/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220308.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 42 Headlines 20TH AVE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Martinez Class Suit Says 3M CO: Class Settlement Over Personal Injury Claims Discussed 3M COMPANY: Allan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Bowers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Centonze Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Edwards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Film 3M COMPANY: Engle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Watford Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Michels Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Treckman Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to D.S.C. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Harkless Sues Over Tainted Infant Formula ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Infant Formulas ABBOTT NUTRITION: Anastopoulo Files Suit Over Contaminated Formula ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal With Microsoft ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 18 Deadline ADIDAS AMERICA: Inouye Sues Over Mislabeled Jersey Products AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Faces Toole Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop ALACER CORP: Court Strikes Cimoli's Nationwide Class Claims ALPINE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, MacDonald Class Suit Says APPLE INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling ARIEL COMMUNITY: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought BIMBO BAKEHOUSE: Brown Bread Not Made of Whole Grains, Suit Says BROCK PIERCE: Must Face TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sternberg Suit Over SPAC Transaction BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline C.H. ROBINSON: JMR Bid for Class Status Nixed without Prejudice CABALETTA BIO: Faces Patterson Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks Class Certification CANDID CARE: Thomas Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action CANTEX CONTINUING: Wallace Suit Seeks OT Pay for Medical Staff CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT: Mitchell FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida CHULA VISTA: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Sartin Suit With Prejudice COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Faces Workers' Class Action After Cyber Attack CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Files Bid for Class Certification CUMBERLAND VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Optional Masking Rule DELOITTE LLP: Gordon Ball Announces Securities Class Action DOGFISH HEAD: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Struck in Contreras DT EMPLOYER: Kraut Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Steam Line Failure EL SEGUNDO, CA: Faces McDaniel Suit Over Discrimination, Harassment FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation FANATICS INC: Montrose Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Fla. FCA US: Court Adjourns March 11 Settlement Conference Deadline FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Averts Athletes' Antitrust Class Action FIRSTCASH INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 15 Deadline FLEET 18: Court Directs Parties to Consult Local Rule 3.02 FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carrol Suit Seeks Class Certification FREDDIE MAC: Breach of Contract Securities Suits Consolidated GATOS SILVER: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 25 Deadline GE CAPITAL CONSUMER: Belton Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement GEICO GENERAL: Partly Wins Bids to File Under Seal in Nichols Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hackler Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Hearing Set in March GIRARD, OH: Legislation on Traffic Cameras Proposed Amid Class Suit GRASS CLIPS: Fails to Pay Landscapers' Overtime, Cortez Alleges GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Bid to Certify Eviction Class Partly OK'd GRILL CREATIONS: Faces Stark Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages HAIER US: Parties in Jones Suit Directed to Confer Deadlines HALLMARK AVIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Discovery in Elhassa HEIDI WASHINGTON: Jason Sanders Loses Class Certification Bid ILLINOIS: DoC Faces Class Action Over Prison Inhumane Conditions ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Response in Werner Class Suit INGALLS MEMORIAL: HIPAA Protects Worker Info, Court Finds in Mazya INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Wallace Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval IT'SUGAR LLC: Fails to Comply FACTA, Hall Class Suit Alleges J & J SAFETYMATE: Faces Kim Suit Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages JAMES LEBLANC: Expert Reports Must be Submitted by March 4 JOHNS MANVILLE: Bid to Strike Chase Class Suit Junked JOLO INC: Saad, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz Loses Bid to Certify Employees Class JUUL LABS: Canastota Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hermon-DeKalb Suit Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Alpine School Suit Says JUUL LABS: East Irondequoit Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Faces Worcester Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Fremont County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Castleford School Claims JUUL LABS: Renaissance Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Twin Falls Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John Bid to File Under Seal Information Nixed KIM BIMESTEFER: Bid for Extension of Time to File Reply OK'd KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Deadline Extension Sought L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Bylaws Limit Stockholders' Rights, Kent Says LINK SNACKS: Products Contain MSG, Schoolcraft Class Action Says LVNV FUNDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod in Norton MANHATTAN BEER: Sued Over Hidden 10-Cent Bottle Deposit Charges MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Suit Challenges Asset Forfeiture MATCH GROUP: Benouis Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MEIJER INC: Misleads Consumers Over Non-Drowsy Products, Moore Says MERCEDES BENZ: Order on Class Certification Entered in Calabasas MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headrests META PLATFORMS: Adult Entertainers File Suit Over Web Traffic META PLATFORMS: Bid to Compel Layser to Produce Docs Nixed MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Sanders Complaint v. MDOC MORLEY COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Journagin Says MSP RECOVERY: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought MUTUAL SECURITIES: Bids for Attys.' Fees in Milliner Suit Denied NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Flores Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Discrimination Suit to Move Forward NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Says Race Played Role in Dolphins Firing NATIONAL FOOTBALL: GM Comments on Decision to Hire Former Coach NATIONAL FOOTBALL: May Face Dolphin Wagers Class Action Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pittsburgh Steelers Hires Flores Following Suit NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Stipulated Scheduling Order Entered in Smith NCI GROUP: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Extension for Discovery Deadline Sought NETFLIX INC: City of Beaumont Mulls Lawsuit Over Franchise Fees NEW MILLENIUM: Underpays Home Attendants, Joseph Class Suit Says NEW YORK, NY: Living Conditions in Prison City Remain Abysmal NISSAN MOTOR: Customers Set to Get Compensation in Cartel Suit NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Emergency Braking System NISSAN NORTH: Bid for Leave to File Document Entered in Ayala NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Loses Bid to Strike Bennett's Class Claims NORTH CAROLINA: Court to Hear Motorists' Class Action Settlement NOTORIETY GROUP: Kuan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 14 Deadline OCTAPHARMA AG: Judge OKs $10M Fingerprint Class Action Settlement OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective PARTICIA COYNE-FAGUE: Ct. Tosses DeBritto's Bid to Certify Class PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rombough Suit Claims PETROCHEM INSULATION: Initial CMP Order Entered in Boyuk Suit PHYSICIANS WEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed POOL SCREENING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Jenkins Says PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ: Wins Summary Judgment v. Talarico PREMIUM RETAIL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Nixed w/o Prejudice PRIMACARE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Njoroge Suit Says PSL ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22 QG PRINTING: Seeks to File Response to Sims' Objections QUALTEK RECOVERY: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid OT for Logistics Workers QUEBEC: Faces Suit Over Underfunding of Nunavik's Child Services RIPPLE LABS: Bid for Class Certification Due November 18 SAFEMOON: Celebrities Named in Illegal Crypto Scheme Class Suit SALAS CONCRETE: Class Action Settlement in Cavazos Gets Initial Nod SANTANDER BANK: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod