denying Coverage for Needed Medical Care ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Carpenter, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that a Hawaii Island mother is part of a lawsuit against HMSA accusing the health insurer of denying her coverage for a medication that could have prevented a premature birth. Charlene Orcino has seven children and her latest pregnancy could be described as an emotional and terrifying experience. In a news conference on Feb. 7, Orcino was joined by Dr. Frederick Nitta. During her pregnancy in late 2020, he prescribed Nifedipine to prevent high blood pressure and pre-term labor. The lawsuit says HMSA denied coverage of the medicine. Orcino eventually paid out of pocket for the drugs. But it was too late and her son, Jayson, who was born prematurely at 25 weeks and weighed just under 3 pounds. "I'm taking it day by day and am just praying and hoping that he's, I'm just thankful that he's here, that's all I can say," Orcino said. "I'm just thankful that he's here because it could have gone the other way because when I was there it could have gone the other way." Attorney Ted Hong is representing Orcino. "When you go to see your doctor and he or she recommends a test, a medical procedure or medication, you should be able to rely on his or her training or experience" Hong explained. "But insurance company adjusters with little or no medical training are now telling us what tests what procedures and what medication we should get." Orcino's son recently celebrated his first birthday and now weighs 23 pounds. He needs to fly to Oahu monthly for medical treatment. Orcino is among several patients seeking damages. The suit is being filed as a class-action and Hong is expecting other doctors and patients to join. Hawaii News Now reached out to HMSA for a response to the accusations, but the company said it does not comment on pending litigation. [GN] INSTADOSE PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Instadose Pharma Corp. f/k/a Mikrocoze, Inc. securities between December 8, 2020 and November 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Instadose investors have until February 28, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On November 23, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") temporarily suspended trading of Instadose securities due to questions and concerns regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the company in the marketplace. The SEC specifically noted significant increases in the stock price and share volume unsupported by the company's assets and financial information, trading that may be associated with individuals related to a control person of Instadose, and operations of Instadose's Canadian affiliate. On this news, once the Company's trade suspension had ended, Instadose's stock fell $22.61, or 91.87%, to close at $2.00 per share on December 9, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Instadose had performed inadequate due diligence into the Business Combination and/or ignored significant red flags associated with Instadose Canada; (2) Instadose's internal controls and policies were inadequate to detect and/or prevent impermissible trading activity by control persons of the Company; (3) the foregoing subjected Instadose to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Instadose securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 28, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Instadose securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. URL: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com. Contact Information: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com[GN] KEEFE COMMISSARY: April 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ If you received a prepaid card when released from custody, your rights may be affected by the class action lawsuit Reichert et al. v. Keefe Commissary Network et al. What is the lawsuit about? The Court certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of people who, upon release from a detention facility at any time after October 20, 2016, or any time after October 20, 2013 in the state of Washington, were not offered an alternative to a release card for the return of their money upon release. Plaintiffs are two individuals who were provided release cards that charged fees in order to receive the money that had been held for them when they were in custody in a detention facility. They allege that the Electronic Fund Transfer Act prohibits the issuance of an activated release card to a person who has not requested such a card. They allege that issuance of an activated card is only allowed after full disclosure of the applicable terms and conditions of the card. They also allege that the fees charged for the card are illegal under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Defendants deny those claims and allege that their conduct was lawful. Who is included in the Class? The Court decided that the Class includes: All persons in the United States who, at any time since October 20, 2016, were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility, (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility, and (3) issued a prepaid debit card from Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, Rapid Investments, Inc., and/or Cache Valley Bank that was subject to fees, charges, and restrictions, and (4) not offered an alternative method for the return of their money. If taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the State of Washington, the Class Period is extended to any time since October 20, 2013. What are your options? If you are a Class Member, you must choose whether to stay in the Class. If you stay in the Class, and money or benefits are obtained for the Class, you will be notified about how you can share in any benefits for which you are eligible. You will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or not, and you won't be able to sue the Defendants for the claims at issue in this case. If you want to stay in the Class, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING NOW. To exclude yourself from the lawsuit, you must send a letter asking to be excluded. Instructions for making this request can be found at the website or by calling the toll-free number below. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked by April 25, 2022. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit, but you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in this case. If you do not exclude yourself from the class, you will be represented by the law firm of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC at no cost to you. You may hire your own lawyer if you wish, but will need to retain and pay that lawyer yourself. For information about your rights related to the lawsuit call 1-855-604-1646 or visit www.PrisonReleaseCardClassAction.com. [GN] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Devices "Defective," Crandell Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN CRANDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00038-RGE-SHL (S.D. Iowa, February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, and duty to warn. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health risks associated to the devices. After, and as a result of using the Defendants' defective device, the Plaintiff has suffered from headache, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus infection. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096 BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Helvey, Esq. LARRY HELVEY LAW FIRM 2735 First Avenue SE, Suite 101 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Telephone: (319) 362-0421 Facsimile: (319) 362-3496 E-mail: lhelvey@helveylaw.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Major League Baseball must defend class action claims that it suppressed minor leaguers' wages in violation of federal and state law, after the Northern District of California denied MLB's motion to decertify the class. There is no new evidence to justify reopening the certification of the claims as a class action in several states and as a federal case, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said on Feb. 6. The league's motion fails because it is based on "a plethora of arguments this court has already rejected," Spero said. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Bachman Law Discusses Discrimination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Bachman, Esq., of Bachman Law, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Brian Flores filed a bombshell racial discrimination lawsuit against the NFL this month. Flores is a Black former head coach of the Miami Dolphins who was fired in January and has since been rejected by multiple other NFL teams for a head coach role. The lawsuit against the NFL is historic for a number of reasons -- indeed, it is surprising no team had previously been sued for race discrimination by a Black coach -- and will hopefully bring about the much-needed change in how NFL teams operate. The NFL has denied the allegations in Flores's lawsuit and will likely files its Answer soon. In the meantime, here are 4 key aspects of Flores's employment discrimination lawsuit. 1. Flores's Case Is A Game-Changer And He Is A Legal Pioneer In the nearly 100 years of the NFL's existence, the lack of Black head coaches and other executives has been undeniable and stands in stark contrast to the 70% of players who are Black. Yet it does not appear that an NFL team has ever faced a lawsuit in court regarding racial discrimination against Black coaches. Flores's case shines an unforgiving light on the NFL's hiring practices, which have resulted in a glaring underrepresentation of Black employees in the upper ranks of NFL teams. In filing his court case, Flores has taken a courageous step that puts his career on the line and sets up a potentially historic legal battle. 2. Will A Judge Certify The Case As A Class Action Lawsuit? Two primary types of lawsuits exist in the employment discrimination context: an individual claim and a class action case. Flores filed his lawsuit in federal court as a class action case and this decision is very significant from a legal perspective. As the name suggests, an individual case would involve Flores suing an NFL team(s) for employment discrimination. The way the NFL team(s) have treated other Black employees is relevant in an individual case, but the focus of the case and the available remedies would remain on what happened to Flores. Individual lawsuits are far more common than class-action lawsuits. Class action cases, on the other hand, involve a lead plaintiff(s), in this case Flores, who, along with the lawyer for the class, represent the interests of a larger group of Black coaches and executives who have been harmed by an NFL team(s) in some common way. Class actions can range in size from 20-30 individuals to thousands of people. Simply filing a case as a class-action lawsuit, however, does not make it one. Rather, a judge will ultimately decide if Flores's employment discrimination case can proceed as a class action. The key factor here is whether Flores can show that his legal claims meet the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The NFL will almost certainly oppose Flores's attempt to have a court certify his case as a class action. Some of the key issues a judge will consider in making this decision are: Have the various coaches and executives covered by the class action had sufficiently similar experiences to each other? Do Flores and his lawyers adequately represent the interests of other employees/class members, particularly those class members who are not head coach candidates? Do common questions of facts and law exist that apply to Flores and the other coaches/executives so that it makes sense to proceed as a class action as opposed to a series of individual cases? Is it the best use of judicial resources to move forward as a class action versus a host of individual lawsuits? Are the kinds of remedies sought, including monetary damages and changes to how NFL teams operate, able to be handled in a class action context covering numerous class members and potentially many NFL teams? The NFL's legal liability, as well as the amount of money it may owe and types of changes it will be forced to undertake, increase exponentially if a judge certifies Flores's case as a class action, which is why this decision will be pivotal. 