/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220225.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 35 Headlines ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Foster Suit Wins Final Nod ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settles Safeway FACTA Class Action Lawsuit AMAZING CARE: Yashin Sues Over Home Care Givers' Unpaid Wages AMAZON.COM INC: Settles Cannabis Users' Hiring Discrimination Suit AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice in Rittmann Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Improper Training Pay AMERICAN FEDERATION: Court Stays Carlisle Class Action AMERICAN GENERAL: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due March 25 APPLE INC: Wants Judge to Reject $27.5MM Legal Fee Request ARNOT HEALTH: Zona, Bain Seek to Certify Class of Nurses AUTOZONE INC: Court Extends Class Certification-Related Deadlines BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney, et al., File Class Certification Bid BECHT ENGINEERING: Court OK's Parties' Agreed Bid for Hearing BEDROCK PC: Porter Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay BRIGHT HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 7 Deadline BRISTOL BAY: Joint Bid to Continue Phase I Discovery Date Filed BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Seeks Time Extension to Respond BROWN UNIVERSITY: Soenen et al. Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonym OK'd BUMBLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 25 Deadline CAPTURERX: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $4.75 Million CASH ADVANCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Nixed CLARIVATE PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 25 Deadline COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing Sought COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY: Maldonado Loses Class Status Bid CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Reply Brief Extended to Feb. 25 DEL MONTE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Injury From Steam Pipe Failure ELECTRIC LAST: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 4 Deadline ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Threat Over Battlefield Game FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Court Certifies Class in Shields Suit FENNEC PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 11 Deadline FIRST SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of March 8 Deadline FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Files Bid for Class Certification FIVE GUYS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement GEICO GENERAL: 2nd Circuit Rejuvenates Underpayment Class Action GILEAD SCIENCES: Second Joint Stipulation on Class Briefing Filed GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Calhoun Suit HALLS FERRY: Tierney Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification HAWAII: Opulento Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners INMEDIATA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.13MM INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING: Averts Gold Medal Swimmers' Antitrust Suit JC MCMURRAY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, McQuaid Says KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Plaintiff's Rule 59 Bid for Reconsideration Nixed KROGER CO: Gabriel Lalli Files Bid for Class Certification LEXINGTON LAW: Class Cert. Hearing in Moore Suit Set for Feb. 28 LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Insurance Class Action Dismissal LONGHORN PIZZA: Lipkin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses M JEWELERS INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York META PLATFORMS: Texas AG Sues Over Facial Recognition Technology MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Randolph Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Appeal in FLSA Suit Ruling NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dolphins' Sale Likely if Racism Claims Are True NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Settlement Approval NOOM INC: Settles Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Fees NVR INC: Hughes, Jenkins Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Files Bid for Conditional Certification PEPPERIDGE FARM: Hill Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal RA MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Derr Suit Wins Initial Nod RENT TO COPY: Nunez Sues Over Equipment Technicians' Unpaid Wages RUSHMORE LOAN: Joint Bid to Amend Sched Order in Panzarella OK'd SEQUIUM ASSET: Abrams Bid for Clarification Nixed SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SITE 25: Calel Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ST. LOUIS, MO: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply OK'd STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Wins Class Certification Bid STORK CRAFT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit TELOS CORP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 8 Deadline TEXAS: Needs to Urgently Improve Children's Foster, Kinship Care TRUGREEN INC: Faces Deramo Class Action Over Prerecorded Robocalls TRUST FOR ADVISED: Schiavi + Company Files Securities Class Suit UNITED OF OMAHA: Loses Bid to Junk Nieves Class Suit VILORE FOODS: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Nixed in Gross WALMART INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines OK'd WEBRECON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Regulation F Violation WELLS FARGO: Williams Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination WKT GROUP: Faces Solano Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York ZOOM VIDEO: March 5 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set [*] Juan Monteverde Investigates Terms Behind Acquisitions [*] U.S. Senate OKs Bill to End Forced Sexual Assault Arbitration Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,876 Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cajun Co. Wins Judgment in Exposure Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 1,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Multiple Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Faces Suits Involving 38,200 Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Divests $398MM Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.1MM Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Defends 915 Active Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits ********* ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Foster Suit Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL FOSTER, et al., v. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement; and 2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs: -- $1,000,000 in attorney's fees; -- $149,978.03 in costs; and -- $5,000 as an incentive award for each Class Representative; -- In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, "within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class Counsel shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides the following, to the extent applicable: The total settlement fund, the total number of class members, the total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the number and percentage of objections, the average and median recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment to class members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative costs, the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any. https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural- guidance-for-class-action-settlements/. Adams & Associates operates youth and children's programs for local, state, and federal government agencies. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0xkcE at no extra charge.[CC] ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settles Safeway FACTA Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don Day, writing for BoiseDev, reports that if you purchased gas at an Albertsons gas station, you could be part of a class-action lawsuit, and might get a small check. Fred Martin of Alameda County, California sued Safeway in 2019, alleging the receipt he received at a Safeway gas station did not meet the requirements of federal law for debit transactions. Albertsons Companies is Safeway's parent company Martin and his attorneys said his receipt showed more than the last five digits of his debit card number, which attorneys said was a violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act –- or FACTA. The lawsuit was granted class-action status, and ultimately the company agreed to pay $20-million in a proposed settlement. Albertsons Companies provided a statement to BoiseDev, indicating which of its owned brands are impacted by the settlement: "'Safeway fuel location' includes fuel stations operated by Safeway or operated under any of the following banners affiliated with Safeway: Albertsons; Acme; Carrs; Randalls; Jewel; Tom Thumb; and Vons." Albertsons has more than 330 fueling stations, including three Boise-area locations. Who would get what Of the $20 million, 40% would actually go to attorneys -- or $8 million, as well as "reasonable expenses." Martin will get a check for $10,000. The rest of the cash would go to members of the class, but the roughly $12 million will be divided up into many small payments. An FAQ on the class action attorney's website outlines what happens: "The final payment amount will depend on the total number of valid and timely claims submitted by Settlement Class Members, but Class Counsel estimates $36-$18." You might have received a postcard in the mail, pointing you to the class action website. Folks who bought gas at one of the Safeway-affiliated gas stations owned by Albertsons Companies between September 17, 2017, and February 26, 2019, may be impacted. To participate in the class, you must file a claim. If a court approves the settlement, checks could go out sometime after May 4th of this year. Safeway said it desires "to avoid further expense in this litigation," but said it "denies all claims as to liability, damages, losses, penalties, interest, fees, restitution, and all other forms of relief, as well as the class action allegations, asserted in the litigation." [GN] AMAZING CARE: Yashin Sues Over Home Care Givers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- PARBATEE YASHIN, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. AMAZING CARE AGENCY INC., and RHODA PAPPOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00662-WMR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff for Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for breach of contract and, in the alternative, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment under the Georgia state law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home care giver from July 29, 2021, to January 21, 2022. Amazing Care Agency Inc. is in the business of providing in-home, non-medical services, including personal care and companion/sitter services, in the metro-Atlanta area in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael David Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Settles Cannabis Users' Hiring Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick J. McMahon, Esq., -- pmcmahon@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, disclosed that for years, most employers and employees alike assumed a clean drug test was a pre-requisite for getting hired. These pre-employment drug testing panels included a list of illegal drugs, and almost always included Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the key psychoactive compound found in cannabis. But the times have changed as it relates to cannabis -- from both social and legal perspectives. These changes beg the question: is it even worth testing for cannabis still? Perhaps even more concerning, is such testing even legal? In addition to medical cannabis being legal in 37 states, recreational cannabis is now legal in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Considering that just 10 years ago there were only two states with legal recreational cannabis, it is not hard to see where the trend is heading. Perhaps recognizing this trend and more commonplace usage, certain jurisdictions have adopted protections for employee candidates surrounding drug testing, including outright bans on testing for cannabis. For example, New York City prohibits all employers from requiring employment candidates to submit to testing for THC. Most recently, Philadelphia enacted a similar law effective January 1, 2022, prohibiting employers from requiring job applicants to submit to cannabis testing. At the state level, Nevada has prohibited pre-employment cannabis testing since January 2020. Setting aside these explicit prohibitions surrounding testing, though, there are some practical considerations as well. As we previously discussed, there are risks in states like Illinois for discriminating against recreational cannabis users because cannabis is now a "lawful product" under Illinois law. Other states like New York and New Jersey protect off-duty cannabis use even more broadly. There can be real consequences for violating these protections, too. Amazon recently settled a proposed class action alleging it discriminated against New Jersey recreational cannabis users. Amazon also dropped cannabis from its drug screening shortly after this suit was filed. And while these statutory protections are notable, employers that require testing would still feel the impacts of legalized cannabis in other respects. One Illinois employment agency noted that an astounding 40% of recent applicants had failed drug tests for cannabis use. In an era of a generally contracted employee pool, that can lead to a prohibitively small group of candidates. So with all these factors in mind, is testing for cannabis even worth it? Of course, the answer is not a "one-size-fits-all" issue. The decision will depend on a number of factors including some exceptions to statutory prohibitions on testing listed above, laws requiring drug testing for certain jobs, and position-specific questions surrounding job duties (e.g., desk job versus operating heavy machinery). Still, what many employers may have considered as a best practice for years is one that should be reconsidered in light of these rapid developments. Foley's Labor & Employment Group, with the support of Foley's Cannabis Law Team, is ready to help employers navigate this ever-evolving landscape. [GN] AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice in Rittmann Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs may refile their motion once the Court lifts the stay. The matter remains stayed, pending the outcome of Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 993 F.3d 18 492 (7th Cir. 2021), cert. granted, No. 21-309, 2021 WL 5858631 (2021), and Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., 2020 WL 5584508 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2020), cert. granted, 20-1573, 2021 20 WL 5911481 (2021). (See Dkt. No. 193.) Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgHfSM at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Improper Training Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that American Airlines failed to adequately pay hourly employees for the time they spent completing mandatory training, according to a recent wage and hour class action lawsuit filed in Illinois federal court. Plaintiff Robert Wilhelm alleges that many hourly American Airlines employees are required to complete quarterly training modules, which typically last about four or five hours each. However, the employees are expected to complete the training modules after their shifts are complete and they have already clocked out of work, the American Airlines class action lawsuit alleges. As a result, Wilhelm says many hourly American Airlines employees are not paid for the time they spend on the mandatory training in violation of federal and state wage and hour laws. Some employees must work more than 40 hours in a work week to complete the mandatory training but are not compensated at the overtime rate for their time, Wilhelm alleges. "[American Airlines] regularly fails to pay plaintiff and other hourly employees for the time they spend completing the quarterly training or pays them their regular hourly pay rate rather than an overtime pay rate, even if plaintiff or other hourly employees have already worked over 40 hours that week," the class action lawsuit states. Employees who do not complete the training can face discipline or termination. Wilhelm says he most recently was expected to complete quarterly training modules during the week of Jan. 31 but was not paid for the time he spent completing them. Class Action: Failure to Pay for Training Violates Wage & Hour Laws American Airlines' failure to pay employees for mandatory training violates both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the unpaid overtime class action lawsuit alleges. "In each week in which [Wilhelm] was required to complete the quarterly training modules without clocking in, [he] has incurred damages," according to the lawsuit. Wilhelm filed the American Airlines class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of other hourly American Airlines employees who were required to complete quarterly training modules in the past three years. Hourly American Airlines employees including cargo workers, fleet service clerks, gate agents and mechanics were allegedly required to complete the quarterly training modules. Do you think American Airlines should be on the hook to pay hourly employees back wages for the time they spent on the mandatory training modules? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below! Wilhelm is represented by Colby Qualls and Joshua Jon Sanford of Sanford Law Firm PLLC. The American Airlines Training Pay Class Action Lawsuit is Robert Wilhelm v. American Airlines Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00690, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] AMERICAN FEDERATION: Court Stays Carlisle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlisle v. The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00455-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order: 1. granting the Fund Defendants' motion to stay this action; 2. directing the Clerk stay this action for 120 days or 14 days after the Fund has received a determination from the PBGC, whichever is sooner; and 3. directing the parties to file a joint status report within 90 days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, or within 7 days of any determination by PBGC, whichever is sooner The Plaintiff Robert Carlisle, brings this proposed class action individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA sections 404(a)(1)(A)–(D), 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1)(A)–(D) and ERISA section 405(a)(1) and (2), 29 U.S.C. section 1105(a)(1) and (2). The Plaintiff, a participant in the Fund, a defined-benefit plan, alleges that beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by "imprudently deploying and maintaining the [Fund] assets in an extraordinar[ily] high risk, high cost asset allocation to chase a grossly excessive and unreasonable 8.5% 'actuarial return target,' as the Plan remained in dangerous and worsening financial condition." The Plaintiff alleges that Horizon, as the Fund's actuary, "recklessly increased the actuarial return assumption from 8% to 8.5% knowing the [Fund] would chase this unrealistic return assumption with extraordinary allocation of [Fund] assets to the riskiest asset classes." The Plaintiff alleges that Mekata used its position as the Fund's "nondiscretionary investment consultant to recommend itself for the position of the [Fund's] paid discretionary investment manager" and advised the Fund's Trustees (in its role as nondiscretionary investment consultant) that "the only way to achieve the ‘actuarial return target' was with significantly overweighted allocations of [Fund] assets to the highest risk asset classes" -- namely, Emerging Markets Equities ("EME") and Private Equity ("PE"). The Plaintiff includes ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND. The Defendants include THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; JOHN BULGARO; BRIAN K. HAMMOND; PAUL A. MARKWITZ; GEORGE F. HARRIGAN; MARK D. MAY; MICHAEL S. SCALZO, SR.; ROBERT SCHAEFFER; MARK GLADFELTER; SAMUEL D. PILGER; DANIEL W. SCHMIDT; TOM J. VENTURA; MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.; and HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I3B2cX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Emily L. Skaug, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 - and - Leslie A. Blau, Esq. Blau & Malmfeldt, Esq. 566 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 The Attorneys for the Defendants: The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund; John Bulgaro; Brian K. Hammond; Paul A. Markwitz; George F. Harrigan; Mark D. May; Michael S. Scalzo, Sr.; Robert Schaeffer; Mark Gladfelter; Samuel D. Pilger; Daniel W. Schmidt; and Tom J. Ventura, are: Brian T. Ortelere, Esq. Sara E. DeStefano, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 - and - Bernard T. King, Esq. Brian J. LaClair, Esq. BLITMAN & KING LLP 443 North Franklin Street Syracuse, NY 13204 The Attorneys for the Defendant Meketa Investment Group, Inc. Diana K. Lloyd, Esq. Samuel N. Rudman, Esq. Preston F. Bruno, Esq. CHOATE, HALL & STEWART Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 - and - Eric G. Serron, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 The Attorneys for the Defendant Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC: Edward J. Meehan, Esq. Stephen M. Saxon, Esq. Samuel I. Levin, Esq. Kalena R. Kettering, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 AMERICAN GENERAL: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due March 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LSIMC, LLC v. American General Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-11518-SVW-PVC (C.D. Cal), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting stipulation to set briefing schedule and hearing date for class certification as follows: -- The Defendant shall file its opposition March 25, 2022 to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on or before: -- The Plaintiff shall file its reply in April 25, 2022 support of the Motion on or before: American General Life Insurance operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36kX2St at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Wants Judge to Reject $27.5MM Legal Fee Request ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple Inc has asked a judge to reject a request for $27.5 million in legal fees from a law firm that represented plaintiffs in a $95 million settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit alleging deceptive AppleCare warranty practices. Apple's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said in a Feb. 11 California federal court filing that the litigation was not particularly "risky" and the outcome not so remarkable to justify an award of 29% of the settlement fund. "While the settlement represents a fair result for the class, it was by no means exceptional," Paul Weiss partners William Isaacson and Karen Dunn told the court. Apple asked U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco to limit the fee award to plaintiffs' firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to $23.7 million, or 25% of the settlement. That lower percentage is the benchmark for courts in California and other states that are part of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hagens Berman partner Steve Berman did not immediately return a message on Feb. 14 seeking comment. Isaacson and Dunn also were not immediately available. A court hearing is scheduled for April 27. Apple settled the class action claims last year, and Orrick in November granted preliminary approval to the deal. The plaintiffs alleged in 2016 that Apple had issued refurbished replacement products under warranty programs despite contract claims promising "new or equivalent to new" devices. The lawsuit said Apple had unfairly charged premium prices to consumers. Apple's lawyers in their bid to knock down the fee award said the $95 million settlement amounted to "only 13% of plaintiffs' claimed damages." Apple clarified language in AppleCare contracts after the settlement, "but there is nothing in the record that supports class counsel's supposition that the change was attributable to class counsel's efforts," the Paul Weiss lawyers said. Seattle-based Hagens Berman in its fee petition called Apple "a formidable defendant" with the resources to hire experienced and well-respected attorneys." The plaintiffs' firm was founded in 1993 and has more than 80 lawyers in offices across the U.S. The firm said a 29% award would be "within the range for a class action of this size and complexity." The case is Maldonado v. Apple, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO. For plaintiffs: For Apple: Karen Dunn and William Isaacson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison [GN] ARNOT HEALTH: Zona, Bain Seek to Certify Class of Nurses -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY ZONA and FREDERICK BAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARNOT HEALTH, INC., ARNOT OGDEN MEDICAL CENTER, and ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, Case No. 6:20-cv-06902-FPG-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) and (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked at Arnot Ogden Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, and/or Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital at any time from October 28, 2014 until the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);" 2. certifying the following two subclasses within the broader Class above: Subclass A: "All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked in a permanent staff nurse position at Arnot Ogden Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, and/or Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital at any time from October 28, 2014 until the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); and Subclass B: "All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked in a traveling nurse position at Arnot Ogden Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, and/or Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital at any time from October 28, 2014 until the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). 3. certifying the following causes of action of the First Amended Class Action Complaint, in the following respects: -- First Cause of Action: Failure to compensate for work performed "off-the-clock" during purported 30-minute "meal periods" that Defendants have systematically deducted from the Class members' pay, in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law section 190 et seq. -- Second Cause of Action: Failure to pay overtime compensation for work performed "off-the-clock" during purported 30-minute "meal periods" that the Defendants have systematically deducted from the Class members' pay, during weeks in which hours worked exceed 40, in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law section 190 et seq. -- Third Cause of Action: Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law section 195, arising from the failure to pay for all hours worked and resultant failure to provide wage statements showing the accurate number of regular and overtime hours worked, wages owed, and rates of pay; 4. appointing Plaintiff Frederick Bain to represent Subclass A under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Plaintiff Tammy Zona to represent Subclass B under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to serve as class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4); 5. permitting them to submit a proposed form of notice to the Classes and a notice plan to the Court after certification is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). Arnot Health is a regional integrated healthcare delivery system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhTL0C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schnedeirwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com - and - John J. Nestico, Esq. 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com AUTOZONE INC: Court Extends Class Certification-Related Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR., and NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Mark Norris entered an order granting the remainder of the parties' joint motion to extend certain class certification related deadlines. Before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Certain Class Certification Deadlines, filed December 27, 2021. The Court granted in part and reserved ruling in part on the Motion in an earlier Order. As foreshadowed in that Order, the Court scheduled and held a status conference in this matter on February 11, 2022. The Court, informed by the Parties at the conference, establishes the following deadlines related to Motion: 1. Response Deadline: April 1, 2022 2. Reply Deadline: April 22, 2022 Specifically, the Court ordered that all stipulations concerning class certification would be due on or before February 4, 2022 and reserved judgment on due dates for response and reply to the Motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3xZtE at no extra charge.[CC] BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney, et al., File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVE KEARNEY, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKEAKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Case No. 17-cv-13544-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this action against the Defendant BMW of North American, LLC as a class action. The Plaintiffs include Dave Kearney, James Barr, Tony Trosclair, Ronald Rothrock, Courtney Loughrey, and Kara Finch. BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9f2pA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com - and - Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher T. Gilroy ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com BECHT ENGINEERING: Court OK's Parties' Agreed Bid for Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC. Case No. 1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Truncale entered an order granting the Parties' agreed motion for hearing. The following motions: are set for oral hearing before this Honorable Court on March 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Jack Brooks Federal Building, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas. 1. The Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2), together with the Parties' Responses, Replies, and Sur-Replies; 2. The Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Amend Order for Equitable Tolling to Cover Expanded Class Opt-Ins; 3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, together with the Parties' Responses, Replies, and Sur-Replies; and 4. The Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, together with the Parties' Responses, Replies, and Sur- Replies. Becht provides technical excellence in Engineering Solutions, Plant Services, Training and Software Tools to worldwide clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34UIqcj at no extra charge.[CC] BEDROCK PC: Porter Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEDROCK PC 1099, LLC; AND EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00524 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2022) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act resulting from the Defendants' alleged misclassification scheme. According to the complaint, Bedrock has contracted with EOG, an international energy company engaged in exploration and production of oil and gas, to provide water consultants for EOG's oil and gas operations. Mr. Porter worked as a water consultant for EOG from January of 2018 until March of 2020. He interviewed and was hired through Bedrock, and he worked exclusively as a water consultant at EOG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com BRIGHT HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BHG Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 OSH Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 CLVT Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE:BHG) This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bright Health common stock pursuant and/or traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about June 24, 2021; and/or (b) Bright Health securities between June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 7, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii) the Company was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Bright Health's business and financial condition; and (v) as a result, the documents issued in connection with the IPO and Defendants' public statements throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSH) OSH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 6, 2020 - November 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 14, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Oak Street Health, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street was providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) these activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) as a result, Oak Street was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) 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. Clarivate Plc (NYSE:CLVT) CLVT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2021 - December 27, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Clarivate Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clarivate maintained defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the Company accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition of CPA Global, a global leader in Intellectual Property software and tech-enabled services; (iv) accordingly, the Company was reasonably likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BRISTOL BAY: Joint Bid to Continue Phase I Discovery Date Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the phase one discovery cut-off deadline only for the Parties' taking of depositions from January 21, 2022 to March 23, 2022. The Parties also agree, and respectfully request of the Court, that the deadline to file a motion for class certification be continued from February 25, 2022 to April, 22, 2022. The Parties' request to extend the foregoing deadlines is due to the following facts: (1) counsel for Plaintiffs was unavailable to defend the depositions during the month of October 2021 due to being scheduled for trial; (2) lead counsel for Defendants 15 has been on the East Coast, unexpectedly, for much of November and December 2021 caring for her ailing father and handling his estate, as he had cancer and has since passed away (lead counsel's mom also passed away suddenly in April 2021, increasing the need for her to be in Pennsylvania to care for her father throughout 2021); and (3) the Plaintiffs do not speak English fluently enough to testify in English, the language each of the seven the Plaintiffs is able to testify in has changed from prior litigation due to the passage of time, the Parties have met and conferred to confirm the appropriate language translation required for each of seven Plaintiffs, and Defendants have secured an appropriate translator available for depositions for each of the required languages in February and March 2022. On January 28, 2021, this Court issued its Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceeding ("Scheduling Order") which specified that "Phase One discovery," including pre-certification depositions, was to be completed by August 20, 2021. In the months following issuance of the Court's 3 Scheduling Order, the Parties diligently engaged in discovery, including propounding and responding to written discovery, conferring on a stipulated protective order and producing voluminous records. On April 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint ("Motion to Amend") seeking to add an additional cause of action for breach of contract, thereby extending the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' claims from three years to four years. The Defendants opposed the Motion on April 29, 2021, and Plaintiffs replied on May 13, 2021. As of August 2021, a decision on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend was still pending. Due largely to the fact that the pleadings had not yet been settled in this action, the Parties filed their first Joint Motion to Continue All Dates Re Discovery and Certification ("Joint Motion to Continue") on August 11, 2021. Bristol Bay is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in settlement of aboriginal land claims. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H94qgp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: A. Melissa Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON HEEDER LLP 2727 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-1313 E-mail: melissa@johnsonheeder.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy Todd-Gher, Esq. Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: atodd-gher@littler.com sfahimi@littler.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Seeks Time Extension to Respond -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC.; et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their time for responding to Defendants' six motions to exclude the opinions of all of the Plaintiffs' experts that were submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3(a), the Plaintiffs submit with this motion a proposed order and the Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Their Responses to Defendants Six Motions to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiffs' Experts in Support of Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August 18, 2021. The Defendants' opposition to the motion is due on March 3, 2022 and Plaintiffs' reply is due on May 19, 2022. The hearing on the motion is set for June 9, 2022. Brookdale Senior owns and operates retirement homes across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JGDczs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Guy B. Wallace, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Travis C. Close, Esq. Rachel L. Steyer, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com tclose@schneiderwallace.com rsteyer@schneiderwallace.com - and - Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq. Brian S. Umpierre, Esq. GERTLER GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO 870 Market Street, Suite 1285 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 362-9800 Facsimile: (415) 362-9801 E-mail: kathryn@stebnerassociates.com brian@stebnerassociates.com - and - Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq. Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq. Jenny S. Yelin, Esq. Amy Xu, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com Bbien-kahn@rbgg.com jyelin@rbgg.com axu@rbgg.com - and - David T. Marks, Esq. MARKS, BALETTE, GIESSEL & YOUNG, P.L.L.C. 7521 Westview Drive Houston, TX 77055 Telephone: (713) 681-3070 Facsimile: (713) 681-2811 E-mail: davidm@marksfirm.com BROWN UNIVERSITY: Soenen et al. Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonym OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katiana Soenen, et al., v. Brown University, Case No. 1:21-cv-00325 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed under a Pseudonym. The Plaintiffs may use the pseudonym for pre-trial proceedings until the point of class certification, and trial at which point the Defendant can seek a Court order to end its use. The nature of suit states civil rights – education. Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in Providence, Rhode Island.[CC] BUMBLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 25 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the Class A common stock of Bumble Inc. ("Bumble" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BMBL) issued in connection with its Secondary Public Offering ("SPO") conducted on or about September 10, 2021. If you purchased Bumble Class A common stock issued in connection with the SPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than March 25, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Bumble investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Bumble Securities Class Litigation Bumble, headquartered in Austin, Texas, operates the Bumble app and Badoo app online dating platforms. The action alleges that the registration statement that Bumble filed with the Securities Exchange Commission in connection with the SPO failed to disclose that: (1) Bumble had in fact lost tens of thousands of paying users during the third quarter of 2021; (2) a price hike for paid services on the Bumble app deterred the app's users from signing up for such services; (3) a significant number of paying users were departing the Badoo app and/or were unable to make payments because of issues arising from the Company's transition of its payment platform; and (4) as a result, Bumble's business metrics and prospects were weaker than represented in the registration statement. On November 10, 2021, the Company announced its third quarter of 2021 financial results, disclosing that Bumble's total paying user count had declined to 2.86 million, below the 2.9 million paying users as of June 30, 2021 that the Company had touted in the SPO registration statement. By January 24, 2022, when the action was filed, Bumble Class A common stock was trading under $27 per share, less than half of the SPO offering price. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is an internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. CONTACT: Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN] CAPTURERX: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $4.75 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Kim Cohen, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that CaptureRx has agreed to pay $4.75 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit related to a data breach it experienced last year, according to court documents filed on Feb. 11. [GN] CASH ADVANCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kamisha Stanton v. Cash Advance Centers, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00285 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order amending the scheduling order as follows: (1) The Plaintiff shall designate March 14, 2022 experts on or before: (2) The Defendant shall designate April 11, 2022 experts on or before: (3) Discovery shall be completed May 13, 2022 on or before: (4) Dispositive motions and Daubert June 6, 2022 motions shall be filed on or before: (5) The Plaintiff shall file a July 8, 2022 motion for class certification on or before: The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Vilore is an importer, distributor and marketer of Hispanic brands in the U.S. and Canada.[CC] CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY AKSELROD v. CASTLE STRATEGIC PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01529-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order denying Akselrod's motion for an extension to the class certification deadlines because he has not shown good cause. The deadline to complete discovery on class certification remains April 8, 2022, and the deadline for Mr. Akselrod's motion for class certification remains May 10, 2022. Castle Strategic is a real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BGd2Ku at no extra charge.[CC] CLARIVATE PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 25 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming March 25, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLVT) securities between February 26, 2021 and December 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Clarivate investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/clarivate-plc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed that previous financial reports "should no longer be relied upon because of an error in such financial statements." The Company specified that the error relates "to the treatment under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') relating to an equity plan included in the CPA Global business combination, which was consummated on October 1, 2020 ('the CPA Global Transaction'). In the affected financial statements, certain awards made by CPA Global under its equity plan were incorrectly included as part of the acquisition accounting for the CPA Global Transaction." On this news, Clarivate's stock fell $1.70, or 6.9%, to close at $22.78 per share on December 28, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed 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) Clarivate maintained defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (2) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the Company accounted for warrants; (3) as a result, Clarivate failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition of CPA Global; (4) accordingly, the Company was reasonably likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 25, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Parties agree that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Colgate's motions to exclude shall be rescheduled from February 28, 2022 to March 14, 2022, or such other later date after April 11, 2022 that is convenient for the Court. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on December 17, 2020. Colgate filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification on April 8, 2021. Colgate filed two motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence with its opposition to the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed her reply brief on the motion for class certification and oppositions briefs to Colgate’s motions to exclude on July 15, 2021. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3scGh4H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com scott@bursor.com - and - Christopher Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C. 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 Facsimile: (212) 991-8952 E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com - and - Robyn E. Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street, 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com The Attorneys for Colgate-Palmolive Company7 Sable Hodson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1601 Elm Street, 27th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 972-1770 Facsimile: (214) 972-1771 E-mail: sable.hodson@kirkland.com COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY: Maldonado Loses Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISELA M. MALDONADO v. COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05428-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and strike the Plaintiff's class allegations: 1. The instant action will proceed solely on the individual claims of the named Plaintiff. 2. All class allegations will be struck from the pleadings. 3. As class certification is denied, Defendants' motion for judicial finding is moot. 4. Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Status Report filed on September 24, 2020, the Parties are instructed to submit a further joint status report and discovery plan within 30 days of this order. The Plaintiff failed to file her motion for class certification by the November 23, 2021 deadline set forth in the Court's December 11, 2020 Class Discovery and Certification Scheduling Order. The Court understands this failure as a determination by the Plaintiff that she intends to proceed only with her individual claims and not on behalf of a class of other individuals. The instant action will proceed solely on the individual claims of the named Plaintiff and all class allegations will be struck from the pleadings. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33yRiDG at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 14 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Cortexyme, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRTX) resulting from allegations that Cortexyme may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Cortexyme securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2254.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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 26, 2021, after market hours, Cortexyme issued a press release "report[ing] top-line results from its Phase 2/3 GAIN Trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy of atuzaginstat (COR388), an investigational orally administered small-molecule that targets gingipain proteases from the bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis)." The press release reported, in relevant part, that the study had failed to meet statistical significance in its co-primary endpoints of improving cognitive and functional abilities in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $44.17 per share, or 76%, to close at $13.51 per share on October 27, 2021, damaging investors. Then, on January 26, 2022, before market hours, Cortexyme disclosed receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") advising that the FDA had "plac[ed] a full clinical hold on atuzaginstat's (COR388) Investigational New Drug application (IND 134303)." On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $2.85 per share, or 31%, to close at $6.21 per share on January 26, 2022, further damaging investors. On February 1, 2022, Cortexyme issued a press release announcing plans to reduce its workforce by 53% in response to the clinical hold. That same day, Cortexyme announced the resignations of Casey Lynch, the Company's CEO and Chair of the Board, and Steve Dominy, the Company's Chief Scientific Officer and a director. 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. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. 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. 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 [GN] CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Reply Brief Extended to Feb. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cervantes v. CRST International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00075 (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file reply Brief in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief is due by Feb. 25, 2022, Judge Williams says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[CC] DEL MONTE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on Feb. 11, Libby Gatling-Lee filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Del Monte Foods, Inc. alleging consumer protection violations for false and misleading advertising. According to the complaint, Del Monte Foods is a California corporation with principal place of business in Walnut Creek, California and manufactures a variety of food products including College Inn broths and stocks. The complaint alleges that College Inn Chicken Broth, along with many of the defendant's other broths and stocks, promptly display a label on the front of the package that states "NO MSG." However, the complaint further alleges that the defendant's products that are labeled with "NO MSG" do contain ingredients that contain MSG. Specifically, the complaint states the defendant adds "yeast extract" which is a substantial source of MSG. Additionally, the complaint purports that the defendant's products state, in a very small font on the side of the product, "a small amount of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract." The plaintiff argues that this qualifying statement does not make the defendant's "NO MSG" claim truthful or not misleading. To support this argument, the complaint states the FDA has specifically recognized that it is misleading to label a product "NO MSG" or "NO MSG ADDED" when it has the particular, free-glutamate-containing ingredients that are in the defendant's products. The named plaintiff states that, in the winter of 2021, she read and relied on the defendant's "NO MSG" label when she purchased College Inn Chicken Broth. She further alleges that she tries to avoid eating foods that include MSG, she did not notice the qualifying statement on the packaging, and she would not have purchased the product at the price she paid if she had known that the products actually do contain free glutamates. The plaintiff argues that she and other similarly situated individuals were misled and face an imminent threat of harm because they will not be able to rely on the labels in the future, and thus, will not be able to purchase the products. The plaintiffs bring the present suit alleging violation of Consumer Protection Acts in over 40 states, violation of the New York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The plaintiffs seek class certification, statutory, treble and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Dovel & Luner, LLP and Broslavsky & Weinman, LLP. [GN] EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Injury From Steam Pipe Failure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Slater Teague and Mackenzie Moore, writing for WJHL, report that Eastman Chemical Company faces a class-action lawsuit following the Jan. 31 "steam pipe failure" at the company's Kingsport plant, which injured five workers and caused debris possibly containing asbestos to rain down in a nearby neighborhood. The lawsuit filed by Knoxville-based firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman accuses Eastman of trespass, negligence, and being a public and private nuisance. It claims Eastman "engaged in ultra-hazardous activities by transporting high pressure steam under unsafe condition through an asbestos-lined steam line." The lawsuit also claims the company failed to warn nearby residents in a timely manner about the "dangers of contaminants released by the steam line explosion." On the day of the incident, Eastman did not release a public statement until nearly an hour and a half after the steam line failure happened. Since then, the company has said that it did not ask city officials to send an alert to residents because it did not see the potential for off-site impact until hours after the incident. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Sharon Weatherly, owns a home in the area where the debris fell. The lawsuit claims that Weatherly's neighborhood and much of Kingsport will be negatively impacted by the incident. Eastman has said it does not believe anyone was exposed to a harmful level of asbestos. [GN] ELECTRIC LAST: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 4 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Attention Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp. ("ELMS") (NASDAQ: ELMS) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between March 31, 2021 and February 1, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in ELMS, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=23622&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against ELMS includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ELMS's previously issued financial statements were false and unreliable; (2) ELMS's earlier reported financial statements would need restatement; (3) certain ELMS executives and/or directors purchased equity in the Company at substantial discounts to market value without obtaining an independent valuation; (4) on November 25, 2021 (Thanksgiving), the Company's Board formed an independent Special Committee to conduct an inquiry into certain sales of equity securities made by and to individuals associated with the Company; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. DEADLINE: April 4, 2022 Aggrieved ELMS investors only have until April 4, 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] ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Threat Over Battlefield Game ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for EA Games to offer unconditional refunds for its new game Battlefield 2042 or else face a class action lawsuit. As of Feb. 11, more than 160,000 people had signed a Change.org petition demanding EA Games refund its customers for the game. Petition creator Satoshi Nakamoto said the game was "unplayable" when it launched and that it still "has bugs that drastically change the in-game experience so much that it's deemed an unfinished release by many community members." Nakamoto states that if the petition gets more than 50,000 signatures, he will reach out to "some of the best class action lawyers in the country" to evaluate a case against EA and DICE. "EA's release of Battlefield 2042 was a mockery of every customer who purchased this video game for $70 due to EA's false advertising," he states. "Battlefield 2042 has cost consumers millions of dollars in damages and upset thousands of customers worldwide." The petition is directed at EA, DICE, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Steam, Microsoft and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). DICE is a video game developer and a subsidiary of EA. EA Says It Is "Committed To Pushing Up The Quality Of The Game," Delays Start Of First Season The company addressed customer feedback that the game was released unfinished in its latest blog post. It said it was "committed to pushing up the quality of the game" and announced that it was delaying the start of the first season until the summer as it works with the community to fix the technical side of the game and tweak its most controversial design elements. In 2020, EA was hit with a class action lawsuit in Canada alleging the company's practice of selling randomized "loot boxes" for profit constituted an illegal gambling business. Plaintiffs claimed the company knew that the loot box enterprise was illegal and "wilfully concealed" its unlawful nature from customers. Meanwhile Nintendo was hit with a class action lawsuit last year alleging its Nintendo Switch has a defect dubbed the "Joy-Con drift," a problem with the controller's analog stick that causes the game to move on its own. In 2019, a plaintiff in the state of Washington filed a class action lawsuit asserting that Nintendo knew of the problem but failed to take any action or warn consumers. [GN] FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Court Certifies Class in Shields Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al., v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION, Case No. 18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) but denying the motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3); 2. appointing Winston & Strawn LLP as class counsel to represent the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class; 3. denying Federation Internationale de Natation's (FINA) motion to file supplemental materials and granting in part and denying in part the parties' administrative motions to file under seal. The Court will hold a further Case Management Conference in this case and the related case on March 3, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom videoconference. An updated joint case management conference statement, including a proposed schedule through trial, is due February 24, 2022. The Court will refer to the arguments regarding Plaintiffs' merit expert reports, so the parties need not repeat them in the case management conference statement. The Plaintiffs are professional swimmers who bring federal antitrust claims and a state law tort claim against FINA, related to FINA's control over international swimming competitions. FINA is a Swiss organization recognized by the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") as the governing body for Olympic swimming, diving, high diving, water polo, artistic swimming, FINA masters and open-water swimming. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JA1cUQ at no extra charge.[CC] FENNEC PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 11 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and docketed under 22-cv-00115, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec securities between May 28, 2021 and November 26, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec securities during the Class Period, you have until April 11, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that develops product candidates for use in the treatment of cancer in the United States. The Company's lead product candidate is PEDMARK, a formulation of sodium thiosulfate, which has completed a Phase III clinical trial for the prevention of cisplatin induced hearing loss, or ototoxicity, in children. In December 2018, Fennec initiated a rolling New Drug Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for PEDMARK for the prevention of ototoxicity induced by cisplatin chemotherapy in patients 1 month to < 18 years of age with localized, non-metastatic, solid tumors, which was completed in February 2020 (the "Initial Pedmark NDA"). In August 2020, Fennec announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA for the Initial Pedmark NDA because of deficiencies identified at the manufacturing facility of the Company's drug product manufacturer. Then, in May 2021, the Company announced that it had resubmitted the NDA for PEDMARK with the FDA following receipt of final minutes from a Type A meeting with the FDA (the "Resubmitted Pedmark NDA"). The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fennec had not successfully remediated, and overstated its efforts to remediate, issues with the manufacturing facility of its drug product manufacturer for PEDMARK; (ii) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA; (iii) accordingly, the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 29, 2021, during pre-market hours, Fennec issued a press release "announc[ing] that it expects to receive a [CRL] after the PDUFA [Prescription Drug User Fee Act] target action date of November 27, 2021 from the [FDA] regarding its [Resubmitted Pedmark NDA]." Specifically, Fennec advised investors that "[t]he FDA has indicated that, following a recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of our drug product manufacturer, deficiencies have been identified[,]" and that "[o]nce the official CRL is received, the Company plans to request a Type A meeting to discuss the deficiencies and steps required for the resubmission of the NDA for PEDMARKTM." On this news, Fennec's common share price fell $4.86 per share, or 50.41%, to close at $4.78 per share on November 29, 2021. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] FIRST SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of March 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked and award-winning shareholder rights firm, on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased First Solar, Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FSLR) common stock between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). First Solar investors have until March 8, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On January 15, 2020, Barclays reported that First Solar had "seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream solar market" and that the Company had concealed its rapidly declining market share through misleading financial reporting by including projects in its Project Development pipeline that had actually been completed in prior years. If you currently own stock or options in First Solar, Inc. and suffered a loss, click here to participate. If you want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact David J. Schwartz using the toll-free number (800) 321-0476 or via email at david@labaton.com. About the Firm Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust, corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at labaton.com. CONTACT: David J. Schwartz (800) 321-0476 david@labaton.com [GN] FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Files Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v. FirstGroup America, Inc., FirstGroup America, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate): "All participants and beneficiaries of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after October 1, 2013 who had any portion of their account invested in Aon Hewitt Funds, excluding Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers or employees of the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions;" and 2. appointing them as the class representatives for the classes; and 3. appointing their counsel as class counsel (Nichols Kaster, PLLP as lead counsel and Freking Myers & Reul as local counsel). FirstGroup America provides transportation services. The Company offers leasing, transit contracting, management, maintenance, and ancillary services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34UpL03 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com krichter@nka.com bspecht@nka.com mthomson@nka.com - and - George M. Reul, Jr., Esq. FREKING MYERS & REUL 600 Vine Street, Suite 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-1975 Facsimile: (513) 651-2570 E-mail: greul@fmr.law FIVE GUYS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq., David Anthony, Esq., Scott Kelly, Esq., Benjamin White, Esq., and Mary Zinsner, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for JDSupra, report that on January 24, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California took the unusual step of declining to sign off -- for the fourth time -- on a proposed settlement, resulting from a putative class-action lawsuit against Five Guys Enterprises LLC and its parent Encore FGBF LLC. The lawsuit alleges the popular burger chain's credit reporting and labor practices violate various federal and California laws. In Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, et al., the court denied the class's fourth motion for conditional certification and preliminary settlement approval, holding that the most recent settlement version represents a "disservice" to the class. In May 2017, Jeremy Lusk filed a putative class action against Five Guys and its parent, alleging the burger chain's credit reporting and labor practices violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act in addition to California's Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and Labor Code Sections 201, 204, 226.7, 510, 512, 1198, 2698, and 2802. Specifically, the class alleges Five Guys commissioned credit and background checks for prospective employees to influence hiring decisions without the necessary disclosures, regularly required employees to work more than six hours per shift without meal and rest breaks, and refused to reimburse employees for driving their personal vehicles to pick up supplies. Five Guys removed the action to federal court, and the parties exchanged discovery before reaching a class-wide settlement in mediation. Things went awry, however, in the Rule 23 approval process. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reviewing court must ensure the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of several factors, including the risk of adjudication on the merits and the reasonableness of attorney's fees. Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii reviewed and rejected requests for conditional certification and preliminary settlement approval in December 2019, October 2020, and June 2021, taking issue with the class's risk generalized assessment, insufficient discovery, excessive attorney's fees, and overly broad releases of liability. Judge Ishii's fourth and most recent review, handed down January 24, largely identified the same issues, focusing on the vague risk assessment and failure to distinguish between class members' injuries of varying severity, such that certain class members would receive a "windfall" despite having minor injuries relative to other class members. The court admitted it could not identify "clear signs of collusion" but characterized Five Guys's willingness to pay $1 million to settle claims it had just discredited in its briefs as "a perverse set of circumstances." Moreover, Judge Ishii accused the named plaintiff Lusk of "doing himself and the putative class he seeks to represent a disservice by trying to fit a square peg in a round hole." He emphasized the court's duty to "cautiously and rigorously scrutinize" attempts to settle class actions before certification and warned both parties to "carefully consider how they would like to proceed before another motion of this kind is immediately filed." The court, he continued "will not further consider a new motion that merely tinkers with the same details." Judge Ishii's repeated rejections of Five Guys settlements reflect a broader sensitivity toward class-action settlements across the Ninth Circuit, a downstream effect of recent congressional efforts to streamline the class-action process and prevent suspected collusion. In 2018, Congress made several changes to Rule 23, including heightening the standards for class-action settlement approval. The reform added the factors (risk, reasonable fees, etc.) that Judge Ishii relied on to reject the settlement agreement in his January 24 Five Guys opinion. The decision suggests that the changes to Rule 23 are having some effect on putative settlements. Both class counsel and defense counsel should take care to include detailed risk assessments and reasonable attorney's fees in any class-action settlement eligible for review in the Ninth Circuit. [GN] GEICO GENERAL: 2nd Circuit Rejuvenates Underpayment Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Dilworth, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit partially rejuvenated a class action on Feb. 14 accusing Geico General Insurance Co. of underpaying for total losses of certain vehicles, saying New York insurance law requires insurers to look at the prices of new comparable cars when calculating the replacement cost. [GN] GILEAD SCIENCES: Second Joint Stipulation on Class Briefing Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate, subject to approval by this Court, as follows: 1. The Defendants shall file one joint opposition brief to each of DPP's and EPPs' respective class certification motions. The page limit for Defendants' respective briefs in opposition to each of DPP's and EPPs' motions for class certification, due June 2, 2022, shall be 40 pages. 2. The page limit for the EPPs and DPP's reply briefs in support of their respective class certification motions, due June 30, 2022, shall be 24 pages for each reply brief; however, EPPs expressly reserve the right to seek leave for an extension of this page limit in proportion to any page-limit extension Defendants receive for their opposition brief. 3. All briefs, exhibits, declarations, expert reports, and similar materials filed in support of or in opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification motions and related Daubert briefs that contain information designated as confidential under the Protective Orders ("Class Certification Material(") may, as an initial matter, be filed conditionally under seal in their entirety. 4. On or before August 4, 2022, a designating party or non- party seeking to keep any portion of the Class Certification Material under seal, regardless of whether they are the filing party, shall file an omnibus (i.e., single motion so as to avoid excessive briefing) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, including any accompanying declarations (including those of affected non-parties) in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) (1)(A), and will file a proposed order, redacted versions of all applicable filings previously filed under seal, and unredacted versions indicating portions to be redacted in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B)–(D). 5. On or before August 11, 2022, any Party may file a response in opposition to any Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. 6. On or before August 18, 2022, any Party may file a reply in support of any Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. 7. To the extent a Party's Class Certification Material contains information designated as confidential under the Protective Orders by a non-party, the filing party will serve, on the same day as such filing, written notice to the designating party providing the information required in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) and providing only the portion of the Class Certification Material that quotes, describes, or otherwise incorporates the designating party's designated material. 8. The Parties agree that, subject to this Court's approval, the Parties may depart from the sealing requirements set forth in Local Rules only as set forth in this stipulation. 9. The Parties agree not to pursue separate challenges to confidentiality designations with respect to Class Certification Material pursuant to the procedures set forth herein. The Parties agree that nothing in this stipulation otherwise affects the Parties' obligations pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Protective Order (e.g., to appropriately designate information and to promptly withdraw any mistaken confidentiality designation). A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33zMIFn at no extra charge.[CC] Interim Co-Lead Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs, are: Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. Richard Brunell, Esq. Nicholas William Shadowen, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. Tina Joann Miranda, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Daralyn J. Durie, Esq. Mark A. Lemley, Esq. David McGowan, Esq. Aditya V. Kamdar, Esq. 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-6666 Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com mlemley@durietangri.com dmcgowan@durietangri.com akamdar@durietangri.com - and - Allyson R. Bennett, Esq. W. Henry Huttinger, Esq. DURIE TANGRI LLP 953 East 3rd Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-4422 Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 E-mail: abennett@durietangri.com hhuttinger@durietangri.com3 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. THOMAS M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com abbyeo@hbsslaw.com Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs are: John Radice, Esq. Dan Rubenstein, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Michael Ols, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com nfinkelman@millershah.com mpols@millershah.com - and - Paul E. Slater, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Alberto Rodriguez, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 West Monroe, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com arodriguez@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Brian P. Murray, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. Brian D. Brooks, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com bmurray@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Eugene Spector, Esq. William Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey Spector, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com The Interim Liaison Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. are: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick B. Clayton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 3708 Clay Street San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 751-4193 Facsimile: (415) 788-0706 E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (501) 952-8558 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us Attorneys for Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Holdings, LLC, Gilead Sciences, LLC, and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, are: Heather M. Burke, Esq. Jeremy K. Ostrander, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 3000 El Camino Real 2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109 Telephone: (650) 213-0300 Facsimile: (650) 213-8158 E-mail: hburke@whitecase.com jostrander@whitecase.com - and - Christopher M. Curran, Esq. Peter J. Carney, Esq. 701 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 626-3600 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com pcarney@whitecase.com - and - Heather K. McDevitt, Esq. Bryan D. Gant, Esq. Kristen O'Shaughnessy, Esq. Michael E. Hamburger, Esq. Raj S. Gandesha, Esq. WHITE CASE 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: hmcdevitt@whitecase.com bgant@whitecase.com kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com mhamburger@whitecase.com rgandesha@whitecase.com The Attorneys for Defendants Janssen R&D Ireland, Janssen Products, LP and Johnson & Johnson, are: Paul J. Riehle, Esq. Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq. Joanne C. Lewers (pro hac vice) FAEGRE DRINKER Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com paul.saint-antoine@faegredrinker.com joanne.lewers@faegredrinker.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Calhoun Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending class certification briefing deadlines as follows: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply in Further Support of their Motion for Class Certification (and related briefing, including oppositions to Google's prior Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification) shall be two business days after final transcripts of the depositions of the three Google Declarants are transmitted to the parties. 2. The deadline for Google to file its Reply to Plaintiffs' oppositions to Google's prior Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification shall be four weeks after Plaintiffs file their oppositions. 3. The deadline for Google to file its Opposition to any motions by Plaintiffs to strike Google expert reports shall be five weeks after Plaintiffs file such motions. 4. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply to Google's Opposition to any Plaintiff motion to strike Google expert reports shall be three weeks after Google files such Opposition. 5. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall remain calendared for April 21, 2022. On October 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class of Chrome users in the United States. On December 22, 2021, Google filed its brief in opposition and related supporting documents, including two motions to strike certain Plaintiffs' supporting expert reports. On January 11, 2022, the Court ordered that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply in Further Support of their Motion for Class Certification (and related briefing, including oppositions to Google’s prior Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification) be February 11, 2022 and the deadline for Google to file its Reply in Support of its Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification be March 11, 19 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JudWwc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com aornelas@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com - and - David Straite, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. Sharon Cruz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com scruz@dicellolevitt.com aprom@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jay Barnes, Esq. An Truong, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Schapiro, Esq. Diane M. Doolittle, Esq. Stephen A. Broome, Esq. Viola Trebicka, Esq. Jomaire Crawford, Esq. Josef Ansorge, Esq. Jonathan Tse, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com HALLS FERRY: Tierney Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TIERNEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HALLS FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-CV-00828-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims to proceed as a collective action; 2. directing the Defendant to identify all delivery drivers employed at any time in the last three years; 3. directing the Defendant to provide notice-related information to Plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days; and 4. directing the issuance of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to all such persons. This case includes collective action claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation under the FLSA. The group of employees at issue in this class are pizza delivery drivers employed by the Defendant. Halls Ferry Pizza is a full-service restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sUytDv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. DOLLEY LAW, LLC 12977 N. Outer Forty Dr., Suite 230 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 645-4100 Facsimile: (314) 736-6216 E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James C. Morris, Esq. Henry L. Benson, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 211 North Broadway, Suite 2150 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: jmorris@grsm.com hbenson@grsm.com HAWAII: Opulento Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA OPULENTO, on behalf of her daughter, JESSICA FORTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and FRANK HAMPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, NOLAN ESPINDA, individually and in his official capacity; GAVIN TAKENAKA, Health Care Director, Hawaii Department of Public Safety, Corrections Division; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class of: "All persons who are now, or will in the future be, incarcerated in a jail or prison operated by the State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety, and who have a Serious Mental Illness or a Serious and Persistent Mental Illness as defined by Department of Public Safety Policy No. COR.10.1G.04." The Plaintiffs initiated this litigation to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of incarcerated persons with serious mental illness in the custody and control of the Defendant, State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety ("DPS" or the "Department"). According to the Defendant's most recently of population report, DPS currently has 2,973 individuals incarcerated at its facilities across the State. A significant percentage of this population suffer from Serious Mental Illness ("SMI") and/or Serious and Persistent Mental Illness ("SPMI") as defined by Department of Public Safety Policy No. COR.10.1G.04. The Defendant has knowingly and maliciously failed to implement even basic measures to prevent suicide and other forms of self-inflicted harm within this population, and Despite DPS's awareness for years of severe and unconstitutional deficiencies in its provision of mental health services, DPS has continued its long-standing pattern and practice of neglect and deliberate indifference to the mental health needs of the seriously mentally ill population. The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii. It is headquartered in the 919 Ala Moana Boulevard building in Honolulu, Hawaii. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H93Ijf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Seitz, Esq. Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq. Kevin A. Yolken, Esq. 820 Mililani Street, Suite 502 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 533-7434 E-mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com jloo33138@yahoo.com kevinyolken@gmail.com INMEDIATA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.13MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that stemming from a 2019 data breach that impacted nearly 1.6 million patients, Puerto Rico-based Inmediata Health Group reached a $1.13 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the healthcare clearinghouse failed to secure protected health information (PHI). Under HIPAA, organizations must notify patients of healthcare data breaches within 60 days. But Inmediata began notifying patients that their data was potentially compromised in mid-April 2019, despite the fact that the breach occurred in January. The breach occurred when a misconfigured web setting allowed search engines to index internal webpages. The website leaked medical claim information, demographic details, and some Social Security numbers. Inmediata immediately deactivated the website and engaged a digital forensics firm. The investigation found no evidence of data exfiltration or misuse as a result of the data leak. But the situation escalated when some patients reported receiving multiple notification letters, some of which were addressed to different patients. The mailing errors caused some patients to receive anywhere from one to five letters. The lawsuit, which was filed in August 2019, alleged that Inmediata failed to implement adequate security measures and failed to notify impacted individuals of the breach within a reasonable timeframe. The $1,125,000 settlement will cover all administrative expenses and approved claims to settlement class members. In addition, Inmediata will pay the cost of Kroll's Web Watcher Services for settlement class members who choose to enroll. The healthcare clearinghouse also agreed to pay incentive awards to representative plaintiffs, at a maximum of $2,000 for each, as well as attorneys' fees and costs for the class counsel. Data breach victims are entitled to submit claims for fraudulent charges, credit monitoring services, and out-of-pocket losses. "The Plaintiffs claim that Inmediata failed adequately to protect their personal information and that they were injured as a result. Inmediata denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing or that the law has been violated," the settlement website states. "Inmediata denies these and all other claims made in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided that Inmediata did anything wrong and the Settlement does not mean Inmediata is admitting that it did anything wrong. Both the Plaintiffs and Inmediata believe that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and that it is in the best interests of the Settlement Class." Class members have until March 21, 2022, to file a claim form and until April 19, 2022 to exclude themselves from the settlement. The final hearing will take place on April 21. [GN] INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING: Averts Gold Medal Swimmers' Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that professional swimming's world governing body defeated a bid for up to $75 million in class action damages by three-time Olympic gold medalist Katinka Hosszu of Hungary and U.S. gold medalist Michael Andrew, who are leading federal antitrust litigation against the federation in San Francisco. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley partly denied class certification to Hosszú, Andrew, and two-time U.S. Olympian Tom Shields, saying the pay structure of the swimming league behind a related case -- and its links to Hosszú and Andrew -- makes individual damages claims more appropriate. Because participants in the International Swimming League compete for a "fixed pot" of prize money. [GN] JC MCMURRAY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, McQuaid Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MCQUAID, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. JC MCMURRAY INC., and AMMAR JALI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00616 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 17, 2022) is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' flawed automobile reimbursement policy resulting in failure to compensate Plaintiff at the federal minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2008 to June 2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. JC McMurray Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Plaintiff's Rule 59 Bid for Reconsideration Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00820-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order denying the plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JCTFov at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Gabriel Lalli Files Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL LALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-00274-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied: "all legally blind individuals residing in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website by the use of a screen reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and including final judgment in this action." Kroger Company is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4QUdG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com LEXINGTON LAW: Class Cert. Hearing in Moore Suit Set for Feb. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Moore v. John C. Heath, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC doing business as Lexington Law Firm, Case No. 2:21-cv-00027 (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M Romero entered an order setting class certification hearing on on Feb. 28, 2022 at 11:00 AM via Zoom video conference. The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Lexington Law is a firm focused on credit repair. Its services revolve around removing inaccurate or questionable negative items listed on your credit report through credit report analysis, credit disputes, dispute escalation and credit score analysis.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Insurance Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court's decision declining to certify a proposed damages class in an auto insurance diversity action in Washington involving Liberty Mutual. This case centers on how auto insurance companies value totaled vehicles. Plaintiffs sued Liberty Mutual, an auto insurer, and CCC Intelligent Solutions, a company that Liberty works with to help it develop its valuations. Plaintiffs alleged that Liberty breached its contracts with its insureds and that both companies violated Washington's unfair trade practices law and committed civil conspiracy. A district court declined to certify a proposed class because individual questions predominated over common questions and individualized trials were superior to a class action. The 9th Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the predominance and superiority requirements for certifying a class action were not satisfied. To show liability for breach of contract or unfair trade practices, plaintiffs must show an injury, the court held. Plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist sued both Liberty Mutual, an auto insurer, and CCC Intelligent Solutions, a company that Liberty works with to help it develop its valuations. Plaintiffs allege that Liberty breached its contracts with its insureds and that both companies violated Washington's unfair trade practices law and committed civil conspiracy. The plaintiff's vehicles were totaled, and Liberty valued them in part with a disputed downward condition adjustment. The plaintiffs then sued Liberty and CCC, arguing that they didn't follow Washington insurance regulations, which require the insurers to itemize the deductions or additions that they make, and that these adjustments be appropriate. [GN] LONGHORN PIZZA: Lipkin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses --------------------------------------------------------------- DALTON LIPKIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., RICHARD HAFNER, JOSEPH ROMANO, and ROBERT BRENT HAMILL, individually Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00387-C (N.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay and reimbursement policies, practices and methodology resulting in failure to compensate Plaintiff at the federal minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2019 to March 2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in El Paso, Texas. Longhorn Pizza, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise stores including stores within the state of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Katherine Serrano, Esq. David Burns, Esq. Jessica Wells, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 North Saint Paul St. Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com M JEWELERS INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The M Jewelers Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The M Jewelers Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01372 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The M Jewelers -- https://themjewelersny.com/ -- is one of the largest online personalized jewelry company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal META PLATFORMS: Texas AG Sues Over Facial Recognition Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Malik, writing for TechCurnch+, reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Meta over Facebook's facial recognition practices, his office announced on Feb. 14. The news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which notes that the lawsuit seeks civil penalties in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The lawsuit alleges that the company's use of facial recognition technology, which it has now discontinued, violated the state's privacy protections regarding biometric data. A press release announcing the lawsuit alleges that Facebook has been storing millions of biometric identifiers contained in photos and videos uploaded by users. Attorney General Paxton says that Facebook exploited the personal information of users "to grow its empire and reap historic windfall profits." "Facebook will no longer take advantage of people and their children with the intent to turn a profit at the expense of one's safety and well-being," Paxton said in a statement. "This is yet another example of Big Tech's deceitful business practices and it must stop. I will continue to fight for Texans' privacy and security." A spokesperson from Meta told TechCrunch in an email that "these claims are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously." The lawsuit alleges that Facebook deceived the public by concealing the nature of its practices and that Texans who used the app were oblivious to the fact that Facebook was capturing biometric information from photos and videos. It also alleges, without providing further context, that users were unaware that Facebook was disclosing users' personal information to other entities who further exploited it. "Facebook often failed to destroy collected biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, exposing Texans to ever-increasing risks to their well-being, safety and security," the lawsuit reads. "Facebook knowingly captured biometric information for its own commercial benefit, to train and improve its facial recognition technology, and thereby create a powerful artificial intelligence apparatus that reaches all corners of the world and ensnares even those who have intentionally avoided using Facebook services." In November 2021, Meta announced it was shutting down its Face Recognition system on Facebook, and would no longer automatically identify opted-in users in photos and videos. It also said it would delete over a billion individual facial recognition templates as part of this shutdown. But Texas officials asked Meta to preserve this data for its investigation, likely delaying the system's full closure. This isn't the first time that Meta has faced legal action for its facial recognition practices. Last March, Facebook was ordered to pay $650 million for running afoul of an Illinois law designed to protect the state's residents from invasive privacy practices. That law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), is a powerful state measure that's tripped up tech companies in recent years. The suit against Facebook was first filed in 2015, alleging that Facebook's practice of tagging people in photos using facial recognition without their consent violated state law. Following the ruling,1.6 million Illinois residents received at least $345 under the final settlement ruling in California federal court. The final number was $100 million higher than the $550 million Facebook proposed in 2020, which a judge deemed inadequate. Facebook disabled the automatic facial recognition tagging features in 2019, making it opt-in instead and addressing some of the privacy criticisms echoed by the Illinois class-action suit. A $650 million settlement would have been enough to significantly impact any normal company, but Facebook brushed it off as it did with the FTC's record-setting $5 billion penalty in 2019 following its probe into the social media giant's privacy issues. The new Texas lawsuit shows that widespread privacy laws could have a significant impact not only on Meta's operations but also on all big technology companies' practices. In the past years, a cluster of lawsuits has accused Microsoft, Google and Amazon of breaking laws when users' faces were used to train their facial recognition systems without explicit consent. [GN] MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Randolph Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10858-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakof entered an order adopting the civil case management plan as follows: -- The Court require that this case August 24, 2022 shall be ready for trial on: -- The Defendant's motion to dismiss February 17, 2022 must be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs opposition must be February 25, 2022 filed by: -- The Defendant's reply must be March 2, 2022 filed by: -- Oral argument on the motion to March 7, 2022 dismiss shall be held on: -- Joinder of additional parties March 22, 2022 must be accomplished by: -- The Plaintiff filed an Amended February 9, 2022 Class Action Complaint on: -- Initial disclosures required by March 1, 2022 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be served by: -- The Parties shall file a March 22, 2022 protective order and/or ESI protocol by: -- First request for production March 22, 2022 of documents, if any, must be served by: -- Interrogatories pursuant to March 22, 2022 Rule 33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York must be served by: -- Every party-proponent of a April 26, 2022 claim (including any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim) that intends to offer expert testimony on an issue other than damages in support of such claim must make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than: -- Every party-opponent of such May 17, 2022 claim that intends to offer expert testimony on an issue other than damages in opposition to the party-proponent's expert must make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than: -- Every party-proponent of a claim June 17, 2022 (including any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim) that intends to offer expert testimony related to damages must make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by: -- Every party-opponent of such July 1, 2022 claim that intends to offer expert testimony in opposition to the party-proponent's expert on damages must make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by: -- All depositions (including any July 8, 2022 expert depositions) must be completed by: -- Any notice of deposition that May 3, 2022 seeks testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on a matter related to class certification must be served by: -- Any deposition pursuant to such May 24, 2022 a notice must be completed by: -- The Plaintiff may serve and take May 24, 2022 an additional Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) after: -- All discovery is to be completed July 13, 2022 by: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class May 31, 2022 certification must be filed by: -- The Defendant's opposition to June 21, 2022 class certification must be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs reply must be filed July 5, 2022 by: Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34MDmXy at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Appeal in FLSA Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Blutman, writing for onlabor, reports that the Court of Appeals has granted the NCAA's request to appeal the district court's decision that college athletes could pursue their FLSA claims in Johnson v. NCAA despite the protestations made by the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit is now set to weigh in on whether the NCAA is a joint employer of student athletes under the FLSA, a question that the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the NCAA argues, have answered in the negative. At the same time, the NLRB may have occasion to opine on whether student-athletes are employees after the National College Players Association, an advocacy group for college athletes, filed unfair labor practice charges against the NCAA, the PAC-12 Conference, the University of Southern California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, asking the NLRB to find that those entities illegally misclassified student-athletes and suppressed their right to speak out about compensation and working conditions. The charge represents the first opportunity for the NLRB to test the position that General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo staked out in a September memo that "players at academic institutions" area employees under the NLRA. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dolphins' Sale Likely if Racism Claims Are True ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Masala, writing for Dolphinswire, reports that a couple of weeks after former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL and multiple organizations, it had seemed that the buzz had died down. Flores has alleged that there is racial discrimination taking place in the league's hiring practices that have resulted in sham interviews for many minority coaching candidates including himself. On top of that, Flores also stated that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered him $100,000 for each loss in 2019. Many originally believed that if these allegations specifically made against Ross were found to be true then he would be forced to sell his team. Now, according to Ian Rapoport, a league source has confirmed that to be the case. "A league source confirmed that owners could, in fact, vote a fellow owner out under the most dire circumstances based on league rules, which would require a three-fourths vote," Rapoport wrote in a story early on Feb. 14. The NFL is currently investigating the claims made by Flores, as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has stated that any violations will not be tolerated by the league. Flores' representatives have stated that they have witnesses and evidence that would corroborate the story. No NFL owner has ever been forced to sell the team, however, former Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson did sell his team amid allegations of inappropriate behavior that ranged from sexual misconduct to racism. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that in a victory for borrowers, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, affirming approval of a settlement between mortgage servicer Nationstar and a class of borrowers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The 2008 financial crisis revealed that many mortgage servicers did not have the infrastructure to manage an influx of loss mitigation applications–the process by which a homeowner who has fallen behind on a mortgage seeks relief from the servicer–which prompted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) in 2013. The amendments, which became effective in 2014, require servicers to follow strict procedures for processing loss mitigation applications and to disclose certain information to borrowers about the status of their application. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated borrowers alleged that Nationstar had failed to comply with these CFPB regulations. After years of contentious litigation and court-supervised negotiations, the district court certified two classes in 2019 and approved a settlement in 2020, which provided for a $3 million recovery for the class. One individual class member then objected to the settlement, arguing that the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction to grant final approval, that the Settlement Agreement was overbroad, that the settlement was inadequate, that attorneys' fees were excessive, that Nationstar's agreement not to oppose the motion for fees was inappropriate, and the notice did not sufficiently inform class members of the settlement distribution plan. The magistrate judge overruled the objections, and the Fourth Circuit has now also rejected all these arguments against the settlement. As a result of the Fourth Circuit's decision, the benefits of the settlement will soon be distributed to members of the class, after what has been an 8-year-long litigation. Partner Jon Tycko, class counsel, said about the settlement, "We're hopeful that, as a result of the Fourth Circuit's decision, the benefits of the settlement will soon be distributed to members of the class. That will wrap up what has been an 8-year-long litigation." The case is Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 8:14−cv−03667−TJS in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division. The Plaintiffs are represented by Tycko & Zavareei LLP. [GN] NOOM INC: Settles Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Breck Dumas, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that Noom, Inc. has agreed to pay $62 million to settle a class action lawsuit from former customers who allege that the weight loss app provider lured them into "risk-free" trial periods and then continued to charge them hefty, automatic renewal fees that were tough to cancel. The company denies any wrongdoing, and the settlement still has to be approved by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs accuse Noom of collecting nonrefundable renewal payments for its Healthy Weight Subscription as long as eight months beyond the expiration of the trial, tallying as much as $199 for individuals. As part of the preliminary deal, Noom has agreed to now send email reminders to customers ahead of the expiration of their trials, and to make it easier to cancel subscriptions both on their mobile app and website. Noom co-founders Saeju Jeong and Arten Petakov posted a joint message on the company's blog on Feb. 14 acknowledging the agreement that was filed on Feb. 11, saying, "While we disagree with the claims made in the suit, we believe the settlement is the best path forward as it allows us to focus our energy on delivering the best possible health outcomes for our Noomers." The founders noted that not only has Noom made changes that allow easier cancellations over the past 18 months, the company has also bolstered its customer service team, simplified its pricing, and clarified subscription details.[GN] NVR INC: Hughes, Jenkins Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives --------------------------------------------------------- In the two class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HUGHES and LORI JENKINS, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collectives pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as follows: -- Loan Processor Collective: "All Loan Processors and employees in similar positions who are or were employed by NVR, Inc. and/or NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. anywhere in the United States (other than Florida) at any time three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the present and beyond;" and -- Loan Officer Collective: "All Loan Officers and employees in similar positions who are or were employed by NVR, Inc. and/or NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. anywhere in the United States (other than Florida) at any time three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the present and beyond. NVR, Inc. is a company engaged in home construction. It also operates a mortgage banking and title services business. The company primarily operates on the East Coast of the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LLkc4G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Harris D. Butler III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com kkienzle@nka.com PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Files Bid for Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BOCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PATZERIA FAMILY & FRIENDS INC., PATZERIA PERFECT PIZZA INC., JOSEPH AZZOLINO, and SHKELZEN ULAJ, Case No. 1:21-cv-07384-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional class certification, court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and expedited discovery, as well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s2G6Zt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: NDGrunfeld@katzmelinger.com PEPPERIDGE FARM: Hill Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD HILL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00097-HEH (E.D. Va., Feb. 17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid regular wages, and all other allowable damages and recoveries pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Virginia State law. The complaint alleges the misclassification of Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, as independent contractors despite not meeting the "Internal Revenue Service guidelines" for evaluating independent contractor status. The suit further states that all unpaid wages, salary, or benefits are the result of Defendant's misclassification scheme. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a consignee in Virginia since at least 2015. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. is a baker and distributor of packaged snack food, bakery, and bread products sold to consumers throughout the U.S. and in other countries at thousands of groceries, convenience, and other stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Adams, Esq., Koji Fukumura, Esq., Stephen Richards, Esq., Steve Strauss, Esq., and Julie Veroff, Esq., of Cooley LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that Cooley litigators secured a win on behalf of Qualcomm, a San Diego based technology company that specializes in semiconductors, in a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The cross-functional team for the Ninth Circuit appeal brought together members of Cooley's business litigation, securities litigation, and appellate practice groups -- specifically, Cooley partners Steven M. Strauss, Koji F. Fukumura, and Peter M. Adams, and associates Stephen Richards and Julie Veroff. Cooley partner Koji F. Fukumura argued both in district court and the Ninth Circuit appeal. The successful outcome earned the team a shout out as part of Am Law's Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs list. Background Cooley represented Qualcomm Inc. and the four individual defendants, who included the company's senior most executives. In late 2017, Broadcom Ltd., a Singapore-based company, made an unsolicited offer to buy Qualcomm, which quickly rejected the offer because it grossly undervalued the company and came with too much regulatory risk. In response, Broadcom mounted a proxy fight to replace the entire Qualcomm board at an upcoming shareholder meeting. Over the ensuing months, Qualcomm made clear to investors and Broadcom that a fair price was fundamental to any deal between the two companies and repeatedly explained that the proposed transaction would raise serious concerns for regulators, including the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"), which could meaningfully delay or block any deal between the two companies. Consistent with its public stance on regulatory risk Qualcomm asked CFIUS in January 2018 to review Broadcom's effort to seize control of the board. Qualcomm did so confidentially, which is the default approach contemplated by federal regulations governing the CFIUS process. CFIUS began its review, which involved requesting and receiving information from both companies. Meanwhile, the companies continued to negotiate about a possible deal. A month later, in February 2018, a national news outlet reported that CFIUS was reviewing Broadcom's takeover attempt. The market had no reaction; Qualcomm's stock price did not change. A week later, CFIUS announced that it was ordering Qualcomm to postpone its upcoming shareholder meeting and, because of national security concerns, was imposing certain interim requirements on Broadcom. Qualcomm's stock price declined over the following two days. A week later, after Broadcom had violated CFIUS's interim requirements at least three times, then-President Trump issued an executive order permanently blocking the deal. Qualcomm's stock price dropped the next day. Plaintiffs filed a putative securities fraud class action, contending that Qualcomm's statements about its willingness to negotiate with Broadcom and the regulatory risk involved in any potential deal were materially false or misleading because Qualcomm did not disclose that it had asked CFIUS to look into Broadcom's attempt to take over Qualcomm's board. Dismissal Affirmed Cooley filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Battaglia of the Southern District of California granted in March 2020. He held that Plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead two essential elements of a securities fraud claim -- scienter and loss causation. He granted leave to amend, but Plaintiffs fared no better on their second try. The case was reassigned to Judge Bencivengo, who dismissed Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Ruling from the bench, she held that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation. Cooley continued to defend Qualcomm on appeal, where it achieved a complete victory. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, adopted the reasoning in Cooley's briefing, and affirmed on all three issues -- falsity, scienter, and loss causation. On falsity, the Ninth Circuit explained that Qualcomm had made it clear from the outset that its directors and officers opposed the deal and that the deal posed significant regulatory risks, and "reject[ed] the Investors' argument that, despite these statements, Qualcomm downplayed the risk of regulatory oversight by CFIUS." The court explained that "[n]egotiating in good faith is not necessarily incompatible with having sincere regulatory, antitrust, and national security concerns," "Qualcomm's statements regarding good faith negotiations came with significant qualifications and caveats," and "CFIUS's and the administration's subsequent actions were not foreseeable in a way that would have given rise to a duty to provide any more definite qualifying statements." On scienter, the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts from which a reasonable person could conclude it was plausible that Qualcomm made false or misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness. And as to loss causation, the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to allege "a causal connection between the allegedly wrongful statements and omissions in late 2017 and early 2018 and the stock-price drop," noting that the public learned of the CFIUS review two weeks before any stock-price drop, and that the stock only dropped after CFIUS ordered Qualcomm to postpone its board elections and again after then-President Trump blocked the deal. Significance This case is the first of which Defendants' counsel is aware involving a securities fraud claim stemming from a notice to CFIUS. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that a lawful and appropriate notice to CFIUS cannot be transformed into securities fraud absent any sufficient pleading of falsity, scienter, or loss causation. In so doing, the Court made clear that a company can simultaneously negotiate a deal in good faith and harbor genuine regulatory concerns about any ultimate deal reached by the parties. [GN] RA MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Derr Suit Wins Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERVIN DERR, and PETER SHOEMAKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DEAN IRWIN, ANDREW JACKSON, MELISSA BURSTEIN, MARTIN BURSTEIN, RICHARD HEYMANN, MAURICE BUCHBINDER, MARTIN COLOMBATTO, RICHARD MEJIA, JR., MARK E. SAAD, and WILLIAM ENQUIST, JR., Case No. 3:19-cv-01079-LAB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered an amended order: 1) granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2) denying motion to dismiss without prejudice; and 3) denying motion for consideration of documents without prejudice. -- Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that it will likely be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement. That Settlement Class would consist of: "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ra Medical common stock: (a) pursuant and/or traceable to Ra Medical's IPO; and/or (b) between September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive." Excluded from that Settlement Class would be: (a) persons and entities who or which suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants and the Underwriters; (ii) any person who served as a partner, control person, executive officer, and/or director of Ra Medical or the Underwriters during the Settlement Class Period, and their Immediate Family Members; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and predecessors of Ra Medical and the Underwriters; (iv) any entity in which the Defendants or Underwriters have or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which any Individual Defendant is the settler or which is for the benefit of any Individual Defendant and/or their Immediate Family Members; (vi) Defendants’ liability insurance carriers; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any Investment Vehicle shall not be excluded from the Settlement Class; and (b) “affiliates” are persons or entities that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, control, are controlled by or are under common control with one of the Defendants. -- Preliminary Approval of the Settlement The Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing. On that basis, the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement. -- Settlement Hearing The Court will hold a settlement hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on June 13, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 14A of the United States Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California. -- Settlement Administration Fees and Expenses All reasonable costs incurred in identifying Settlement Class Members and 11 them of the Settlement as well as in administering the Settlement shall be paid as set forth in the Stipulation without further order of the Court. -- Settlement Fund The contents of the Settlement Fund held by The Huntington National Bank (which the Court approves as the Escrow Agent), shall be deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as they shall be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gYfu5o at no extra charge.[CC] RENT TO COPY: Nunez Sues Over Equipment Technicians' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO FRANCISCO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT TO COPY INC. (DBA Integrated Document Solutions "IDS") KENNETH ("KEN") WANG and JOANA WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00897 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 15, 2018, until April 20, 2019, as an equipment technician. Rent to Copy Inc. is a document solutions company based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 RUSHMORE LOAN: Joint Bid to Amend Sched Order in Panzarella OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH PANZARELLA v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04467-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order granting the parties joint motion to amend scheduling order. -- The Defendant shall file its expert Feb. 25, 2022 report on class certification and opposition to motion for class certification no later than: -- The Plaintiff shall file its rebuttal March 24, 2022 expert report and reply papers in support of class certification no later than: Rushmore Loan is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2c2eG at no extra charge.[CC] SEQUIUM ASSET: Abrams Bid for Clarification Nixed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. ABRAMS v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 21-CV-05374-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order denying as moot motion for clarification of Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3). The Plaintiff asks the Court to resolve three alleged ambiguities in Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3). On January 26, 2022, Chief Judge Martinez signed General Order 02-22 of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, amending the Local Civil Rules. General Order 02-22 repealed Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3) in its entirety. The amendments to the Local Civil Rules "apply to every civil case pending in the Western District of Washington without regard to when the case was filed." Sequium Asset is an accounts receivable management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gXOVgP at no extra charge.[CC] SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Heath, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that a purported class of Shah & Shah store managers claim they were not paid overtime wages and were not reimbursed for work-related expenses. Therese Blake filed a class-action suit on Jan. 14 in the U.S. District for the Southern District of Illinois against Shah & Shah, LLC and Syed Khalid M. Shah, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and violations of other Illinois acts. Blake is represented by attorney Ryan F. Stephan of Stephan Zouras LLP in Chicago. According to the lawsuit, Blake worked as a store manager for the defendants and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being provided overtime pay as compensation. Blake claims the defendants knowingly and deliberately misclassified her and the putative class members as exempt employees not entitled to overtime compensation and failed to reimburse them for the time worked. Blake also claims class members incurred job-related expenses, and the defendants failed to provide reimbursements. Blake asks the court to order the defendants to provide the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of all putative collective action members. She also seeks approval of the form and content of a notice to be sent to the class members advising them of the pendency of this litigation and of their rights; plus liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation; an award of unpaid wages and other damages allowed; cost of action and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:22-cv-00066 [GN] SITE 25: Calel Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMAS GABRIEL CALEL and CARLOS GEOVANY PONCIO ZARATE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. SITE 25 RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a WEI WEST and ALAN PHILLIPS, Case No. 1:21-cv-08692-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v0yWH9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24 th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ST. LOUIS, MO: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody, et al., v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting the consent motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class filed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs include Diedre Wortham, John Doe, John Roe, Michael Mosley, Jasmine Borden, and James Cody The nature of suit states civil rights -- other civil rights. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] (KJS) STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Raymond Jackson entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude; 2. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to exclude; and 3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification: "All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Virginia wit a Businessowners insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form CMP-4100, including a Loss of Income and Extra Expense endorsement on Form CMP 4705.1 or CMP 4705.2, in effect at any time betyween March 23, 2020 and June 30, 2020 (the Closure Period), that were subject to partial or full business suspension under the Orders and submitted claims for business income losses and/or extra expenses incurred during the Closure Period that were denied by the Defendants." On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Elegant Massage has owned and operated Light Stream Spa since 2016, which provides therapeutic massages in Virginia Beach, Virginia. In 2019, Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from State Farm. The Policy issued to Plaintiff is an "all risk" commercial property insurance policy, which covers loss or damage to the covered premises resulting from all risks other than those expressly excluded. The Policy was effective from July 22, 2019 until July 22, 2020 and Plaintiff paid an annual premium of $475.00. The Policy includes coverage for "Loss of Income and Extra Expense," the standard form for which is identified as CMP-4705.1. Under the provision, the Policy provides for the loss of business income sustained as a result of the suspension of business operations which includes action of a civil authority that prohibits access to the Plaintiffs business property. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwybJU at no extra charge.[CC] STORK CRAFT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAEL CRUZ v. STORK CRAFT MANUFACTURING (USA) INC., Case No. 21-cv-10036-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join March 11, 2022 additional parties shall be filed no later than:P -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Feb. 23, 2022 Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than: -- All fact discovery is to be June 9, 2022 completed no later than: -- The Plaintiff's deadline for class April 29, 2022 certification motion is: Stork Craft was founded in 1993. The Company's line of business includes distributing furniture. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h2jWQG at no extra charge.[CC] TELOS CORP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Attention Telos Corporation ("Telos") (NASDAQ: TLS) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between November 19, 2020 and November 12, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Telos, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/telos-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23626&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Telos includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("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-19- 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. DEADLINE: April 8, 2022 Aggrieved Telos investors only have until April 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] TEXAS: Needs to Urgently Improve Children's Foster, Kinship Care ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert T. Garrett, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that Texas is in danger of simply slapping a Band-Aid on "the ongoing tragedy" of kids sleeping in Child Protective Services offices and won't cure root causes unless it acts with more urgency and taps some of the state's huge budget surplus for improvements to foster and kinship care, two lawyers for plaintiff children in a long-running lawsuit said on Feb. 14. Reacting to a new filing by two state agencies in U.S. District Court in Corpus Christi, plaintiffs' lawyers Marcia Robinson Lowry and Paul Yetter labeled the state's response to an expert panel's recommendations deficient. In a news release, the lawyers voiced "concern about the state's lack of commitment and evasive language" in its reply to the expert panel. "The state has not responded with the sense of urgency that this crisis demands,'' said Lowry, executive director of the New York nonprofit A Better Childhood and co-counsel in the suit. "They have agreed to create new positions, hold meetings and to study issues, but this is a time to take specific steps to create placements and services for children who are currently being shipped out of state or placed in highly inappropriate facilities in state. These children in the state's custody are not being kept safe, and this is an ongoing tragedy that the state needs to remedy as quickly as it can." Statewide, 221 youth spent at least two consecutive nights at a CPS office, hotel or other makeshift facility in January — compared with 148 a year earlier and just 13 in January 2020. Spokesmen for the Department of Family and Protective Services, parent agency of CPS, and the Health and Human Services Commission, which is responsible for licensing and regulating foster-care providers, did not comment when asked about Lowry and Yetter's concerns. One child advocacy group, Texans Care for Children, welcomed the state's agreement in the filing to adopt some of the experts' recommendations. "Rather than making kids in foster care wait until after the 2023 legislative session for some of these reforms, it will be critical for Governor [Greg] Abbott and legislative leaders to give the green light to move forward now on the expert panel's recommendations like pooling funding across agencies to ensure trauma-informed services and supports for families are quickly accessible," said Kate Murphy, the group's expert on child-welfare policy. Leaders also should provide emergency funding to give more financial support to grandparents and others providing kinship care, which allows children who've been removed from birth families to stay with someone they know, Murphy said. Referring to how Abbott and GOP legislative leaders responded to an earlier crisis over poor investigations and high caseworker turnover at CPS by granting $12,000 raises to 6,000 front-line workers, she added, "We are optimistic the governor and Legislature will work with the agencies to ensure they can move forward quickly, just as they did with CPS caseworker salaries in 2016." Recurring problem Since the late 2000s, Texas has experienced on-again, off-again shortages of foster care beds. All parties to the nearly 11-year-old, class-action suit over conditions in the state's system of long-term foster care agree that children removed from their birth families because of maltreatment should be housed in homes with trained foster parents -- and if that's not possible, humanely operated congregate-care settings. Instead, on any given night, a persistently high number -- 200 or more -- sleep on cots in state office buildings, in hotel rooms and on mattresses pitched in church meeting halls because of what Abbott, the two state agencies and plaintiffs' lawyers agreed in late October are "ongoing gaps in appropriate services and placements in Texas." In their response to the expert panel's recommendations, the commission and the protective services department agreed to create an interagency team by the end of this month that will oversee fixes to the problem of children without placements, or CWOPs. The team will be led by a high-level protective services official soon to be designated. The three experts, in a report issued Jan. 10, said it should be a person who can "cut through the bureaucracy." By March 30, the department said it will comply with another of the expert panel's recommendations --to hire a clinical coordinator in each of 11 regions. That person will try to ensure that children lacking placements receive mental health therapies they need and stop bouncing back from foster homes, residential treatment centers and emergency shelters into CWOP status. The department also agreed, in each of the four regions that have the most CWOPs, to hire a community liaison. That employee will "build community capacity to prevent placements in unlicensed care and to transition children out of unlicensed care into safe settings," said the state agencies' response. And they agreed to study how, last year, Texas made out-of-state placements of children in CPS' care more than 2,100 times -- and to develop a plan to bring them home. To fulfill one of the panel's recommendations, which called for technical assistance to the department's top brass, The Deckinga Group has been tapped as the consultant. That group, led by former assistant protective services commissioner for CPS Audrey Deckinga, has been retained through Casey Family Programs, a group that provides services to child welfare systems without charge. 'Business as usual' Plaintiffs' lawyers, though, were especially unhappy with how, on the more expensive items, the state agencies stressed how they lack authority or money to commit to launching new programs. In effect, the commission and the department played "Mother, may I" with the Legislature and with provider groups on recommendations that would expand the kinds of high-quality placements that are in short supply, boost financial support for kinship caregivers and build out the state's inadequate system of mental health care for children, the children's lawyers said. "The state should do whatever it takes, including exploring the use of the state's significant surplus funds, to increase funding for kinship care and secure funding and resources to capitalize on the promise of the mental health programs identified by the expert panel," Yetter said. He was referring to $12 billion of unspent discretionary state revenue that is expected to pile up by Aug. 31, 2023, although lawmakers would have to vote to bust a constitutional spending cap to draw down more than $4.4 billion of it. "It is in everyone's interest -- at the state and local level -- to solve this crisis for Texas children," he said. Said Lowry, who has launched many class-action suits over foster care nationwide, "The state is not treating this as anything like an emergency." The two private law firms who worked on the case for free, and placed $5.5 million in fees they were awarded by U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack in trust, have repeatedly offered to let the state use the money to do things such as improve its antiquated child-welfare computer systems, only to be ignored. In the Feb. 14 response by the state agencies, though, they agreed for the second time in recent months to accept some of the money. "We used the plaintiffs' fee award, now held in trust for the children, to pay for the panel's work," explained Yetter, whose firm Yetter Coleman was awarded $4.5 million. Haynes and Boone of Dallas was awarded $1 million. According to Kelly Darby, a Yetter spokeswoman, final bills by two of the three experts who are accepting compensation haven't been received. But the rates charged by panel members were reasonable, she said. On Feb. 14, the commission and the department agreed to tap the attorney-fee money being held in trust again to keep one of the expert panel members working in a role with foster-care providers -- reviewing what kind of safety record they must achieve before they can get off a heightened monitoring regimen that Jack ordered for shoddy ones and the sometimes-conflicting signals the two state agencies send to providers. Lowry said the plaintiffs' side doesn't know yet which of the expert panel members will take on that assignment -- Ann Stanley of Casey Family Programs, former Alabama child welfare official Paul Vincent or Judith Meltzer, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of Social Policy. "It is ironic, though, that the state agreed to use the funds to pay neutral experts and are now agreeing only to the recommendations that would result in more meetings, more contractors and more bureaucratic positions, but nothing that would expand, or provide, different services and placements," Lowry said. "Thus far, the state has only agreed to take any action 'to the extent possible with existing resources and legislative authority.' So that sounds pretty much like business as usual." [GN] TRUGREEN INC: Faces Deramo Class Action Over Prerecorded Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Trugreen, Inc. uses an artificial voice to place unsolicited, prerecorded phone calls to consumers without their consent, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Dominic Deramo claims Trugreen violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making the prerecorded robocalls advertising for its lawn care business. Deramo says Trugreen called him on his cellular and landline phone more than 20 times during the summer of 2021 despite him never doing business with the company or giving them consent to call him. Further, Deramo claims the telephone calls were placed using an artificial or prerecorded voice, which he never consented to. "Prior to the calls at issue in this action, Mr. Deramo had not had any contact with Defendant. He has never consented in writing, or otherwise, to receive calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice from Defendant," the class action lawsuit states. Trugreen Would Need 'Express Written Consent' To Place Calls Trugreen would need to acquire express written consent to make prerecorded phone calls, in accordance with the TCPA. "Defendant not only invades the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violates the TCPA," the class action lawsuit states. Deramo claims Trugreen is not only guilty of violating the TCPA but also of knowingly and willfully doing so. He is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief along with statutory damages for himself and all class members. Deramo wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have received a prerecorded telephone call by or on behalf of Trugreen in the past four years. Earlier this month, a class of non-Citibank customers were given class certification to pursue their claims that the bank placed robocalls to them without their consent. Also this month, a class action lawsuit was filed against David's Bridal by a consumer who argues the company sends unsolicited and unwanted text messages to consumers who have already opted out of receiving them. Have you been contacted by a company using a pre-recorded message with an artificial voice? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Yitzchak Kopel and Alec M. Leslie of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The Trugreen Pre-Recorded Robocalls Class Action Lawsuit is Deramo v. Trugreen, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01151, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] TRUST FOR ADVISED: Schiavi + Company Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCHIAVI + COMPANY LLC DBA SCHIAVI + DATTANI and DOMINUS MULTIMANAGER FUND, LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUST FOR ADVISED PORTFOLIOS, INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA FUND, L.P., INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA OFFSHORE FUND, LTD., CHRISTOPHER E. KASHMERICK, JOHN C. CHRYSTAL, ALBERT J. DIULIO, S.J., HARRY E. RESIS, RUSSELL B. SIMON, STEVEN J. JENSEN, JAMES VELISSARIS, LEONARD POTTER, SCOTT LINDELL, QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC, EISNERAMPER LLP, BONDERMAN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP, and INFINITY Q MANAGEMENT EQUITY, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00896 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) is a federal securities action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons and entities who purchased between December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021, securities issued by the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund and the Volatility Master Fund and the Volatility Feeder Fund, seeking to recover the massive damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arises from one of the most egregious investment fund collapses in history wherein the Funds lost over 40% of their respective values after a forced liquidation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission due to, inter alia, Defendants': (a) manipulation of the pricing methodology for the Funds' assets; (b) failure to employ the valuation methodologies and internal controls policies and procedures represented to investors; and (c) material overstatement of the Funds' net asset value. Throughout the Class Period, and at all relevant times, Infinity Q served as the investment advisor that managed the Funds. Allegedly, the Funds were marketed to investors seeking moderate growth and asymmetric returns through a "swap" strategy that would purportedly preserve capital and avoid the massive risks of aggressive hedge funds seeking greater returns. As a result of alleged egregious acts, the Funds' investors have been unable to withdraw their money from the Funds, and investors are still waiting and wondering what amount they will receive from the wreckage as Defendants continue to deplete available assets on legal defense costs. Additionally, Infinity Q has effectively held investors' money hostage unless they release Defendants from liability, further compounding investor damages, says the suit. Trust for Advised Portfolios, the Diversified Fund's registrant, is a Delaware statutory trust registered with the SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as an open-end management investment company. Infinity Q Capital Management LLC is the investment adviser to the Funds and general partner to the Volatility Fund.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com rrothman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: ericn@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - John T. Zach, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: jzach@bsfllp.com UNITED OF OMAHA: Loses Bid to Junk Nieves Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES, individually, and on behalf of a class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Nebraska corporation; and DOES 1 thru 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Marilyn L. Huff Judge entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss and denying plaintiff's motion to strike. In June of 2016, the Plaintiff, a resident of San Diego County, California, purchased a $30,000 whole life policy (the "Policy") from United that insured the life of her son. The Plaintiff is the owner and sole beneficiary of the Policy. United is a Nebraska corporation that administers life insurance policies in California, including Plaintiff's Policy. The Plaintiff's individual claims center on United's alleged acts related to the Policy. The Plaintiff alleges that United repeated the same unlawful acts across thousands of other life insurance policies. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4lJPN at no extra charge.[CC] VILORE FOODS: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Nixed in Gross --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GROSS, DEBORAH LEVIN, SHELBY COOPER, and EDWARD BUCHANNAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VILORE FOODS COMPANY, INC., ARIZONA CANNING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00894-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order denying motions to file documents under seal. Accordingly, Vilore's motions to seal are denied. Unless the documents are withdrawn, on or before February 18, 2022, Vilore shall file publicly on the docket an unredacted version of their P&A in support of its opposition that includes complete and unredacted versions all exhibits, as well as an unredacted version of its motion to exclude expert reports that includes a complete and unredacted version of all exhibits, the Court says. Vilore Foods is the exclusive importer, distributor and marketer of leading Hispanic brands in the U.S. and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s1Na8C at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue case deadlines by 60 days as follows: 1. Class certification discovery shall April 19, 2022 be completed by no later than: 2. The motion for class certification May 17, 2022 shall be filed by no later than: 3. Any opposition to the motion for July 1, 2022 class certification shall be filed by no later than: 4. Any reply brief in support of July 22, 2022 the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than: 5. The motion for class certification August 3, 2022 shall be heard on: 6. The status conference to set further November 1, 2022 scheduling dates, currently set for August 30, 2022, is continued to: Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s519ug at no extra charge.