SEKUNJALO GROUP: Faces Discrimination Class Suit in South Africa SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Renewed Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 28 SELECT MEDICAL: Filing of Dispositive Bid Allowed in FHPM Suit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Judge Approved Final Settlement in FDCPA Suit SETTON PISTACHIO: Ali Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action SGT ROCHA: Barfell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class SHOE SHOW: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Smith Class Suit SONY INTERACTIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Majo Discrimination Suit SR MANGO: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Najera Class Action Suit Says STANDARD LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims STANDARD LITHIUM: Gross Law Firm Reminds of March 28 Deadline STEWARD HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Williams' 2nd Amended Suit Denied SUNPOWER CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action SUNPOWER CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 18 Deadline SUNPOWER CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Kuznicki Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TAMAR LICH: Court Freezes Freedom Convoy Cash Crypto Donations TAMARA LICH: Freedom Covy Protest Ended Following Class Action TASKUS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline TESLA INC: Class Action Over Yellow Touchscreen Dismissed TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Settlement Hearing Set on June 2 TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal. TUFIN SOFTWARE: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Securities Suit UNITED PARCEL: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Diaz Suit Alleges VOLVO CARS: Jenner Wins Leave to File Second Amended Class Suit ZOOM VIDEO: California Pares Claims in Securities Class Action [*] "Freedom Convoy" Protest Suit Will Likely Seek $300M Damages [*] Australian Labor Party Talks About Class Action Reforms [*] COVID-19 Tuition Refund Class Action Lawsuits Examined [*] D&O Class Actions Still Major Concern for Companies, Insurers [*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Trends [*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss M&A Class Action Litigation [*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Reached $3B in 2021 ********* 20TH AVE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Martinez Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RENE MARTINEZ and NEONEL ANTONIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 20th AVE CW AND LUBE CORP, and SILVERPOINT CAR CARE CENTER, INC., and JOSE BARREIRO, as an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-01050 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. As a result of the delineated violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. the Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 3M CO: Class Settlement Over Personal Injury Claims Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------- whnt.com reports that a long-running lawsuit against 3M is near resolution and involves more than 400,000 residents in six North Alabama counties. But it's not clear how many residents are aware of the settlement terms, which generally bar most future claims against 3M, unless a class member actively opts out by March 17. Personal injury claims are not barred by joining the settlement, but property damage, punitive damage and other actions will be barred if the settlement is approved at a hearing in Morgan County Circuit Court on April 21. The case dates back to 2002 with a group of plaintiffs in the case, St. John vs. 3M. Leon Ashford, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the case at one point focused on 3M plant worker health, but those claims were tossed by the judge more than a decade ago. The settlement that has been reached is part of a global agreement that includes the federal Tennessee Riverkeeper lawsuit against 3M and other chemical makers. 3M produced PFAs chemicals for years at its Decatur plant. The chemicals don't break down in water and have been linked to a number of health conditions. The settlements focus on cleanup efforts 3M is to undertake in locations where PFAs waste was dumped by the company over decades. Trinity man charged with drug trafficking 3M is also under a consent decree with the State of Alabama's Department of Environmental Management, which established far-reaching cleanup requirements for the company. That agreement was reached in July 2020. The 3M lawsuit settlement reached last October includes an agreement by the company to pay for new ball fields in Decatur, to spend millions to clean up North Alabama properties contaminated by its chemicals and resolve a class-action claim for residents. The full settlement with Decatur can be read on the city's website. For more information on the case and how the settlement will work, click here. For questions about the settlement, click here. To read the full settlement, click here. Across North Alabama, it includes people in Colbert, Franklin, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, and Morgan counties. Police capture Lacey's Spring man accused of stealing truck 440,000 people are identified in the class action. You may have received a postcard or email, telling you about the settlement. In this case, it pays to read the fine print. Attorney Leon Ashford has been working on the 3M lawsuit since 2002. It's near resolution. "As property owners or persons who have leased property in the past, or lease property now, they all have potential claims for contamination to that property by PFAS," said Ashford. The postcards have gone out, but Lawrence County resident Brenda Hampton, who's been trying to raise alarms about PFAS for years, says people don't necessarily know what it all means. "My phone has been ringing off the hook about these lawsuits," Hampton told News 19. "But the funny thing is, I think I told the people, I think my letter should have been the first one to come out the box, but I don't have one." With the cards, a lot of people don't understand if they should sign for it or it would knock them out. The settlement includes around 5,000 acres in the region that have had sludge applied on them. Those property owners are due $1,000 per acre. Priceville opens first drive-thru coffee stand Ashford warns people not to look for any additional payment in the current settlement, stating, "an ordinary citizen who owns a house or rents a house or has an acre of land is not going to be receiving any compensation in this settlement." "We are going to try and re-mediate the PFAS problem so there never is any drop in value in those six counties for the PFAS that's already there," Ashford continued. If you believe you have a claim for property damages or other damages, you only have until March 17 to opt-out of the settlement to pursue your own claims. A court will consider those arguments at a final settlement approval hearing set for April 21. Huntsville attorney Mark McDaniel, who isn't involved in the lawsuit, said residents need to consider their options now. "I think we're talking about from April 21, 2003, to December 17th, 2021, that's your dates you're looking at there," McDaniel told News 19. "Anybody who worked in this area, had an ownership possessory interest, had a business anything, you're in that class. Hands-on training looking to relieve paramedic shortage News 19 asked McDaniel to clarify the fine print. He stated, "If you're going to start carving out, I'd talk to a lawyer about my statute of limitations problem and my remedies problem, I would talk to my lawyer about that, soon." Ashford said if people think they have a problem with PFAS contamination, they should reach out and he says the settlement will have an impact. "We are bringing 440,000 people along with us, to a resolution with think is good for the environment, and all of the counties in North Alabama, this is not a coupon settlement, this is not a token settlement, this is not paying the residents up there a dollar to make them go away," Ashford stated. "This is a settlement that recognizes the profound impact that these chemicals have, and we're trying to do something about it in the future." [GN] 3M COMPANY: Allan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ALLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00617-RMG (D.S.C., February 27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Bowers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST REX BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00598-RMG (D.S.C., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit contends. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Centonze Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------ William Centonze, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00470-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Larry Clark, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00472-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Edwards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Film ------------------------------------------------------------ Jimmy Edwards, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00473-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Engle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Engle, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00498-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 15, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. Dick M. Ortega, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com dortega@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Watford Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDNYA WATFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00618-RMG (D.S.C., February 27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Michels Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Allen Michels, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00502-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Treckman Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to D.S.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TIM TRECKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P., THE ANSUL COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., NATIONAL FOAM, INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE FIREFIGHTING, INC., U.S. PUMP COMPANY, LLC, and WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00076, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on February 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00601-RMG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and gross negligence, strict products liability, and medical monitoring by exposing the Plaintiff and similarly situated firefighters to a harmful chemical called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products. 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Johnson Controls Inc. is a multinational conglomerate that manufactures fire and security equipment, headquartered in Cork, Ireland. Tyco Fire Products, L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. The Ansul Company is a chemical manufacturing company headquartered in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde Firefighting, Inc. manufacturer of fire safety products, headquartered in North Carolina. U.S. Pump Company, LLC is a manufacturer of industrial fire solutions, headquartered in Louisiana. Williams Fire & Hazard Control is a fire protection equipment supplier in Port Arthur, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Hodges, Esq. Don J. Foty, Esq. Jerry W. Mason, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com dfoty@hftrialfirm.com jmason@hftrialfirm.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Harkless Sues Over Tainted Infant Formula -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANDRIA HARKLESS individually and as the legal guardian of a minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01097 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2022) is a class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class compromised of all others similarly situated to redress Defendant's numerous unfair and deceptive acts and practices designed to mislead the public in connection with their promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, distribution and/or sale of Similac Infant Formula. The Similac Infant Formula includes Similac (TM), Alimentum (TM) and EleCare (TM) products which Defendants unfairly and deceptively promoted during the relevant time period as containing ingredients safe for infant consumption and being safe for use, when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal illnesses such as Cronobacter Sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea, gastrointestinal illnesses, and other serious health problems, alleges the suit. Similac, owned and made by Abbott, tells consumers that "the Promise of Similac is to help keep your baby fed, happy, and healthy" and that Similac brand is "Nutrition you can trust." But recent testing at one of Abbott Nutrition's manufacturing facilities tells a different story - one of broken promises, mistrust and concealment. After receiving consumer complaints of Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella infections, the FDA's investigation along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local partners, confirmed that Abbott Nutrition's Sturgis, Michigan facility had findings to date of "several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental samples taken by the FDA and adverse inspectional observations by the FDA investigators." Moreover, Politico reported that the FDA first received a report of a foodborne illness suspected to be linked to infant formula in September -- four months before issuing the recall of three major brands -- after four babies were hospitalized and one died. The Minnesota Department of Health investigated a case of an infant who was sickened by Cronobacter sakazakii in September 2021, the state agency told Politico. State health officials in Minnesota knew that the infant had consumed powdered formula produced at an Abbott Nutrition facility in Sturgis, Mich., and shared this information with the FDA and CDC in September of 2021. 6 Inspectors found Cronobacter sakazakii in several environmental samples taken at the plant, as well as records suggesting the company had been finding the bacteria in the plant and had destroyed product because of the issue, says the suit. Abbott Laboratories manufactures, labels, markets, and sells infant formula under the Similac, Alimentum, and Elecare brands. On February 17, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced it was investigating consumer complaints of Cronobacter and Salmonella infections related to ingestion of Similac, Alimentum and EleCare. The Plaintiff's minor childs illness was allegedly caused by the consumption of the tainted Alimentum. To date, Plaintiff's minor child continues to suffer gastrointestinal and bowel problems as well as other pains and injuries. The Plaintiff incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses, has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and medical problems in the future as a direct and proximate result of her ingestion of the contaminated infant formula.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Infant Formulas ------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Maas, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that as Abbott Laboratories faces a growing number of necrotizing enterocolitis infant formula lawsuits brought by families of premature babies who developed a devastating intestinal injury after being fed Similac in the NICU, the company now faces a class action lawsuit over recalled versions of its powdered formula, which may be contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii and other pathogens that are causing older babies to develop gastrointestinal distress. A complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida on February 18, by Luis Alfredo Suarez, on behalf of his minor child, identified only with the initials A.S., who developed gastrointestinal distress after being fed tainted Alimentum formula earlier in February. The lawsuit comes only one day after Abbott Laboratories recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare formula, after confirming that the powder may contain Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella Newport or other bacteria that entered the products during the manufacturing process at a plant in Sturgis, Michigan. INFANT FORMULA RECALL LAWSUIT Did your baby experience problems after being fed Similac, Alimentum or EleCare? According to an infant formula warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on February 17, parents and caregivers are being urged to stop using the recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered products immediately, while the agency pursues an investigation into at least three confirmed injuries and one death that may be linked to contamination. The FDA announced it has initiated an onsite inspection at the facility and has recorded several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental samples along with several adverse inspectional observations by investigators. The infant formula lawsuit brought by Suarez seeks class action status to pursue damages for his child and other infants, indicating that Abbott Laboratories failed to put adequate quality control measures in place to make sure the products are safe and free of salmonella and cronobacter bacteria, which could cause gastrointestinal problems and difficulty feeding. Suarez indicates that he purchased and fed the recalled Alimentum to his daughter. Shortly after, around February 8, A.S. began developing symptoms of gastrointestinal distress, including diarrhea, abdominal pain, severe diaper rash with blisters and blood, dehydration, sleeplessness, and other pain and injuries requiring immediate medical attention. To date, Suarez states his infant still suffers gastrointestinal and bowel problems caused by the contaminated formula, causing A.S. to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of life and medical problems. Suarez states he has incurred, and continues to incur, medical expenses to have his child medically treated as a direct and proximate result of Abbott's negligence in failing to ensure its baby formula products were safe for human consumption and free of pathogenic bacteria or other substances injurious to human health. The baby formula recall lawsuit is one of the first of what could be many filed against Abbott Laboratories Inc. in the coming weeks as the manufacturer scrambles to remove the potentially contaminated powdered formula from store shelves