3. How Much Information About Other NFL Teams Will Flores Be Allowed To Get? Class action cases typically take a long time, measured in years rather than months, to be decided. And before a judge can weigh the considerations raised above and decide whether the case moves forward as a class action, there will be a discovery period where Flores and the NFL teams are required to exchange information about the legal claims. Flores, based on the complaint he filed, will likely try to get as much information as possible, stretching back many years, regarding different NFL teams' hiring practices and other examples of discriminatory conduct within the team(s). His legal team will likely seek to take depositions of John Elway, the owners of the Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, and Denver Broncos, as well as many other NFL executives and owners. Similarly, Flores will probably want access to large swaths of email communications among NFL leaders that may shed light on teams' hiring practices and other potentially discriminatory actions. On the flip side, the NFL will almost certainly do everything it can to limit the amount of information Flores is able to uncover. The NFL will likely argue that the only relevant issue is how Flores was treated by the Dolphins and possibly the Giants and Broncos. Likewise, the NFL will presumably assert that information about how other Black coaches and executives have been treated must be narrowly tailored and limited to recent hiring cycles. In this case and almost every other class-action lawsuit, statistical evidence of hiring discrimination will be critical. In most class action cases, both sides will hire statistical experts to analyze the numbers. In Flores's case the statistical experts would be looking at years' worth of selection decisions related to hiring NFL coaches and other executives. And it is almost a guarantee that each side's expert will come to a different conclusion about what these statistics mean from a legal liability standpoint. But some of the information listed in Flores's lawsuit is quite persuasive. For example, in a league where 70% of the players are Black: Only 1 of the NFL's 32 teams (3%) employs a Black Head Coach; Only 4 of the NFL's 32 teams (12%) employ a Black Offensive Coordinator; Only 8 of the NFL's 32 teams (25%) employ a Black Special Teams Coordinator; Only 3 of the NFL's 32 teams (9%) employ a Black Quarterback Coach; and Only 6 of the NFL's 32 teams (19%) employ a Black General Manager. More numbers and statistical information will emerge during the lawsuit but this is a compelling starting point for the analysis. Finally, Flores's complaint also provides information about many other Black coaches and executives and alleged discrimination against them. To what extent a judge will force the NFL to turn over to Flores information about these claims remains to be seen, as does the question of whether any of these other Black coaches and executives will publicly join the case. 4. How Will NFL Sponsors And Fans React? Now that a Black NFL coach has stepped forward and initiated a public, legal fight about the NFL's allegedly discriminatory hiring practices, perhaps the biggest question is how the NFL's key sponsors, as well as its passionate fan base, will respond. If sponsors and/or fans boycott teams and withhold funding, this factor may dictate the immediate outcome more than anything that happens in a courtroom. In the meantime, the Flores lawsuit and the NFL's reaction to it will be riveting to watch. Bonus issue - What Role Will The EEOC Play? Flores's complaint says that he will also pursue a claim of race discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Doing so means he will have to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before he can move forward with his Title VII claim in court. It also means that the EEOC may decide to launch its own investigation of the NFL's hiring practice, running parallel to but not necessarily in lockstep with Flores and his lawyers. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Civil Rights Leaders Meet Over Rooney Rule ------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press reports that a group of civil rights leaders called for replacing the Rooney Rule in a meeting on Feb. 7 with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Seeking specific recruiting and hiring procedures for NFL executive and coaching positions, they also sought "meaningful consequences for teams that do not abide by the rules." National Urban League President and CEO Marc H. Morial, National Action Network Founder and President Rev. Al Sharpton, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation President and CEO Melanie Campbell, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson, and National African American Clergy Network co-convener Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner requested the meeting after former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores accused the NFL and three teams -- the Giants, Broncos and Dolphins -- of racial discrimination in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The Rooney Rule was established in 2003 and requires teams to interview candidates of color for head coaching and senior football operation positions. "However well-intentioned, the effect of the Rooney Rule has been for team decision-makers to regard interviews with candidates of color as an extraneous step, rather than an integral part of the hiring process," Morial said. "The gravity of the situation is long past the crisis point." There were three Black head coaches during the 2021 season, but Flores and Houston's David Culley were fired in January. Flores was replaced by Mike McDaniel, who is biracial, while Culley was succeeded by Lovie Smith, who is Black and twice has been an NFL head coach. "The Rooney Rule has been proven to be something the owners used to deceptively appear to be seeking real diversity," Sharpton said. "We must have firm targets and timetables." NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said of the meeting that was held virtually: "We had a productive and thoughtful conversation as the NFL shares the goal of ensuring that everyone has equitable access to opportunity. We look forward to continuing the dialogue." The leaders said they welcomed Goodell's previous announcement of an independent review of the NFL's diversity, equity and inclusion policies and initiatives. They noted that the civil rights and racial justice community must be part of that review. "It's simply not enough for the league to declare its good intentions," Johnson said. "This is a longstanding crisis that must be confronted with diligence and rigor." Williams-Skinner added that Flores' action could be a catalyst for change. "We agree that coach Flores' lawsuit presents the league with an opportunity to engage in substantive change and we will do everything in our power to make sure that opportunity is not squandered," she said. [GN] NEW ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. (NYSE: EDU) between April 24, 2018 and July 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 5, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased New Oriental Education securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the New Oriental Education class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2251.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) New Oriental Education's revenue and operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics and abusive business practices that flouted Chinese regulations and policies and exposed New Oriental Education to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would be imposed on New Oriental Education; (2) New Oriental Education had engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices, including the provision of false and misleading discount information designed to obfuscate the true cost of New Oriental Education's programs to its customers; (3) New Oriental Education had falsified teacher qualifications and experience to increase student enrollments; (4) New Oriental Education had defied prior government warnings against linking school enrollments with the provision of private tutoring services; (5) as a result, New Oriental Education was subject to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations adverse to New Oriental Education's business and interests; (6) the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors by defendants and in fact posed an existential threat to New Oriental Education and its business; and (7) consequently, defendants' positive statements about New Oriental Education's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the New Oriental Education class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2251.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Rivera filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the City of New York, the citys Mayor, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and its Commissioner, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Utility Workers union of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1-2 challenging the defendants' implementation of New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. According to the complaint, on December 15, 2021, New York's former mayor Bill DeBlasio issued Emergency Executive Order No. 317 which was based on the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's order to require COVID-19 vaccination in the workplace. According to the complaint, the mandate states that private employers, such as the Consolidated Edison Company, must require employees to be vaccinated or face fines. The complaint states Matthew Rivera is a resident of Nassau County, New York, an employee of Consolidated Edison Company and a member of Local Union No. 1-2. The plaintiff argues that, due to the mandate, he suffers "the imminent risk of harm of penalties" which he alleges is approaching $1,818,000.00 per year. The plaintiff argues the Mandate is invalid because its promulgation evaded legislative authority and violated the plaintiff's due process rights. Further, the plaintiff argues the plain language of the Mandate provides no vehicle to review or appeal its directives. In addition to bringing the present action against New York City, its mayor and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the plaintiff also argues that his employer, the Consolidated Edison Company, is culpable because it is acting as an agent of the state by enforcing the Mandate. Further, the complaint alleges that Local Union No. 1-2 violated their duty of fair representation. The complaint alleges 12 causes of action including violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution, violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Prohibition, lack of jurisdiction and that the Consolidated Edison Company acted as an agent of the state. The plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against the Mandate, declaratory relief that the Mandate is invalid and unconstitutional, attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff is represented by the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, P.L.L.C. [GN] NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the New York court system has violated some of its employees' rights to religious expression by rejecting their applications for exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Four court reporters and a reporting assistant filed the class action complaint against the State of New York Unified Court System (NYUCS) Jan. 25 in a New York federal court, alleging violations of the constitution. In the complaint, the court reporters say that they each applied for an exemption from the system's COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on their religious views. Each of the employees is a "devout Christian," they say. However, each of the plaintiffs allegedly had their applications denied without a statement of reasons. In standing with the mandate, each of the employees was given until Jan. 18, 2022, to be vaccinated or face termination. The plaintiffs argue that the system should have allowed them to stay working, as they offered to wear a mask at work and practice social distancing or to carry out their future work remotely. "Defendants well knew that Plaintiffs could carry out their duties via videoconferencing, entirely eliminating the risk of virus transmission," the class action states. "In response, Defendants disparaged and rejected the religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and forced them to accept vaccination or give up their employment and careers." Plaintiff Says She Was