[CC] WEBRECON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Regulation F Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Accountsrecovery.net reports that the database maintained by Jack Gordon and the team at WebRecon has yielded yet another Regulation F lawsuit, this one a class-action against a company accused of not only violating Reg F, but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making at least 47 phone calls to an individual's cell phone -- including 22 in one seven-day period alone -- without first obtaining the individual's consent to contact him on his cell phone.[GN] WELLS FARGO: Williams Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO & CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged racially discriminatory residential mortgage policies and practices in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. According to the complaint, Wells Fargo has a long history of discriminating against African Americans and maintains a corporate culture replete with harmful racial stereotypes and biased views about African American customers. While Wells Fargo has long advertised its willingness to symbolically support racial equality in banking, such as making investments to black owned banks, it has not and will not meaningfully redress its systematic discrimination against its Black and African American customers, borrowers, and mortgage applicants, says the suit. Mr. Williams is an African American and a citizen of Georgia. He applied for a home mortgage with Wells Fargo and was discriminated against on the basis of his race in the mortgage lending process by Wells Fargo, the suit asserts. Wells Fargo & Co., is a publicly-traded, global financial services firm and Fortune 500 corporation incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Daniel Lewin, Esq. Jared Calvert, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD. 303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com - and - Sam Sani, Esq. SANI LAW, APC 15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405 Encino, CA 94612 Telephone: (310) 935-0405 E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com WKT GROUP: Faces Solano Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- ARCADIO SOLANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WKT GROUP II INC. (DBA Margot Patisserie) JOBIE YU and WAI TSUI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01366 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Solano was employed by the Defendants for about 16 years. He worked for the Defendants as a cook and a store cleaner in the bakery. WKT Group II Inc. owns, operates, and controls a bakery in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina F. Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (800) 933-5620 ZOOM VIDEO: March 5 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC, reports that have you used Zoom or TikTok at some point within the last year? Probably. If so, you might qualify for part of the nearly $200 million dollars the companies are paying out in various lawsuit settlements. ZOOM SETTLEMENT For the last couple of years, I've relied on Zoom almost daily when in-person interviews couldn't happen safely. I never had intruders hack into sessions. But those so-called "Zoom bombers" are part of a lawsuit settlement involving the video-conference company. "Class action lawyers are saying Zoom didn't do a good enough job protecting you and your kids from seeing things they shouldn't have seen," said Scott Hardy, who works with TopClassActions.com, a website that shares various class-action lawsuits. He said the lawsuit also involves allegations that Zoom shared users' information without their consent. The $85 million settlement means if you used Zoom between March 30, 2016, and July 30, 2021, you could get up to $25. The business claims no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The deadline to file a claim is March 5, 2022. KROGER DATA BREACH Kroger, which is the parent company of Fry's Food Stores here in the Valley, suffered a data breach and, as a result, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the grocery chain. "They actually had things like your Social Security number, and other personal data," said Scott Hardy, of TopClassActions.com. Those who used the grocery's money services or pharmacy, as well as its own employees, were apparently affected. Lost info could include birth dates, insurance information, and medical information. If you can prove the data breach caused you harm after Dec. 16, 2020, you could receive up to $5,000 in damages. However, most claims would likely get up to $91. As part of the settlement, Kroger does not admit to wrongdoing. The deadline to file a complaint is March 10, 2022. TIKTOK LAWSUIT While everyone was showing off their dancing skills and baking talents, could Tik Tok have also been collecting and using users' personal information without their consent? That's the allegation in a class-action lawsuit filed against the social media company. "Could be information about you where you are, when you record videos, and sharing that with marketers or other data buyers," Hardy said. It's a $92 million dollar settlement. If you used the TikTok app before October 1, 2021, you might qualify for part of it. The exact amount claimants may get depends on how many claims are filed. As usual, the company claims no wrongdoing in the settlement. The deadline to file a claim is March 1, 2022. [GN] [*] Juan Monteverde Investigates Terms Behind Acquisitions ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde & Associates PC, a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (BDSI), relating to its acquisition by Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, BDSI shareholders will receive $5.60 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/biodelivery-sciences-international-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Zurn Water Solutions Corp. (ZWS), relating to its merger with Elkay Manufacturing Co. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zurn-water-solutions-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD), relating to its acquisition by Chatham Asset Management, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, RRD shareholders will receive $10.85 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/r-r-donnelley-sons-company. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Quidel Corp. (QDEL), relating to its merger with Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Holdings plc. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/quidel-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Ready Capital Corp. (RC) relating to its merger with funds managed by MREC Management, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, RC shareholders will own approximately 70% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ready-capital-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (TACO), relating to its sale to Jack in the Box, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, TACO shareholders will receive $12.51 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/del-taco-restaurants-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] [*] U.S. Senate OKs Bill to End Forced Sexual Assault Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guy Brenner, Esq., Anthony Oncidi, Esq., Evandro Gigante, Esq., Laura Fant, Esq., Theresa Madonna, Esq., and Ariel N. Brotman, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on February 14, 2022, the Senate passed H. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the "Act"), by a voice vote. The bill had previously passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 335-97. The White House has indicated President Biden will sign the bill. If enacted, the Act would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit enforcement of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, as well as agreements prohibiting participation in a joint, class or collective action in any forum, "at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct." The Act also provides that any dispute concerning whether a claim falls within the scope of the Act's prohibitions will be decided by a court and not an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the arbitration agreement at issue purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator. A "sexual assault dispute" is defined as one "involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18 or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." A "sexual harassment dispute" is defined as one "relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law." The new restrictions would apply "with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after the date of enactment of this Act," meaning that once enacted, millions of American workers could elect to be released from existing arbitration agreements and/or class and collective action waivers as relating to sexual harassment and sexual assault claims that arise after the law goes into effect. However, because the law only addresses pre-dispute arbitration and class/collection action waiver agreements, any agreement to arbitrate claims entered into by the parties after the claims arise remains enforceable. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,876 Claims as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of December 31, 2021, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,876 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,075 individual claimants with actions pending on December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a jury. In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M’s 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million. In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial majority of the then-pending coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case mentioned above. That settlement was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a cause of plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s appeal is pending. A ruling is expected during the first quarter of 2022. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust; that increase represents the substantial majority of the growth in case numbers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3sZrBFa ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cajun Co. Wins Judgment in Exposure Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted The Cajun Company's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned LINDA CROSSLAND, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 20-3470 (E.D. La.). This case arises from the plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiff filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on September 16, 2020. The Plaintiff's petition for damages named several defendants under the category of "Contractor/supplier/manufacturer/professional vendor defendants," including Cajun. The case was removed to the District Court on December 20, 2020. On March 26, 2021, Cajun filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In its petition, Cajun named plaintiff, Linda Crossland, as an unsecured creditor, with a contingent, unliquidated, and disputed claim. This petition was mailed to plaintiff's attorneys. On March 30, 2021, defendant filed a "Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy" in this Court, thereby staying further action against Cajun. In an order dated April 28, 2021, the bankruptcy court set a bar date of June 7, 2021. In that same order, the bankruptcy court explicitly stated that any proof of claims not received by June 7 "shall not be allowed and shall be barred and the Debtor shall be forever discharged from any liability as to any such claim, PROVIDED that a copy of this Order and Notice is mailed to each scheduled creditor by the Debtor's attorney." Although plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding and bar date, she did not file a timely proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. On October 7, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming Cajun's Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The plan, as confirmed by the bankruptcy court, discharged any of defendant's pre-reorganization plan debt unless otherwise provided for in the order. Based on the bankruptcy court's order, Cajun now moves for the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against it, contending that, because plaintiff failed to timely file a proof of claim, her claims against Cajun have been discharged in bankruptcy. Judge Vance finds that the Bar Data notice was reasonably calculated to inform plaintiff of the bar date, as a matter of due process. Moreover, given that plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Cajun's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds undisputed Cajun's statement in its motion that "Plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding and bar date through, at least, the Petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection . . . and Order for Notice of Final Date for Filings Proofs of Claim." For these reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff received reasonable notice of the deadline for filing a proof of claim. Although plaintiff received notice of the bar date, she did not file a timely proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding by June 7. On October 7, 2021, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and thus discharged any pre-plan debtors except as provided by the plan. Under the terms of the reorganization plan and 11 U.S.C. Section 1141, plaintiff's claims have been discharged. Accordingly, the Court grants Cajun's motion for summary judgment and dismisses Cajun from this matter. Plaintiff's claims against Cajun are dismissed with prejudice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 1,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2021 and 2020, has been assigned to approximately 1,000 and 1,100 lawsuits pending against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products." At December 31, 2021 and 2020, Chemours had accruals of $33 and $34 related to these matters, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3p5eW24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Multiple Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.'s acquired subsidiaries have been named as defendants, among many other named defendants, in numerous lawsuits filed since 1990 claiming injury allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Similar lawsuits seeking monetary relief continue to be filed in various jurisdictions in the U.S., which cases are vigorously defended. Although predictions about the outcome of pending litigation is subject to uncertainties, based upon present knowledge, we believe it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of these claims will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3JFqwJ6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Faces Suits Involving 38,200 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving approximately 38,200 claimants at December 31, 2021 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by them or asbestos materials present at their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was $15 million during 2021. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3saaUrq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. has been named in asbestos-related personal injury claims related to North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Payments, net of insurance recoveries, related to known asbestos matters were $240 million, $229 million and $163 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and are estimated to be approximately $220 million in 2022. We expect to make payment associated with these asbestos matters from operating cash flows. The timing of these payments depends on several factors, including the timing of litigation and settlements of liability claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3t1KAPe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019 were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3v83YwT ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Divests $398MM Asbestos Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc.'s operating cash flows declined by $444 million from 2020, mainly driven by a $398 million payment related to the divestiture of ITT's asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the second quarter of 2021, as well as working capital investments, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://bit.ly/35ecpvx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/34RNXjX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.1MM Loss Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc. has a total recorded net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims of $21.1 million as of December 31, 2021 and $21.4 million as of December 31, 2020, with asbestos claims constituting approximately 23% of these reserves in both years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended period and can be unpredictable. "Environmental claims have arisen primarily from insured landfill exposures in municipal government and small non-manufacturing commercial risk, as well as leaking underground storage tanks within our homeowners policies. Asbestos claims have arisen primarily from policies issued to various distributors of asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials. We handle our asbestos and environmental claims in a centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit. That unit establishes case reserves on individual claims based on the facts and circumstances known at a given point in time, supplemented by bulk IBNR reserves. "Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is difficult because these claims have delayed and inconsistent reporting patterns. In addition, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical reserve assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal legislative changes. Limiting our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims are (i) the fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that we introduced in 2007, and (ii) the Insurance Services Office, Inc.'s Total Pollution Exclusion that was introduced in the mid-1980's, Prior to the mid-1980's, we primarily wrote Standard Personal Lines, which has also limited our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/36wLX0W ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Defends 915 Active Cases as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation (USS), as of December 31, 2021, was a defendant in approximately 915 active cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2020, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 855 cases involving approximately 2,445 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3JO6Wuf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Zurn Water Solutions Corporation's subsidiaries are co-defendants in various lawsuits in a number of U.S. jurisdictions alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Certain Company subsidiaries are subject to asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2021, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. "As of December 31, 2021, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately $66.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $49.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $66.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets. "Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2021, is in excess of the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. "As of December 31, 2021, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $66.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in insurance for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/36y3mGz ********* 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 ***