and alert customers of the possible dangers. Similac and Enfamil Baby Formula NEC Risks The reports of contamination came as Abbott Laboratories was already defending a rising number of Similac formula lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system, alleging that the company has withheld information about the safety of the cow's milk product for premature infants, which has been found to greatly increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). A number of studies have highlighted a link between baby formula and NEC for preterm infants, resulting in gastrointestinal perforations that often develop while the infant is still in the NICU, allowing bacteria to leak through and cause abdominal infections and intestinal tissue to die off. Common symptoms of NEC include swollen, red or tender belly, difficulty feeding, constipation, dark or bloody stools, body temperature changes, green vomit, apnea, bradycardia (slowed heart rate) and hypotension (low blood pressure), among others. It is often fatal and survivors often experience long term side effects from surgery to remove dead bowels, resulting in a lifetime of bowel complications. According to allegations raised in the litigation, Abbott Laboratories withheld warnings and information from parents and medical providers for decades, placing desire for profit before consumer safety. Similar claims are also being pursued against Mead Johnson in Enfamil NEC lawsuits brought by families of babies who received this competing cow's milk formula instead of breast milk. Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints filed in recent weeks throughout the federal court system, Abbott Laboratories filed a motion to create a Similac MDL, which would centralize the litigation before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is expected to schedule oral arguments on motion during an upcoming hearing session this month. [GN] ABBOTT NUTRITION: Anastopoulo Files Suit Over Contaminated Formula ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lexi Moore reports that a law firm in the Lowcountry is filing a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the laboratory that manufactures baby formulas, recently recalled by the Food and Drug Administration for possible contamination. The FDA is warning consumers not to use or purchase certain powdered formulas such as Alimentum, Similac, and Elecare made by "Abbott Nutrition" as they could be contaminated with bacteria. Roy Willey, a trial lawyer with the Anastopoulo Law Firm representing the case says people around the world could be impacted. "There's a certain level of trust with this product that's really been broken because they have known about this for four months and have allowed customers to still purchase it," says Willey. The FDA is investigating after several babies were hospitalized and one died. Investigators believe the illnesses could be related to contamination in some of the company's powdered baby formulas. "Similac is supposed to be one of the best. It's the one that hospitals here give you," says Willey. Officials say babies are showing side effects of diarrhea, fevers, and bowel damage. Willey says they are representing a client in Ridgeville whose infant has been exposed. "She's just one of many people that's been affected by this. It happened nationally and it's very widespread," says Willey. Willey says this lawsuit hits close to home as he's got a three-week-old baby that uses one of the recalled formulas. "We are in the midst of this. I actually had this product and was feeding it to my child," he says. Lawyers say the liquid product is safe, but the bacteria lives in dry conditions and urge people to make sure they are throwing out any recalls. "Most of this formula is produced in the facility so if you have this formula, you probably have the affected recall," says Willey. Officials say as of right now any Silimac Alimentum that expires by April 1st are the ones recalled, but the FDA says they are continuing to investigate the facility. A spokesperson for Abbott sent News 2 a statement: "We value the trust parents and caregivers place in us, and ensuring the safety and quality of our products is our top priority. As part of Abbott's quality processes, all infant formula products are tested for Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella and other pathogens, and they must test negative before any product is released. No distributed product from our Sturgis, Mich., facility has tested positive for the presence of either Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella." [GN] ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal With Microsoft -------------------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON RUBIN v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., REVETA BOWERS, ROBERT CORTI, HENDRIK HARTONG III, BRIAN KELLY, ROBERT KOTICK, BARRY MEYER, ROBERT MORGADO, PETER NOLAN, DAWN OSTROFF, and CASEY WASSERMAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Activision Blizzard and the members of Activision's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Activision will be acquired by Microsoft Corporation through Microsoft's subsidiary Anchorage Merger Sub Inc. On January 18, 2022, Activision and Microsoft issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 18, 2022 to sell Activision to Microsoft. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Activision stockholders will receive $95.00 in cash for each share of Activision common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $68.7 billion. On February 18, 2022, Activision filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Activision stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Activision's financial forecasts; and (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financialvaluation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Allen & Company LLC. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In short, unless remedied, Activision's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, says the suit. Activision is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located at 2701 Olympic Boulevard, Building B, Santa Monica, California. The Company develops and publishes interactive entertainment content and services. Activision's common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "ATVI." The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 W-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Acutus Medical, Inc. ("Acutus Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFIB) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Acutus Medical securities between May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/afib. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) their ability to grow and scale Acutus' business; (2) Acutus' strategy regarding AcQMap system placements; and (3) the ability of Acutus to improve commercial execution in the United States, including through the expansion and training of sales staff to "ensure" adequate customer account support, which defendants claimed would be a major growth driver. Specifically, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (a) a material percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been randomly installed at sites with little, if any, consideration given to whether the healthcare providers at the selected locations were likely to adopt, or desire, Acutus Medical's products; (b) a material percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been installed in locations where Acutus Medical did not possess the infrastructure necessary to appropriately educate, train, and support medical service providers on the system's operations; (c) as a result, defendants were in the process of designing a strategic plan to terminate and relocate approximately 20% of then-existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements; (d) the Company's management discussion and analysis was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose that the termination and relocation of approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021 financial results; and (e) Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions were materially false and misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the specific nature of the risks then facing the Company. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/afib or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Acutus Medical you have until April 18, 2022, 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ADIDAS AMERICA: Inouye Sues Over Mislabeled Jersey Products ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID INOUYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Case No.8:22-cv-00416-VMC-TGW (M.D. FL., Feb. 21, 2022) alleges that Defendants' manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mislabeled NHL (National Hockey League) jerseys 'authentic' or 'authentic pro' under the Adidas brand (the 'Product'). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Product believing that the Product was authentic, understood as being genuine and substantially similar or identical to those worn by NHL players. But the Product was not merchantable because it was not fit to pass in the trade as advertised, not fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended and did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the packaging, container or label. The Defendant allegedly misrepresented and omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product that it was authentic, understood as being genuine and substantially similar or identical to those worn by NHL players. Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. ADIDAS AMERICA INC. designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including basketball, football, and training shoes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Will Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4326 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com -and – Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Faces Toole Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY TOOLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., and MAX LEVCHIN, Case No. 3:22-cv-01243-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm Holdings securities on February 10, 2022 after the Company sent a Tweet concerning its Second Quarter 2022 financial results at approximately 1:15 p.m. pursuant to the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. At approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a Tweet from its official account in which the Company disclosed certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The Tweet, which was published prior to the Company's planned release of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter, which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading, says the suit. The Tweet was allegedly misleading, in that it omitted to disclose the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results. Indeed, the Company deleted the Tweet and released its full second quarter financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results were lackluster -- with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share. On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per share, or approximately 32%. The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of Affirm at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and has been damaged by the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and omissions. Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform for digital and mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, the Company offers "buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm represents itself "a more flexible and transparent alternative to credit cards." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com jake@blockleviton.com ALACER CORP: Court Strikes Cimoli's Nationwide Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY CIMOLI, Plaintiff v. ALACER CORP., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07838-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an order: a. dismissing without leave to amend the Plaintiff's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") claim; and b. striking the nationwide class allegations in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. I. Introduction Before the Court is Defendant Alacer's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Partially Dismiss and 12(f) Motion to Partially Strike Plaintiff Jeffrey Cimoli's Class Claims in this class action related to allegedly misleading labeling of Alacer's dietary supplement Gummies. Plaintiff brings various claims on behalf of a class of California residents (the "California Class") under California law, including California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Further, Cimoli brings one claim on behalf of a Nationwide Class under Pennsylvania's unfair competition law -- the UTPCPL. At issue in Alacer's Motion is whether, under choice-of-law principles, Cimoli can simultaneously bring claims under both California and Pennsylvania unfair competition statutes -- and if not, which state's law applies. Alacer moves to dismiss Cimoli's Pennsylvania law claim on the basis that he cannot bring claims under both states' statutes under choice-of-law principles, and California law applies. Further, Alacer moves to strike Cimoli's Nationwide Class allegations, since the only claim he brings on behalf of the Nationwide Class is the Pennsylvania claim. Cimoli opposes, arguing that nothing bars him from bringing claims under both states' statutes. II. Background Alacer manufactures and sells the dietary supplement gummies at the heart of the suit. It is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Cimoli is a California resident who purchased a bottle of Alacer's Emergen-C Immune Support 750 mg Vitamin C Gummy Orange, Tangerine, and Raspberry Product on or around June 2020 from a Target store in San Jose, California. S Mr. Cimoli's claims stem from the fact that in purchasing the Product, he saw and relied on representations on the front label indicating that it contains "750 mg Vitamin C" and "45 Gummies." Based on these representations, Cimoli believed the bottle of Gummies he purchased contained 45 Gummies that each contained 750 mg of Vitamin C, when in fact three Gummies were required to obtain the 750 mg of Vitamin C indicated on the front label. The Plaintiff alleges he was misled by the label. He sues on the basis of alleged misrepresentations on the labels of Alacer's Emergen-C Gummies and its Elderberry Gummies (the "Products"). Mr. Cimoli brings claims on behalf of a California Class and a Nationwide Class. On behalf of the California Class, the Plaintiff brings claims for (1) violation of California's UCL; (2) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) unjust enrichment/quasi-contract; and (5) common law fraud. On behalf of the Nationwide Class, Cimoli brings a claim for violation of Pennsylvania's UTPCPL. Alacer moves to dismiss Cimoli's claim under the UTPCPL because under choice-of-law principles, (1) Cimoli is barred from asserting consumer fraud claims under the laws of California and Pennsylvania at the same time and (2) California law governs. Further, it moves to strike Cimoli's Nationwide Class allegations, since the only claim Cimoli brings on behalf of the Nationwide Class is the UTPCPL claim, which Alacer argues should be dismissed. Cimoli opposes, arguing that (1) choice-of-law principles do not bar him from bringing consumer fraud claims under the laws of California and Pennsylvania simultaneously and (2) even if they did, this issue is better resolved at the class certification stage, rather than on a motion to dismiss. The Court previously deferred ruling on Alacer's Motion to Dismiss Cimoli's UTPCPL claim in the initial Complaint, which Alacer brought on similar grounds. In that Order, the Court found that the UTPCPL "may apply extraterritorially," based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Danganan v. Guardian Protection Services, 645 Pa. 181, 186 (2018). However, the Court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cautioned that the reach of the UTPCPL is still limited by "jurisdictional principles and choice-of-law rules." Accordingly, the Court deferred on ruling on Cimoli's UTPCPL claim until after Cimoli amended his pleading, noting the following: "The remaining issues before the Court are whether a Plaintiff may advance consumer fraud claims under two different state's laws and, if not, which state's law should be applied under choice-of-law rules." In the Initial Complaint, Cimoli alleged that Alacer maintained a 130,000 square foot facility in Pennsylvania. In the First Amended Complaint, Cimoli added further allegations regarding Alacer's connections to the state, namely, (1) Alacer's Pennsylvania facility includes a 10,000 square foot office space; (2) Alacer employed a third-party graphic design firm located in Pennsylvania for the design of the Products' packaging; and (3) Alacer employs a project manager located in Pennsylvania who is involved in the packaging of the Products. Per the Court's prior order, two primary questions are before the Court in considering Alacer's Motion: (1) whether a Plaintiff may advance consumer fraud claims under two different state's laws and (2) if not, which state's law should be applied under choice-of-law rules. Both parties endeavor to answer these questions in their briefing. Alacer asserts that "the answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is California." In response, Cimoli asserts that "the answer to the first question is yes," and "the answer to the second question is that the Plaintiff can bring the [UTPCPL claim] on behalf of non-Pennsylvania residents nationwide." III. Discussion A. 12(b)(6) Motion Alacer's argues that Cimoli fails to state a claim under the UTPCPL because choice of law principles prevent a party from asserting claims under California and Pennsylvania unfair competition laws simultaneously -- even at the pleading stage -- and the choice of law analysis indicate that applying California law is proper. In response, Cimoli argues that choice of law does not prevent him from bringing unfair competition claims under California and Pennsylvania law; even if it did, choice of law would be premature at this stage; and the choice of law analysis indicates that applying Pennsylvania law is proper. 