Interrogated As To "Legitimacy and Sincerity" Of Her Religious Beliefs The plaintiffs are suing for deprivation of constitutional right to religious expression. They are seeking compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, damages for physical pain and suffering and punitive damages, as well as fees, costs and a jury trial. Plaintiff Linda Rukavina said she was also interrogated as to "legitimacy and sincerity" of her religious beliefs. "Plaintiff was embarrassed, humiliated and intimidated by NYUCS' aggressive actions challenging the validity of her religious beliefs, which demonstrated clear hostility to and bias against her because of her deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs," the lawsuit states. The case comes several months after a federal appeals court halted a temporary injunction for New York health care workers who requested religious exemption from the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. What do you think about the court's response to those seeking religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by Sheldon Karasik. The NY Unified Courts Vaccine Mandate Class Action Lawsuit is Cheryl Ferrelli et al. v. State of New York Unified Court System et al., Case No. 5:00-at-99999, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN] ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Feb. 7 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed securities class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. common stock (OTCMKTS: ODTC): NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE STOCK OF ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("ODONATE") (NASDAQ: ODT) BETWEEN DECEMBER 7, 2017 AND MARCH 25, 2021, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, that a hearing will be held on June 6, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Southern District of California, James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration in the amount of twelve million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($12,750,000.00) should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one third (33 1/3%), and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses of not more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) plus interest on such fees and expenses, and a compensatory award for Lead Plaintiff of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), all to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 18, 2021 (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court. You are receiving this Notice because the Court has certified a class of investors for settlement purposes only ("Settlement Class") and you may be a member of the Settlement Class ("Settlement Class Member"). The proposed Settlement Class will consist of all persons or entities who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the stock of Odonate (NASDAQ: ODT) between December 7, 2017 and March 25, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants; members of their immediate families and their affiliates; any entity in which Defendants had a controlling interest during the Settlement Class Period; any person who served as an officer or director of Odonate during the Settlement Class Period; the judges presiding over the Action and the immediate family members of such judges; any persons or entities listed on the Settlement Exclusion List; and the successors, heirs, and assigns of any excluded person. If you purchased or acquired Odonate stock during the Settlement Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Odonate stock. If you have not received a more-detailed, long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies of these documents and the Stipulation by downloading them at the Claims Administrator's website at: www.strategicclaims.net/odonate/. If you are unable to do so, you may contact the Claims Administrator to obtain copies: Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: 866-274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net The case has been litigated since September 16, 2020. Lead Plaintiff alleges that, in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws, Defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in public statements to the investing public regarding Odonate's only drug candidate, tesetaxel. Defendants have denied and continue to deny these allegations and that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or violation of the law. The Settlement will resolve the lawsuit and the Released Claims as to the Defendants and other Released Parties. Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are represented by Co-Lead Counsel who may be reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo or Jennifer B. Sobers, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100 and/or Corey D. Holzer, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010, Atlanta, GA 30346, (770) 392-0090. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form received no later than May 2, 2022, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the long-form Notice, so that it is received no later than May 2, 2022. If you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and wish to file your own individual lawsuit based on the Released Settlement Class Claims, Defendants may argue that you face a time bar under applicable statutes of limitation or repose, risks that you should discuss with an appropriate legal advisor. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and compensatory award to Lead Plaintiff in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than May 2, 2022. Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: January 18, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Barrett Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Maciol, Oneida County Sheriff, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SARAH BARRETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ROBERT MACIOL, Oneida County Sheriff, and LISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida County Jail, Case No. 9:20-cv-00537-MAD-DJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse. Three former inmates at the Oneida County Correctional Facility, Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, and Shannon Terrell, commenced this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated general custody female inmates on May 12, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that the transfer of female inmates from "pod housing" to "linear housing" violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the corresponding provision in the New York State Constitution. On August 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to return female inmates to the pod housing. On January 11, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded the matter for further consideration. After consideration of the Second Circuit's Summary Order, further development of the factual record, and review of the supplemental briefing, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, and as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 26, 2022, the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; 2. adopting the Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report- Recommendation and Order in its entirety; and 3. directing the Defedant, within 10 days of the date of the Memorandum-Decision and Order, to return female general custody inmates to one of the pod housing units, thereby providing the same housing option afforded to male general custody inmates. The Court said, "The Defendants were required to adjust the housing arrangement of female inmates to separate closed custody and general custody female inmates. The Defendants are accorded "substantial deference" to determine the "most appropriate means to accomplish" this goal. The current arrangement, however, likely violates the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee to be free of discrimination on the basis of gender. The Defendants have not suggested any alternative arrangements that would remedy the ongoing violation. Throughout this litigation, the Defendants' efforts to equalize the benefits between the male and female general custody inmates, such as providing the female inmates access to live television, have been unable to remedy the gender discrimination. As such, the Court orders that Defendants shall return female general custody inmates to the pod housing, which is sufficiently "narrowly drawn" and the "least intrusive means" to remedy the gender discrimination." The Defendant seeks a review of this ruling by Judge D'Agostino. The appellate case is captioned as Barrett v. Maciol, Case No. 22-200, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Jan. 31, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Robert Maciol, Oneida County Sheriff; and Lisa Zurek, Chief Deputy Oneida County Jail, are represented by: David H. Walsh, IV, Esq. KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLPZX 4615 North Street Jamesville, NY 13078 Telephone: (315) 492-3000 Plaintiffs-Appellees Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, and Shannon Terrell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua Cotter, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK 472 South Salina Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 703-6579 POLAR CORP: Faces Class Action Over Seltzer Deceptive Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action challenges the manner in which Polar Corp. represents its lemon-flavored seltzer, contending that the product's name is "false, deceptive and misleading" given the beverage lacks the amount and type of lemon ingredients consumers expect. The 17-page case argues that consumers expect lemon Polar seltzer to contain "a non-de minimis amount of lemon ingredients" based on the company's advertising and product labeling, which heavily feature the color yellow and images of lemons slices. Moreover, Polar's "refreshingly natural" statement furthers the impression that lemons exist in the seltzer as a result of being expressed or squeezed, the suit says. Overall, Polar's packaging and labeling are misleading because they lead consumers to believe the seltzer contains a greater amount of lemon ingredients than it actually does, the complaint claims. Further, the lawsuit argues that the disclosure in the seltzer's ingredients list that it contains "natural flavors" is insufficient to relay to buyers that the beverage's taste comes not from real lemons but mostly from "a mix of essences from a variety of fruits and vegetables" combined in a lab with "additives and solvents." From there, the case tackles the "Made With Natural Flavors" disclosure that appears on the Polar seltzer's label, arguing that it's placed where consumers are "likely not to notice it, instead of in the center where identical federal and state regulations require." At any rate, the suit relays, the disclosure fails to tell consumers the source of the seltzer's lemon taste. "Consumers who purchase the Product in a case are not even presented with the attempted disclaimer far off to the right on the product, which states, ‘MADE WITH NATURAL FLAVORS,'" the complaint reads. Per the suit, the seltzer's lemon taste, according to "[l]aboratory analysis," comes mainly from added limonene and citral "without the variety and relative amounts of other essential lemon compounds," the absence of which, the lawsuit goes on to say, indicates the use of minimal real lemons for flavor. The lawsuit argues that whether a product contains real lemons or only tastes like lemon is "basic front label information" consumers rely on when making in-store purchasing decisions. According to the complaint, the value of the Polar lemon seltzer is materially less than its value as represented by the defendant, who the suit claims has been able to sell more of the product and at higher prices than it would have "in the absence of this misconduct." The case looks to cover consumers in Illinois, Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, Utah, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia and Oklahoma who bought lemon Polar seltzer within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] PREMIUM RETAIL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Fraga Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Premium Retail Services, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SARA FRAGA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10751-WGY, in the United States District Court District of Massachusetts. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17, 2021, the lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Ms. Fraga worked for the Defendant as a merchandiser in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York from approximately December 2020 to January 2021. On July 12, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint. On Jan. 31, 2022, Judge William G. Young entered an order denying Premium's motion to dismiss. The Defendant seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as SARA FRAGA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-1101, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Feb. 10, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC. is represented by: Jonathan A. Keselenko, Esq. James S. Fullmer, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP Seaport West, 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2600 Telephone: (617) 832-1000 E-mail: jkeselenko@foleyhoag.com jfullmer@foleyhoag.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that the Procter & Gamble Company's website is not fully accessible to visually-impaired individuals, according to a class action lawsuit filed Feb. 2 in New York federal court. Plaintiff Robert Weekes is a legally-blind person who says he attempted to utilize P&G's website www.sk-ii.com, which sells different skin care and facial treatment products. However, the P&G website's screen reader allegedly fails to read the item description link and stops functioning abruptly in the middle of a sentence, according to the P&G class action lawsuit. As a result, Weekes says he was not able to utilize the website to purchase items. Weekes alleges P&G's website violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law. "The access barriers that plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of plaintiff's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the defendant's website in the future," the class action lawsuit states. The internet plays a vital role in the lives of Americans. Individuals use the internet to find information, conduct business, learn, shop, and numerous other activities. Visually-impaired individuals are able to access websites by using screen-reading software, which vocalizes the visual information on a computer screen. "Unless websites are designed to be read by screen-reading software, blind and visually-impaired persons are unable to fully access websites, and the information, products, goods and services contained thereon," the lawsuit alleges. According to the Class Action, P&G's Website is Not 'Fully Accessible' Using Screen-Reading Software Because the P&G website is not fully accessible to individuals using screen-reading software and imposes barriers to blind and visually-impaired individuals, the website violates the ADA and the New York City Human Rights Law, Weekes says. The Centers for Disease Control estimated that there were approximately 1.7 million blind individuals in the United States in 2017, according to the P&G class action lawsuit. Weekes filed the P&G class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed Class of all visually-impaired or legally blind individuals in the United States who were denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or services that were offered on the P&G website. He also seeks to represent a Class of visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in New York City. [GN] QRS INC: J.D. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------- The case styled as J.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QRS, Inc., Psych Care Consultants, Reimbursement Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2216-CV00309 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Jan. 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00067-DGK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. QRS INC. -- https://www.qrshs.com/ -- was founded in 1983 to help providers become profitable and to support them in their goals of better healthcare for their patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Fax: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. Catherine A. Green, Esq. Polsinelli - KCMO 900 W. 48th Place Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 753-1000 Fax: (816) 753-1536 Email: molthoff@polsinelli.com cgreen@polsinelli.com QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Terranova Labor Suit Removed to D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICH TERRANOVA, TOM CIOLTOLI, and PETER ELMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 2022CV30039, was removed from the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on February 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00373 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to pay its delivery drivers minimum and overtime wages. The Quikrete Companies, LLC is a manufacturer of packaged concrete, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Micah Dawson, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillps.com - and – Theanna Bezney, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3550 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-9100 Facsimile: (214) 220-9122 E-mail: tbezney@fisherphillips.com REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Sava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Acceptance Corporation. The case is styled as Bernadette Sava, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regional Acceptance Corporation, Case No. BCV-22-100276 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 1, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited." Regional Acceptance -- https://www.regionalacceptance.com/ -- is a national auto finance company with over 40 years of lending experience and a reputation for unparalleled customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Winter Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P., et al. The case is styled as Civia Winter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00772 (D.N.J., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com RUSHMORE SERVICE: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Service Center, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Johnson, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00250 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rushmore Service Center -- http://www.rushmoreservicecenter.com/-- is a nationally licensed third party debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SAHAWNEH DENTAL: Hill Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeanine St. Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sahawneh Dental Corporation, Bright Now! Dental Upland, Doe Defendants 1-100, Case No. CIV SB 2132235 was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 11, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00273 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Sahawneh Dental Corporation is located in Irvine, California and is part of the Offices of Dentists Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Douglas Allen Smith, Esq. John Nadolenco, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-9500 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: dougsmith@mayerbrown.com jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com - and - Samantha A Machock, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 331-2000 Fax: (650) 331-2060 Email: smachock@mayerbrown.com SALSA CON FUEGO: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salsa Con Fuego Inc., et al. The case is styled as Diana Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salsa Con Fuego Inc., Salsa Con Fuego Management LLC, John Doe, Case No. 1:22-cv-01160-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Salsa Con Fuego -- https://salsaconfuego.com/ -- is a splashy, Latin American restaurant & lounge offering Latin bites, specialty drinks, entertainment & salsa dancing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yandy Reyes, Esq. 60-70 Woodhaven Blvd., Ste. 2I Elmhurst, NY 11373 Phone: (646) 633-5467 Email: yandyreyesesq@gmail.com SAN DIEGO STATE: Female Athletes File Title IX Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey Glasser, LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that seventeen female varsity athletes filed a sex discrimination class action against San Diego State University (SDSU) on Feb. 7 for violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by depriving women of equal athletic financial aid. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, seeks to make SDSU pay its past and current female athletes over $1.2 million in equal athletic financial aid they were denied - and male athletes were granted - in the last two years alone, as well as the money they are illegally being deprived of this year. It also asks the court to order SDSU to comply with Title IX and provide equal athletic financial aid in the future. Title IX, a civil rights law, prohibits sex discrimination in all educational institutions that receive federal funds. It requires schools to grant athletic financial aid to male and female athletes in dollar amounts proportional to their athletic participation rates. So, if 60% of the athletes are women, they are supposed to get close to 60% of the athletic financial aid awarded. The class action is the first Title IX athletic financial aid damages case in the country. "San Diego State University has been openly violating Title IX by depriving its female student-athletes of equal athletic financial aid for over a decade," said Arthur H. Bryant, of Bailey Glasser, LLP, in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. "The reports it has filed with the federal government show that, since at least 2010, SDSU has been cheating its women athletes out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in equal athletic financial aid each year. This is illegal sex discrimination, plain and simple. It has to stop." "It is a sad day for the entire SDSU community that we have to sue the university to make it comply with Title IX and provide athletic financial aid equally to women and men," said senior and former women's varsity rowing team member Madison Fisk. "Title IX has been the law for 50 years now and SDSU still isn't providing its female athletes with equal scholarship support. It's time for that to change." In addition to Fisk, the lawsuit was filed by past and current SDSU student-athletes Raquel Castro, Greta Fiss, Clare Botterill, Maya Brosch, Olivia Petrine, Helen Bauer, Carina Clark, Natalie Figueroa, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Aisha Watt, Kamryn Whitworth, Sara Absten, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Larisa Sulcs. "We are proud to stand behind this remarkable group of award-winning female student athletes as they bravely raise their voices to hold SDSU accountable for intentional sex discrimination," said Jenna Rangel of San Diego law firm Haeggquist & Eck, LLP. "This injustice must be corrected, not only for the women who were deprived their fair share of athletic financial aid in the past, but for future generations of female college athletes." In addition to Bryant and Rangel, the women are represented by Bailey Glasser's Lori Bullock in Des Moines, IA, and Cary Joshi and Joshua Hammack in Washington, DC, along with co-counsel Amber Eck of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, and Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry in San Diego. The lawsuit cites in detail information that SDSU submitted to the federal government under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act ("EADA") and verified as accurate. In 2019-20, according to that information, women were 58.12% of the student-athletes and received only 50.57% of the athletic financial aid. SDSU granted its 315 female varsity student-athletes over $690,000 less -- and its male varsity student-athletes over $690,000 more -- than they would have received if SDSU had granted the aid in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics. In 2020-21, women were 57.22% of the student-athletes and were awarded only 50.64% of the athletic financial aid. SDSU granted its 305 female varsity student-athletes over $570,000 less -- and its male varsity student-athletes over $570,000 more -- than they would have received if SDSU had granted the aid in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics. A similar or greater unequal and disproportionate allocation of athletic financial aid to varsity female student-athletes at SDSU continues to this day. The SDSU lawsuit is the latest in Bryant's legal career fighting sex discrimination in athletics. Bryant has successfully represented