1. Whether a Plaintiff May Advance Consumer Fraud Claims Under Two Different States' Consumer Protection Laws The parties disagree whether it is appropriate for the Court to resolve the choice-of-law issue at the pleading stage, rather than waiting until the class certification stage when discovery is complete. They disagree whether Cimoli can bring claims under California and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws simultaneously under choice of law principles. Judge Freeman declines to defer the choice of law analysis until the class certification stage. Instead, she finds it appropriate to conduct the choice of law analysis at the pleading stage. She finds that under choice of law principles, Cimoli cannot bring California and Pennsylvania unfair competition claims simultaneously. The problem with Cimoli's Pennsylvania unfair competition law claim is not that it is inconsistent with his California unfair competition law claim. Rather, the choice of law analysis indicates that his Pennsylvania law claim is improper. Choice of law principles indicate that his unfair competition claim should be brought under California law -- not Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, Rule 8 is inapposite. Judge Freeman therefore proceeds to conduct a choice of law analysis to determine which state's substantive law should apply. 2. Which State's Law Should Be Applied Under Choice-of Law Rules The parties dispute whether the choice of law analysis indicates that California is proper, or whether it indicates that Pennsylvania law can be applied nationwide. Cimoli and Alacer appear to agree that the governmental interest test applies to the choice of law analysis. However, they disagree on whether the elements of the governmental interest test favor the application of California law for Cimoli's claims, or whether the analysis indicates that Pennsylvania law can be applied nationwide. Judge Freeman holds that Cimoli has failed to adequately demonstrate that the materiality inquiry regarding differences between California and Pennsylvania unfair competition laws favors the application of Pennsylvania law in the case. She also finds that Cimoli has failed to adequately allege that he can bring claims under Pennsylvania substantive law. Rather, the choice of law analysis unequivocally indicates that it is proper to apply California substantive law to his claims. Accordingly, Cimoli's UTPCPL claim is dismissed. Since amendment would be futile, the dismissal is without leave to amend. B. Motion to Strike Alacer moves to strike Cimoli's nationwide class allegations because he cannot state a claim under Pennsylvania law, and his only claim on behalf of the Nationwide Class is under the UTPCPL. Cimoli does not dispute that his only Nationwide Class claim is under Pennsylvania law, although as outlined, he argues that his Pennsylvania law claim should not be dismissed. Judge Freeman agrees with Alacer. Since she dismisses Cimoli's UTPCPL claim, and since his nationwide class allegations are based exclusively on that claim, Judge Greeman strikes Cimoli's nationwide class allegations. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman dismisses without leave to amen Cimoli's UTPCPL claim and strikes the nationwide class allegations in Cimoli's First Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r594swdp from Leagle.com. ALPINE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, MacDonald Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany MacDonald, Angel Epley and Raynn Porter, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alpine Access, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00493 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2022) seek a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and the New Hampshire's wage laws. The Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees were classified as nonexempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and were paid an hourly wage. The Defendant directly hired hourly-paid Remote Call Center Employees to work on its behalf, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees recorded their hours worked via an electronic time clock, which logged their hours into a payroll system maintained by Defendant. The Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees were unable to clock in until their computer was turned on and the systems were running. Until December of 2020, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees for an additional 3 minutes of time per shift to compensate them for the time it took to boot up their computer. From December of 2021 until January of 2022, the Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees for any extra boot up time, added the suit. Alpine Access provides outsourced in-bound call services to consumer retail clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com APPLE INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on February 4, 2022, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion for class certification in a putative class action against a multinational consumer electronics, software, and online services company (the "Company") and two of its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:19-cv-2033-TGR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022). Plaintiff, who sought to represent purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities, alleged that in late 2018, the Company made misrepresentations about the state of its business in China, the Company's most important growth market at the time, which caused the Company's stock price to fall. After granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a decision covered here, the Court granted class certification except as to the inclusion of option holders in the class, finding that the option holders' damages could not be calculated on a classwide basis with the remaining stockholders. Plaintiff alleged that the Company, primarily through its CEO, made material misrepresentations about the state of the Company's business in China, its most important market, despite being aware of facts allegedly inconsistent with the statements. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, on a November 1, 2018 investor and analyst conference call, the CEO stated that the Company's "business in China was very strong last quarter," despite allegedly knowing several conflicting facts, including that U.S.-China trade tensions were negatively impacting sales and demand for the Company's flagship product, that the Company had already begun experiencing lower traffic in its China-based retail stores, and that the Company was reducing orders from its largest suppliers and ramping down manufacturing of its flagship product ahead of the holiday season. Following the alleged misrepresentations, several public reports emerged in November and December that allegedly indicated that the Company was halting production and implementing certain "fire drill" responses to poor sales in the region. On January 2, 2019, the Company preannounced its first earnings shortfall in over 15 years, citing, among other things, the significant revenue shortfall that it experienced in China. Following this disclosure, the Company's stock price dropped from $157.92 per share on January 2 to $142.19 per share on January 3. Although most of the initial complaint's allegations were stripped away at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court found two of the allegations pertaining to misstatements made by the Company's CEO were sufficiently pled. In particular, plaintiff moved to certify a putative class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities from November 2, 2018 through January 2, 2019, and who suffered damages as a result of the Company's alleged Exchange Act violations. In opposing class certification, defendants argued that (1) plaintiff is not an adequate class representative; (2) evidence rebuts the presumption of classwide reliance; (3) even if a class were to be certified, it should not include option holders; and (4) the proposed damages model includes damages that did not result from the alleged wrongdoing. The Court rejected all but defendant's third argument. In arguing against plaintiff's adequacy as class representative, defendants pointed to numerous alleged errors plaintiff made (and corrected) in its class certification filing regarding its stock trading history and alleged losses. In response, plaintiff contended that some of the errors were clerical mistakes by counsel and submitted that its records supported the remaining information related to losses. The Court held that, absent evidence of bad faith or intent to deceive, plaintiff's "careless[]" but "minor" errors did not rise to a level that would preclude a finding of adequacy. Moreover, the Court held that defendants had not shown that plaintiff and its counsel "have conflicts or that plaintiff will not prosecute the action vigorously." Accordingly, the Court held plaintiff to be an adequate class representative. The Court next considered the issue of predominance of common questions, focusing initially on the reliance element of Section 10(b). The Court addressed whether all of the class members could invoke the Basic rebuttable presumption of reliance that would allow the members to substitute reliance on the Company's stock price for actual reliance on the Company's false statement, so long as the Company's stock traded in an efficient market. Finding that defendants failed to rebut the Basic presumption by breaking the causal link between the January 2, 2019 disclosure and the negative stock price impact, the Court held that predominance was met with respect to reliance. Finally, the Court addressed predominance with respect to damages. Plaintiff proposed the "out-of-pocket" damages