more women athletes and potential athletes in Title IX litigation against schools and universities than any lawyer in the country. He leads the Bailey Glasser Title IX team that has recently won groundbreaking settlements for female student-athletes at eight universities that announced they were eliminating women's varsity intercollegiate athletic teams, including Brown University, the College of William & Mary, the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, East Carolina University, Dartmouth College, the University of St. Thomas, La Salle University, and Dickinson College. Bailey Glasser also won a historic settlement -- the first Title IX victory ever for male student-athletes -- with Clemson University after the school became the first facing class actions suits by both its male and female student-athletes for violating Title IX by discriminating against them in different ways. About Bailey & Glasser, LLP Bailey Glasser was founded in 1999 by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in Charleston, West Virginia. Now a national firm with over 80 lawyers across 17 offices including in Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Washington, DC, Bailey Glasser handles our clients' most challenging and consequential legal issues, in litigation and in corporate matters. We bring a trial-focused approach to litigation for plaintiffs and defendants that vigorously protects the interests of our clients -- businesses in many industries and of all sizes (from Fortune 500 companies to family offices), individuals, governmental entities and government servants, and even law firms that call upon us to help them in matters because of our unique blend of resources and trial experience. Some of our areas of particular litigation focus include complex commercial litigation, in finance and energy; class action and mass tort cases; multi-district litigation involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals and automobiles; bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings; and individual negligence cases. Bailey Glasser's sophisticated corporate practice provides strategic guidance, counseling, and innovative solutions in virtually every type of corporate, real estate, and financial transactions. Those projects include business formations, public and private securities offerings, corporate finance transactions, mergers and acquisitions, spinoffs, real estate development, leasing, personal property transactions, executive hiring and compensation, ownership disputes, and commercial lending. For more information, please visit www.BaileyGlasser.com. About Haeggquist & Eck, LLP Founded in 2008, Haeggquist & Eck is proud to be San Diego's definitive employee and consumer rights advocates, dedicated to seeking justice for marginalized communities. When you hire the team at Haeggquist & Eck, you are choosing a woman-owned business that knows what it means to be underestimated. We pride ourselves on our fearlessness: No defendant is too large or powerful for us to tackle. We have successfully pursued class actions against corporations for a wide range of unlawful practices including deceptive advertising, product defect, securities fraud, and wage/hour violations, as well as represented hundreds of individual plaintiffs against their employers for sexual harassment and employment discrimination based on gender, race, religion, age, and disability. This fight for equality and social justice is what drives the team at Haeggquist & Eck. For more information, please visit www.haelaw.com. About CaseyGerry With a history of precedent-setting successes, San Diego-based plaintiffs' law firm, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP (CaseyGerry) has represented individuals in a range of cases, including class actions and mass torts, serious and catastrophic personal injury, e-commerce liability, aviation, maritime, highway design litigation, and more since 1947. The firm has held numerous leadership roles in coordinated cases at both the state and federal level and continue to garner local, regional, and national recognition for their work. For more information, please visit www.caseygerry.com. [GN] SANTA MONICA, CA: Settles Lifeguards' Underpayment Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Monica Daily Press reports that during a Jan. 25 City Council meeting, Interim City Attorney Joe Lawrence announced the settlement of a class action lawsuit regarding the underpayment of nearly 200 lifeguards. With Council's approval the City will resolve the suit with a $350,000 settlement. The dispute pertains to a group of lifeguards who between 2015 and 2018 claimed that they were not reimbursed for working all of the time that they did nor for attending mandatory swimming trainings. [GN] SHATTUCK LABS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of April 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Shattuck Labs, Inc. ("Shattuck" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STTK) securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Shattuck's October 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (2) between October 9, 2020 and November 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shattuck investors have until April 1, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On or about October 9, 2021, Shattuck conducted its IPO, selling approximately 13.7 million shares at $17.00 per share. On November 9, 2021, Shattuck announced that it had terminated its Collaboration Agreement with Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Takeda"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. The Company issued a press release stating that "Shattuck and Takeda mutually agreed" to the termination and that "the Company will not make any payments to or receive any future milestone or royalty payments from Takeda." On this news, Shattuck's stock fell $5.45, or 28%, to close at $13.59 per share on November 9, 2021, thereby injuring investors. On January 28, 2022, the Company's share price closed at $6.13 per share, less than half of its original IPO price. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the Collaboration Agreement with Takeda was not solid; (2) Takeda and Shattuck would mutually agree to terminate the Collaboration Agreement in essentially one year; (3) as a result, Shattuck would cease to receive any future milestone, royalty, or other payments from Takeda; and (4) as a result, defendants statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Shattuck securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 1, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Shattuck securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] SKYVIEW CAR: Gutierrez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Car Washers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ESPINOZA GUTIERREZ and CATALINO CORTES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKYVIEW CAR WASH, INC. and KEVIN LOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00755 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 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 overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Gutierrez and Cortes worked for the Defendants as car washers from May 2017 until January 2022 and from March 2017 until January 2022, respectively. Skyview Car Wash, Inc. is a car wash operator, with a principal executive office located at 30-25 College Point Blvd., Queens, New York. [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 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Refuerzo Suit Over Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- RORESTE REFUERZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant, 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Family Rights Act, and California's Public Policy. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of terminating flight attendants as a result of its policy that penalizes exercise of family and medical leave. Under the policy, a flight attendant who would otherwise be entitled to a reduction in disciplinary points is not given the reduction if she took medical or family leave. As a result of the Defendant's policy, the Plaintiff was terminated. Southwest Airlines Co. is an airline company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Erlich, Esq. ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C. 180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 390-9140 Facsimile: (510) 369-3876 E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com - and – Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com STEPHEN HAYNES: Gibbs Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L. Stephen Haynes, et al. The case is styled as Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence Mwethuku, George Hengle, Tamara Price, Sherry Blackburn, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated v. L. Stephen Haynes, Haynes Investments, LLC, Sovereign Business Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00086-MHL (E.D. Va., Feb. 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. Stephen L. Haynes & Associates performs Land work in the Oil & Gas Industry and Rights-of-Way.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com kkelly@kellyguzzo.com - and - Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Kevin Anthony Dillon, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES (RICHMOND) 626 E Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 905-9904 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: kevin@clalegal.com The Defendants are represented by: David Neal Anthony, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP (RICHMOND) Troutman Sanders Bldg. 1001 Haxall Point PO Box 1122 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 697-5410 Fax: (804) 698-5118 Email: david.anthony@troutman.com - and - Kasey Leigh Hoare, Esq. SPOTTS FAIN PC 411 E Franklin St., Suite 600 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 697-2015 Fax: (804) 697-2150 Email: khoare@spottsfain.com STUDIO CAHS: Faces Lazri Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- PRISCILLA LAZRI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STUDIO CAHS, LTD., CAHS CONSTRUCTION LTD., CATERINA HEIL, and CHARLES STEWART, Defendants, 1:22-cv-01158 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 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 overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a domestic service employee, babysitter/caretaker, and personal assistant from November 2016 until November 2021. Studio CAHS, Ltd. is an architecture/interior design business, with a principal place of business at 787 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, New York. CAHS Construction Ltd. is a construction company, with a principal place of business at 787 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Oh Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunvalleytek International, Inc. The case is styled as David Oh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Sunvalley Group (previously Sunvalleytek International Inc.) -- http://www.sunvalleytek.com/-- is a Chinese consumer electronics company founded in 2007 and headquartered in Shenzhen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Van Dyke, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: alex@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com TAL EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of TAL Education Group (NYSE: TAL) American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and charging TAL Education as well as certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The TAL Education class action lawsuit was commenced on February 4, 2022 in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Sun v. TAL Education Group, No. 22-cv-01015. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the TAL Education class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the TAL Education class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 5, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: TAL Education provides K-12 after-school tutoring services in China. The TAL Education class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) TAL Education's revenue and operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics and illicit business practices that flouted Chinese laws, regulations, and policies, and exposed TAL Education to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would be imposed on TAL Education; (ii) TAL Education had engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices, including the provision of false and misleading discount information designed to obfuscate the true cost of TAL Education's programs to its customers, the creation of fake customer reviews designed to fraudulently lure new customers to TAL Education programs, the misrepresentation of teacher qualifications and course qualities, and the marketing of rigged promotional events; (iii) TAL Education had defied Chinese policies designed to alleviate the burden imposed by tutoring services on students and their families, including by imposing hefty advances and recurring debt payments on course enrollees, by offering courses designed to give affluent students unfair advantages, by holding courses outside of allowable tutoring hours, and by linking for-profit courses to government-mandated schooling; (iv) as a result, TAL Education was subject to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines, and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations adverse to TAL Education's business and financial interests; and (v) consequently, TAL Education's historical growth was not sustainable or the result of legitimate business tactics as represented, and defendants' positive statements about TAL Education's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis. From March 4, 2021 through March 11, 2021, China held its annual "Two Sessions" parliamentary meetings. Media reports stated that attendees of the ongoing Two Sessions conference had proposed "stricter regulations" to rein in the online education industry, such as regulations aimed at enhancing teacher quality, limiting fee scams, reducing market "abuse" by large players like TAL Education, and reducing the stress that for-profit tutoring companies had placed on students in the Chinese educational system. As news of the government's focus on the after-school tutoring industry spread, the price of TAL Education ADSs began to drop from $76.04 when the market closed on March 5, 2021, to $56.31 by April 1, 2021, a 26% decline. Then, on May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that the impending government crackdown on for-profit tutoring companies in China would be much more drastic and far reaching than previously publicly known. Sources stated that anticipated rules would include measures such as banning on-campus tutoring classes, the provision of tutoring services during weekend hours, and the imposition of industry-wide fee limitations. On this news, the price of TAL Education ADSs dropped 13% over a two-day period. Thereafter, on June 1, 2021, Chinese regulators announced they had fined 15 off-campus training institutions, including TAL Education, for illegal activities such as false advertising and fraud. Among the violations by the 15 offenders were reportedly fabricating teacher qualifications, exaggerating the effects of training, and fabricating user reviews. The regulators gave examples of how TAL Education's subsidiary, Xueersi, had advertised false parent user reviews in Beijing and Shanghai. The offending companies, including TAL Education, were hit with maximum penalties for their illegal business practices, totaling a combined 36.5 million yuan ($5.73 million). Officials stated that the crackdown on the for-profit tutoring industry had grown out of the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings held earlier in the year and followed a deluge of complaints against bad industry actors, including 155,000 complaints and reports for education and training services received by authorities in 2020 alone and over 47,000 similar complaints and reports received by authorities in the first quarter of 2021. In addition to the issues outlined above, TAL Education was reportedly found to have: (i) forced students to pay hefty advances and take on recurring debt payments in violation of Chinese law; (ii) offered courses that gave students unfair advantages in contravention of Chinese government policies; (iii) engaged in illegal bait-and-switch tactics; (iv) misrepresented teacher qualifications and course qualities; (v) mishandled user data; and (vi) rigged promotional events to defraud consumers. On this news, the price of TAL Education ADSs dropped approximately 18% over a two-day period. Finally, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its education sector, banning companies that teach the school curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public. This drastic measure effectively ended any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring sector in China. On this news, the price of TAL Education ADSs plummeted from $20.52 when the market closed on July 22, 2021, to just $4.40 by market close on July 26, 2021, a nearly 79% decline. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased TAL Education ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the TAL Education class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the TAL Education class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the TAL Education class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the TAL Education class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. [GN] TAL EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 7 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TAL Education Group (NYSE: TAL) between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 5, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased TAL Education securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the TAL Education class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2250.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TAL Education's revenue and operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics and illicit business practices that flouted Chinese laws, regulations, and policies, and exposed TAL Education to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would be imposed on TAL Education; (2) TAL Education had engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices, including the provision of false and misleading discount information designed to obfuscate the true cost of TAL Education's programs to its customers, the creation of fake customer reviews designed to fraudulently lure new customers to TAL Education programs, the misrepresentation of teacher qualifications and course qualities, and the marketing of rigged promotional events; (3) TAL Education had defied Chinese policies designed to alleviate the burden imposed by tutoring services on students and their families, including by imposing hefty advances and recurring debt payments on course enrollees, by offering courses designed to give affluent students unfair advantages, by holding courses outside of allowable tutoring hours, and by linking for-profit courses to government-mandated schooling; (4) as a result, TAL Education was subject to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines, and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations adverse to TAL Education's business and financial interests; and (5) consequently, TAL Education's historical growth was not sustainable or the result of legitimate business tactics as represented, and defendants' positive statements about TAL Education's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the TAL Education class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2250.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TALKSPACE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Attention Talkspace, Inc. f/k/a Hudson Executive Investment Corporation ("Talkspace") (NASDAQ: TALK) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of: (a) all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Talkspace securities between June 11, 2020 and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive, and/or (b) all holders of Talkspace common stock as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on June 17, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Talkspace, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/talkspace-inc-f-k-a-hudson-executive-investment-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23368&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Talkspace includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Hudson Executive Investment Corporation ("HEIC") had overstated its competitive advantage and due diligence capabilities with respect to identifying and effectuating a merger with target companies; (ii) HEIC had conducted inadequate due diligence into then-private, pre-Merger Talkspace, or else ignored and/or failed to disclose multiple red flags concerning then-private, pre-Merger Talkspace's business and operations; (iii) Talkspace was experiencing significantly increased online advertising costs in its B2C business since the beginning of 2021; (iv) Talkspace was experiencing lower conversion rates in its online advertising in its business-to-consumer ("B2C") business; (v) as a result of (iii) and (iv) above, Talkspace was experiencing increased customer acquisition costs and more tepid B2C demand than represented to investors; (vi) as a result of (iii)-(v) above, Talkspace was suffering from ballooning customer acquisition costs and worsening growth and gross margin trends; (vii) Talkspace had overvalued its accounts receivables from certain of its health plan clients in its B2B business, which amounts required adjustment downward; and (viii) as a result of (iii)-(vii) above, Talkspace's 2021 financial guidance was not achievable and lacked any reasonable basis in fact. DEADLINE: March 8, 2022 Aggrieved Talkspace investors only have until March 8, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] TELOS CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Telos Corporation ("Telos" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLS) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Telos common stock between November 19, 2020 and November 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action is captioned: The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Telos Corporation, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00135 (E.D. Va.). Telos is an Ashburn, Virginia based company that focuses on developing and implementing cyber, cloud, and enterprise security technology and products. In July 2020, the Company announced a lucrative ten-year contract to provide services to the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") and TSA PreCheck(R) that would commence in 2021. A few months later, Telos announced another significant ten-year contract to provide services to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid ("CMS") that also would commence in 2021. On the heels of securing these two contracts that would generate a substantial portion of the Company's future revenue, Telos held its initial public offering ("IPO") on November 19, 2020, after the Company's stock had traded over-the-counter for several years. Through the IPO, Telos sold 17.2 million shares at $17.00 per share for gross proceeds of $292.6 million. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the TSA and CMS contracts, which constituted a majority of the Company's future revenues, were not on track to commence as represented at the end of 2021 and in 2022; (2) Defendants lacked a reasonable basis and sufficient visibility to provide and affirm the Company's 2021 guidance in the face of the uncertainty surrounding the TSA and CMS contracts; (3) COVID- and hacking scandal-related headwinds were throwing off the timing for performance of the TSA and CMS contracts and their associated revenues; (4) as a result, the guidance provided by Defendants was not in fact "conservative"; (5) as a result of the delays, Telos would be forced to dramatically reduce its revenue estimates; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Telos' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth emerged during Telos' third quarter 2021 earnings call on November 15, 2021, causing Telos' stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial losses. On that call, Telos announced that it was not expecting the TSA PreCheck contract "to deliver meaningful sales this year." The Company also disclosed that it was not including revenue from the CMS contract in the Company's 2022 outlook. In response to these revelations, Telos' stock price fell $6.84 per share, or more than 28 percent. If you purchased Telos common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia no later than April 8, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Lester R. Hooker, Esq. lhooker@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 206-6708 Fax: (561) 394-3382 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] TEVA CANADA: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that like most corporate commercial litigation, class actions are settled more often than not. Court-approved settlements bind every class member who has not opted out of the proceeding. So what happens when, following settlement, a class member purports to bring a new action concerning the subject matter of the class proceeding? Is the defendant able to quickly and easily put an end to the new action? Maybe. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dealt with those issues in Nelson v Teva Canada Limited, 2021 SKCA 171. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for defendants who believe they are protected by a class action settlement agreement and highlights the importance of release language when there are existing or potential overlapping class actions. Background In 2011, a class proceeding concerning the drug "Mirapex" was certified in Ontario: Schick v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., 2011 ONSC 1942. The class in Schick was all persons resident in Canada (excluding Quebec) who were prescribed and ingested "Mirapex (generic name: Pramipexole dihydrochloride)." The representative plaintiff alleged that Mirapex caused compulsive behaviour, such as gambling, eating, and shopping, and that the defendant originator manufacturer was liable. In 2015, Schick settled. Key settlement terms included: -- a release of claims against the named defendant—the originator manufacturer; and -- a prohibition from "instituting, continuing, maintaining or asserting, either directly or indirectly, whether in Canada or elsewhere, on their own behalf or on behalf of any class or any other person, any action, suit, cause of action, claim or demand against any Releasee or any other person, corporation or legal entity who may claim contribution or indemnity, or other claims of relief over from any Releasee in respect of any matter related to the Released Claims." However, the release and bar order did not specifically name generic producers and distributors of the drug as beneficiaries of the settlement. Meanwhile in 2014, a new proposed class action concerning Mirapex was commenced by Jo-Anne Nelson and Randall Ulrich in Saskatchewan. Nelson initially named the originator manufacturer as a defendant, but the suit against the originator manufacturer was discontinued, leaving only the drug's generic producers and distributors as defendants. The Decision Below The generic producers and distributors in Nelson brought a motion to strike the action because the two named representative plaintiffs were class members in Schick and therefore their claims were barred by the settlement and release. In a detailed decision tracing the history of conflict of laws as well as jurisdictional considerations as they pertain to national class actions, the chambers justice agreed, and struck the Nelson action as contrary to the terms of the settlement in Schick, a collateral attack on the settlement order, and an abuse of process: Nelson v Teva Canada Limited, 2020 SKQB 159. The Appeal In reversing the decision to strike the Nelson action, the Court of Appeal focused more narrowly on the test to strike a claim as an abuse of process. The court referred to the well-known test to strike a claim, namely, that it is "plain and obvious" that the claim is an abuse of process. Here, the Court found it was not plain and obvious that the Schick settlement released the plaintiffs' claims against the generic manufacturers and producers. Rather, there was some chance that the plaintiffs could overcome the settlement and release in Schick, because it could be interpreted as applying only to the originator manufacturer. As it was an "arguable issue" whether the Schick settlement barred the claims in Nelson, the appeal was allowed. Takeaways Overlapping national class actions in different provinces continue to pose a challenge for Canadian courts. Until a uniform national framework is developed, it is difficult for defendants to know whether settlement in one province will protect them in another. The Schick settlement barred class members from commencing or continuing claims against anyone who could claim against the originator manufacturer. Nevertheless, Nelson survived an application to strike. For Defendants facing multiple national class actions, or even a single class action in one province that purports to be nationally binding, there are two main takeaways: Settle with caution: Defendants should be cautious settling class actions piecemeal (e. where there are overlapping classes in different jurisdictions). Settlement agreements and orders must have clear language to provide the maximum possibility for protection against any future overlapping class proceedings. If there are known parties that should be released from claims (such as generic manufacturers), name them. If the worst happens, choose the right procedure to deal with it quickly and efficiently: If a fresh class proceeding is brought in the face of settlement of a previous class proceeding, defendants should carefully consider which procedure to use to obtain relief. An application to strike requires the defendant to meet a "plain and obvious" test, while an application for summary judgment or summary trial allows the court to resolve the dispute on a summary basis where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. In Nelson, the application to strike was dismissed because there was an "arguable issue". However, if the defendants had applied instead for summary judgment, the court might have determined the issue. [GN] TEXAS HEALTH: Langham TCHRA Suit Removed to E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SUSAN LANGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, Case No. 22-00004, was removed from the 294th Judicial District Court of Van Zandt County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-00057 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act and sex discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Texas Health & Human Services Commission is a government agency in Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Landon A. Wade, Esq. P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 E-mail: landon.wade@oag.texas.gov TIGER BRANDS: Court Overturns Ruling in Listeria Outbreak Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Whitworth, writing for Food Safety News, reports that a court in South Africa has overturned a previous decision to make companies divulge information in relation to a deadly Listeria outbreak in 2017 and 2018. The Supreme Court of Appeal ruling reverses a Gauteng High Court verdict on whether subpoenas issued against third parties were relevant to the class-action. Tiger Brands is facing a class-action following an outbreak of listeriosis between January 2017 and September 2018 that sickened more than 1,050 people, killing 218. People contracted Listeria monocytogenes infections after eating contaminated ready-to-eat meat products, such as polony, made at a factory in Polokwane by Enterprise Foods between October 2016 and March 2018. At the time Enterprise Foods was owned by Tiger Brands. The Supreme Court of Appeal judgment paves the way for the next step in the legal process. Tiger Brands subpoenaed other meat producers and laboratories to see if, during the period that they are accused of distributing contaminated food, others might have done so as well. This might have diluted the harm for which they may be liable. Class action proceedings were filed against Tiger Brands by Richard Spoor Attorneys to get compensation for victims. Richard Spoor Attorneys is representing people affected by the outbreak and Marler Clark LLC of Seattle is serving as a consultant. The first stage will determine whether Tiger Brands is liable while a second case would determine damages. Relevance to class action Richard Spoor said in the past 18 months the case has stalled while Tiger Brands "engaged in a fishing expedition." "Tiger's strategy of delay and blame sharing has cost the victims dearly, many, including infants with severe brain injuries, who require medical care and counseling to cope with their loss or disability have been denied it and have endured great hardship as a result," he said. Spoor added he hoped the judgment would serve as a wake-up call for the company. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) investigation focused on Listeria monocytogenes sequence type (ST6) when it was found that results from clinical tests matched those from the Polokwane facility. In April 2018, Tiger Brands revealed it had received independent lab tests which detected ST6 in samples of ready-to-eat meat products from the factory. Subpoenas were issued against 11 parties including Deltamune and Aspirata, which are commercial testing laboratories. As well as firms including Federated Meats, Curly Wee Boerdery, Ibis Piggery, Molare Investments and Winelands Pork that supplied raw meat products to Tiger Brands. Tiger Brands had already amended them by reducing the number of documents requested but the other parties still objected to the demand. Such documents may have helped the firm argue it was not the only one responsible for the outbreak. The court ruled that Tiger Brands' argument to investigate whether it was the sole source of the outbreak was not relevant to the class-action as claimants are only seeking to hold it responsible for harm. It added the demand for documents was "speculative" and seemed to be based on the hope it would find a basis for co-liability with another party. A Tiger Brands statement said the outbreak had affected many South Africans. "We are saddened by the impact it has had on the lives of the victims and those who have lost loved ones from the outbreak. Tiger Brands reiterates its commitment to ensure that a resolution of the matter is reached in the shortest possible time, in the interest of all parties, particularly the victims of listeriosis." [GN] TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Calchi Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TopCo Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Nancy Calchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TopCo Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00747 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Topco Associates LLC -- https://www.topco.com/ -- is the largest American retail food GPO and the third largest private company in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 600 Santa Monica CA, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Davis Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Heather A. Davis, Robert Sweeny, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00949 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 1333 Stradella Road Los Angeles, CA 90077 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Fax: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com TRUGREEN INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Deramo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DOMINIC DERAMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUGREEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-01151 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers, including the Plaintiff, to promote its lawn care plans and/or services without prior express consent. TruGreen, Inc. is a lawn care maintenance or treatment services provider, with a principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Tippins Suit to Fed. Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled TONIA TIPPINS, DERRIK MAGNUSON, GEORGE HOLLOWAY, JENNIFER REHBERG, GLENDA SMITHLEETH, AND M. ALLEN BUMGARDNER For Themselves and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00923-LAS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. According to the complaint, the lawsuit, filed on June 27, 2018, is brought on behalf of the hundreds of Coast Guard members who were involuntarily retired through the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Coast Guard Active Duty Enlisted Career Retention Screening Panels. Every member of the class served this country in the Coast Guard for 20 or more years, and was authorized to continue serving had they not been forced to retire. They were not forced to retire as part of a reduction in force, and no reduction in force took place during the relevant time period. Therefore, their involuntary retirements through the CRSP process were allegedly unauthorized and contrary to law because the CRSP panels were not Enlisted Personnel Boards pursuant to 14 U.S.C. Section 357 and these service-members were not provided the rights and protections required by law. The Plaintiffs and the class are thus entitled to constructive service credit, back pay, allowances, and reinstatement on active duty, says the suit. On September 3, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court's July 13, 2021 Opinion granting summary judgment to the Plaintiffs. On December 8, 2021, Judge David A. Tapp entered an order denying Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Defendant now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as United States v. Tippins, Case No. 22-1462, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on Feb. 10, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case statest that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on Feb. 24, 2022; -- Certificate of Interest is due on Feb. 24, 2022; -- Docketing Statement is due on March 14, 2022; and -- Appellant's brief is due on April 11, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by: Douglas Glenn Edelschick, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 353-9303 Plaintiffs-Appellees TONIA TIPPINS, DERRIK MAGNUSON, GEORGE HOLLOWAY, JENNIFER REHBERG, GLENDA SMITHLEETH, and M. ALLEN BUMGARDNER, For Themselves and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, are represented by: Nathan S. Mammen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 E-mail: nathan.mammen@kirkland.com UNITED STATES: J.T.M. Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alejandro Mayorkas, et al. The case is styled as J.T.M., Children's Legal Center, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security; Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John Does 1-10; Case No. 1:22-cv-00774 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Administrative Procedure Act. Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas is a Cuban-American government official and attorney who has served as the seventh United States secretary of homeland security since February 2, 2021.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian H. Morrison, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Email: imorrison@seyfarth.com ZEETOGROUP LLC: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZeetoGroup, LLC. The case is styled as Toby Hoy, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. ZeetoGroup, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00151-LL-MDD (S.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Zeetogroup, LLC -- https://www.zeeto.io/ -- develops traffic monetization technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com [*] Court Set to Hear Arguments in Class Action v. Protesters ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario court is scheduled to hear arguments in a proposed multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit by Ottawa residents who want protesters encamped in their downtown to stop honking their horns. Superior Court Justice Hugh McLean had set a 1 p.m. deadline to get all documents and cross-examinations done before he would rule on one part of the proposed class-action. A group of downtown residents is asking for an injunction to prevent truckers parked on city streets from honking their horns repeatedly throughout the day. Their lawyer, Paul Champ, says the honking is causing irreparable harm because of how loud and prolonged it has been. Keith Wilson, who is representing three of the respondents in the case, told McLean the ruling on the injunction carried national importance. The hearing comes as Ottawa police get ready to provide more details on a series of arrests and seizures related to what local officials have called an illegal occupation of the capital's core. The so-called Freedom Convoy rolled into the national capital over a week ago and those in the hundreds of vehicles in the core have vowed to stay until all COVID-19 restrictions, mask and vaccination mandates are lifted. City police say the situation has taxed their resources, and Ottawa's mayor has declared a state of emergency partially aimed at underlining the need for extra help from upper levels of government. Some local politicians have called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take a more active role in the situation. Trudeau's itinerary says he is having private meetings somewhere in the National Capital Region. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Sunday the province has given Ottawa everything the municipality has requested, and will continue to do so. Ottawa police are expected today to provide updates on arrests and raids Sunday night where officers walked away with litres of fuel and propane from protesters. Police have warned that anyone bringing items like gasoline to demonstrators could be arrested. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 7, 2022. [GN] [*] Ontario Court Grants 10-Day Injunction to Silence Honking ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Ontario Superior Court Justice Hugh McLean has granted a 10-day injunction to prevent truckers parked on city streets in downtown Ottawa from honking their horns incessantly. McLean said on Feb. 7 the injunction is temporary because he needs to hear more evidence, but that he has heard enough to make this ruling as a protest against COVID-19 pandemic measures continues to paralyze the national capital around Parliament Hill. Paul Champ, a lawyer representing central Ottawa residents in a proposed multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit, had argued the loud and prolonged honking is causing irreparable harm. Keith Wilson, representing three of the respondents in the case, had told McLean the ruling on the injunction would carry national importance. McLean said he heard enough evidence that the continual blaring of horns was having an effect on residents that their right for "quiet, if we can use that term," trumped the honking truckers' right to protest. But McLean said the injunction was temporary because a "myriad of people" may still wish to come before the court to be heard. The hearing adjourned and the court is slated to hear more evidence on how the injunction will be enforced. Earlier on Feb. 7, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said an "angry crowd" should not be allowed to dictate policies to fight COVID-19. Protesters have "crossed the line of acceptable conduct" toward fellow Canadians in their bid to pressure the government, Mendicino said during a federal update on the ongoing events. "We all want to see a return to normal life," Mendicino said. "And I assure you that day is coming soon." But he stressed the importance of science and good-faith efforts to deal with the pandemic. "We believe in peace, order and good government in Canada," he said. "Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities and no one is above the law." Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair, who also took part in the briefing, said it is not the role of any government to direct law-enforcement operations. But he announced that a trilateral table of federal, provincial and municipal partners would help oversee the response. There have been numerous calls for the federal government to manage the protest response. Ministers and MPs have taken a guarded approach so far, citing the imperative to keep politics separate from policing. The news conference was held online instead of on Parliament Hill, the scene of what some have called an occupation or siege as big-rig trucks and other vehicles clog up the city core. Amid blaring truck horns, the demonstration has included open fires, makeshift feeding stations, encampments and numerous -- sometimes profane -- anti-government signs. Some local politicians have called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take a more active role in the situation. Trudeau's itinerary says he is having private meetings somewhere in the National Capital Region. Protesters and some MPs are urging Trudeau to meet the organizers. The prime minister took that off the table a week ago, saying he had no intention of meeting with a "fringe minority" that holds "unacceptable views." NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh criticized Trudeau on Feb. 7 for a lack of leadership, saying the prime minister "needs to be present" to deal with the protest, but had "not been visible" so far. Singh said people felt the federal government "has been missing" and wanted to see leadership from ministers. Singh wants an emergency debate in the House of Commons and blames the Liberals for using the protest as "a wedge issue." He said all parties should work together to find a way to get the protesters to "go home now". The so-called Freedom Convoy rolled into the national capital over a week ago and many in the hundreds of vehicles in the core have vowed to stay until all COVID-19 restrictions, including mask and vaccination mandates, are lifted. City police say the situation has taxed their resources, and Ottawa's mayor has declared a state of emergency partially aimed at underlining the need for extra help from upper levels of government. On Feb. 7, Ottawa police Chief Peter Sloly asked the mayor to request 1,800 additional police and civilian personnel for immediate use until the end of the demonstration in the city. That would nearly double the existing resources of the entire Ottawa Police Service, which has 2,100 police and civilian members. Watson said he would make the request of the Ontario and federal governments. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Feb. 6 the province has given Ottawa everything the municipality has requested, and will continue to do so. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 7, 2022. [GN] [*] School Districts Face Suit Over Special Needs' Remote Education ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Barmakian, writing for TapintoChatham, reports that as COVID remains in the forefront of our daily lives, we have had all collectively shared one recent glimmer of hope. Current data indicates that children remain the least vulnerable to the virus. Yet, despite this unrefuted data, schools continue to close their doors to in-person learning citing COVID concerns. While 2020 and 2021 standardized test results reflect the fact that New Jersey's children are falling behind due to virtual learning, some schools continue to shut their doors regularly and transition to a remote learning model. The Brain Injury Law Group recognized this critical problem and filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Newark against a number of school districts that have closed their doors and provided a less effective education model. The Brain Injury Group, founded by New York lawyer Patrick Donohue, advocates on behalf of families of children with disabilities. They cite the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and their state-law analogues to take action against schools who disrespect the rights of special needs children. Under the law, schools must create an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for children with disabilities and they cannot deviate from that plan. Local lawyer Keri Donohue is representing the group in the District Court. The Group is filing both federal and state law claims, arguing, among other things, that remote learning violates the children's right to a thorough and efficient education and that it violates IDEA's requirement that IEPs be followed to the letter. Donohue notes that the school districts' conduct is systemic and so severe that the Court needs to assign a monitor to ensure the schools carry out their duties under IDEA and its implementing regulations. Donohue knew that, as a lawyer, she needed to use her skills to end the suffering: "Once I heard the personal stories from these families and understood the level of learning loss and the hardship on these families, I had to get involved. I needed to do my part to help." Learning loss remains a serious problem for children of all ages and abilities, but it has had a particularly significant impact on children with disabilities. Because they have not had access to their teachers, therapists, and paraprofessionals, children with disabilities have seen a dramatic regression in their conditions. Needless to say, this case is being carefully followed by families throughout the state who have suffered tremendously during the pandemic. The State and named school districts will need to respond to Donohue's motion within the week. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***