methodology, which measures the difference "between the amount of stock price inflation at purchase and the amount of inflation in the stock price at sale or, if held, at the end of the Class Period[.]" While defendants argued that the methodology could not be used for the proposed class, the Court disagreed, holding that plaintiff "proposed a standard method of calculating damages that is consistent with this theory of liability and can be applied classwide." The Court did, however, agree with defendants that plaintiff's proposed damages model did not provide any method for calculating alleged damages of the Company's options holders, and that plaintiff had not adequately explained how the options holders' damages could be calculated as part of the class damages. Specifically, the Court held that "given the varying characteristics of the 2,282 distinct . . . options that were available for trading during the relevant period, [plaintiff] offers nothing in either of his reports to satisfy the Court that individualized issues pertaining to damages to option holders will not predominate." The Court therefore granted class certification in part but denied without prejudice class certification as it related to option holders, noting that "[s]hould plaintiff re-seek certification with respect to [option holders], it would behoove plaintiff to address the concerns not only pertaining to its ability to calculate classwide damages but also the issues raised by defendants regarding market efficiency for purposes of invoking the Basic assumption of reliance." The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] ARIEL COMMUNITY: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGLE' GOLDSTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ARIEL COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, DONNIE MANN and PIERRE PICKENS, Case No. 1:21-CV-000615 (M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification until set by the Court. On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her collective action and class action complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants, Ariel Community Care, LLC, Donnie Mann and Pierre Pickens. The Plaintiff amended her Complaint on October 21, 2021. On November 1, 2021, the Court entered a text order adopting the Parties' setting forth various deadlines including the deadline to move for class certification on March 15, 2022 and the response and reply thereto. The Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the FLSA collective but has not yet moved for class certification under Rule 23. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGhjjR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP 2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Telephone: (336) 333-9899 Facsimile: (336) 333-9894 E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel C. Smith, Esq. E-mail: nsmith@bhspa.com BAGWELL HOLT SMITH P.A. 111 Cloister Ct., Suite 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone: (919) 401-0062 Facsimile: (919) 403-0063 BIMBO BAKEHOUSE: Brown Bread Not Made of Whole Grains, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rabia Hamidani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bimbo Bakehouse LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01026 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges that despite the labeling of the Bimbo's Product as "Brown Bread," with a dark brown color, and visible pieces of grain, the Product is not made mainly whole grains. The representations include "The Cheesecake Factory At Home," "Our Famous 'Brown Bead,'" "Wheat Sandwich Loaf," "No Artificial Preservatives or Flavors," and a dark-colored loaf of bread with visible pieces of grains on the crust. This is revealed in part from the fiber content shown on the Nutrition Facts as 1g per serving, or 4% of the Daily Value. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false or misleading, says the suit. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, added the suit. As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than $3.99, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions. Bimbo Bakehouse manufactures, labels, markets, and sells "Brown Bread" under The Cheesecake Factory brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com BROCK PIERCE: Must Face TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that as TCPA.World readers know, TCPA class actions related to political messages are something of a growing pastime. If you're a Republican, you sue Democratic campaigns who pester you with unwanted messages. If you're a Democrat, you sue Republican campaigns - or perhaps the Republican National Committee - for such messages. The fun part is that since all candidates and campaigns seem to be robocalling people these days regardless of party affiliation, everyone can join in - and there's seemingly no limit to the number of lawsuits that can arise out of campaign season (which is just about to start.) Well a new TCPA case out of Puerto Rico should give political candidates a bit of pause -it turns out these folks can be PERSONALLY SUED for messages sent by their campaigns. And that's a bit of a stunner. In Rowan v. Pierce, CIVIL NO. 20-1648 (RAM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14547 (D.P.R. January 21, 2022) the Court refused to dismiss former presidential candidate Brock Pierce from a robocall lawsuit arising out of campaign messages promoting his failed bid to be President. Since Brock Pierce was a child movie star and a crypto millionaire, he felt he was well-qualified to lead our nation back from the COVID pandemic - and who's to say he was wrong - and decided to use prerecorded calls to let everyone know about it. Unfortunately for him, of course, the TCPA bans prerecorded calls to cell phones - even voicemails and even political messages - without express consent of the called party. And the TCPA is enforceable in private class action lawsuits that can net $500-$1,500 a call, as TCPAWorld readers well know. But what is less well known, is whether candidates can be personally sued for messages from their campaigns. Usually these suits are focused solely on the campaign and do not seek to personally name the candidate. In fact, while I can think of suits where a platform used by a candidate was sued - and even the owners of the platform were personally sued - I can't think of another time a candidate was personally sued for a campaign message. Well the Rowan court had no problem with the concept and held that Pierce could be personally liable because the complaint alleged Pierce: (1) collected independent voter lists to gather voters' phone numbers; (2) created and controlled the content of the prerecorded calls; (3) determined to whom the calls should be made; (4) authorized the prerecorded calls; and (5) sent the prerecorded messages to individuals without first obtaining their consent to receive them. So if it turns out Pierce wasn't personally involved with these efforts then he can't be held liable. But if he was. . . Pierce will have t pay $500 (or more) for each call that violated the TCPA - and that could cost Pierce literally dozens of bitcoin (or millions of that less valuable currency known as dollars). So there you go folks, just like CEOs and corporate officers, directors, employees and compliance staff, candidates can also be personally liable for messages sent under their control. Will this slow the rampant scourge of political robocalls this year? Probably not. But it should make for a bunch of fun political TCPA suits. I'll keep an eye on this for you. [GN] BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sternberg Suit Over SPAC Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC GILBERT v. OPHIR STERNBERG, MARTHA STEWART, ALLISON GREENFIELD, MANN, VIVIAN LOPEZ-BLANCO, ANDREW TAUB, and BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2022-0185 (Del. Ch., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges that Opes and its advisors did not bother to conform the post-de-special purpose acquisition company (de-SPAC) entity's bylaws with the Delaware General Corporation Law in an effort to rush the completion of the de-SPAC transaction. Allegedly, Section 228(a) of the DGCL ("Section 228(a)") specifies that Delaware corporations cannot restrict the right of stockholders to act via consent, either written or made in an electronic transmission, unless such prohibition is set forth in a corporation's certificate of incorporation. The Plaintiff brings this action for a judicial declaration that the Bylaws impermissibly limit stockholders' rights in violation of Delaware law. In recent years, special purpose acquisition companies, or "SPACs", have grown in popularity as an alternative to conducting an initial public offering -- i.e., the conventional process through which a private company is taken public. SPACs like Opes Acquisition Corp. ("Opes") operate as publicly traded shell - 1 -companies that attempt to effect a reverse merger with private companies, which thereby gain listing on a stock exchange (the "de-SPAC"). Opes completed a de-SPAC merger with BurgerFi International, LLC on December 16, 2020 ("the de-SPAC Transaction"), with the surviving entity named BurgerFi. This alleged meteoric rise in the popularity of SPACs has brought with it a wide range of legal violations, some equitable and some statutory. The founders of SPACs often turn to the same law firms to create their multiple SPACs. These law firms, enjoying huge fees for essentially using the same form for each SPAC, may multiply the same mistakes on Delaware law issues over and over again. In some cases, these mistakes even stay uncorrected after the de-SPAC and taint the resulting operating company. BurgerFi's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the Charter) says nothing about stockholder action via written consent. BurgerFi's Amended and Restated Bylaws (the Bylaws), however, purport to prohibit stockholder action via written consent. This limitation violates Section 228(a) and is thus invalid. While Opes was hardly the only SPAC to use facially invalid bylaws, the fact that BurgerFi stockholders have a current statutory right to act by written consent -- which Defendants are publicly denying and blocking through the Bylaws -- requires immediate corrective action. Perhaps invalidating the Bylaws here will prompt other non-compliant SPAC entities to conform their bylaws to Delaware law, says the suit. Plaintiff Gilbert is a stockholder of the Company. BurgerFi owns over 100 fast casual restaurants focused on creating premium hamburgers. The Company in its current form came about as a result of the de-SPAC Transaction. While the Company amended Opes’s initial bylaws in connection with the de-SPAC Transaction, the majority of the bylaws, including the challenged provision, remained unchanged. The current Bylaws became effective as of December 16, 2020.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newton Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1441 Broadway, 6th Floor No. 6161 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of two classes: -- all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Butterfly Network, Inc. (NYSE:BFLY) between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021; and -- holders of Butterfly common stock as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021, to consider the merger between Longview Acquisition Corp. and Butterfly and entitled to vote on the merger The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Butterfly is a digital health company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes ultrasound imaging solutions in the U.S. and internationally. If you suffered a loss due to Butterfly Network, Inc.'s misconduct, click here. What is this Case About: Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY) According to the complaint, on February 12, 2021, Longview shareholders voted to approve the merger with Butterfly, and on February 16, 2021, changed its name to Butterfly Network, Inc. and began trading on the NYSE. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Additionally, the Proxy and defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Butterfly had overstated its post-merger business and financial prospects; (ii) Butterfly's financial projections failed to take into account the COVID-19 pandemic's broad consequences, which included healthcare logistical challenges, and medical personnel fatigue; and (iii) Butterfly's gross margin levels and revenue projections were less sustainable than the Company had represented. On November 15, 2021, Butterfly announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2021. In a press release, Butterfly advised, among other things, that the Company's total gross margin for the quarter was negative 35% and that the Company expected its revenue for 2021 to be $60-$62 million, significantly below the guidance it gave out in Q1 of $76-80 million. On an earnings call the same day, Butterfly's CEO stated that the Company's results were impacted by "healthcare logistical challenges, and doctor, nurse, and medical technician fatigue concurrent with COVID conditions and its broad consequences." On this news, Butterfly's stock price fell $1.08, or 12.55%, to close at $7.52 per share on November 15, 2021. Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Butterfly Networks, Inc. (BFLY) between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021, or held Butterfly common stock on February 12, 2021, you have until April 18, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Contact us to learn more: Aaron Dumas (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com Shareholder Information Form About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Butterfly Network, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] C.H. ROBINSON: JMR Bid for Class Status Nixed without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JMR FARMS, Inc. et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-00879-PJS-HB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. C.H. Robinson is an American Fortune 500 provider of multimodal transportation services and third-party logistics. The company offers freight transportation, transportation management, brokerage and warehousing. It offers truckload, less than truckload, air freight, intermodal, and ocean transportation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vHnq3F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut St., Unit 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (855) 984-8100 The Defendant is represented by: Mark W. Wallin, Esq. Christina M. Janice, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP - and - Patrick J. Rooney, Esq. FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON P.A. CABALETTA BIO: Faces Patterson Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA LYNNE PATTERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CABALETTA BIO, INC., STEVEN A. NICHTBERGER, ANUP MARDA, DAVID J. CHANG, CATHERINE BOLLARD, BRIAN DANIELS, RICHARD HENRIQUES, and MARK SIMON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00737 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Cabaletta common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 24, 2019; and/or (b) Cabaletta securities between October 24, 2019 and December 13, 2021, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 30, 2019, Cabaletta filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on October 24, 2019. On or about October 24, 2019, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Cabaletta's common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the trading symbol "CABA". On October 25, 2019, Cabaletta filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Cabaletta conducted the IPO, selling approximately 6.8 million shares of common stock priced at $11.00 per share, for approximate proceeds of $69.5 million to the Company after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, says the suit. On December 14, 2021, Cabaletta issued a press release "report[ing] top-line data on biologic activity from the two lowest dose cohorts in the DesCAARTes™ Phase 1 clinical trial of DSG3-CAART for the treatment of patients with mucosal Pemphigus Vulgaris (mPV)." Among other results, Cabaletta reported that two cohort participants had "disease activity scores that worsened after DSG3-CAART infusion" and thus "reduced or discontinued selected systemic therapies prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, as required by the protocol", while another participant "subsequently received systemic medication to improve disease activity after DSG3-CAART infusion." On this news, Cabaletta's stock price fell $9.15 per share, or 73.14%, to close at $3.36 per share on December 14, 2021. As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Cabaletta common stock continues to trade below the $11.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Cabaletta common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO, and/or Cabaletta securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Cabaletta, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery and development of engineered T cell therapies for patients with B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. The Company's proprietary technology utilizes chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) T cells that are designed to selectively bind and eliminate B cells, which produce disease-causing autoantibodies or pathogenic B cells. Cabaletta's lead product candidate is DSG3-CAART, which is in Phase I clinical trial for the treatment of mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering skin disease, and Hemophilia A with Factor VIII alloantibodies. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Gonen Haklay, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com ghaklay@rosenlegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, ET AL., v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Taylor Anders and Courtney Walburger ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this litigation as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on behalf of a class defined as follows: "All present and future women students and potential students at Fresno State who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in intercollegiate athletics there;" 2. Appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); 3. Appointing the proposed class representative as representatives of the class; and 4. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just. California State University, Fresno is a public university in Fresno, California. It is one of 23 campuses in the California State University system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNEqI8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. Cary Joshi, Esq. Joshua I. Hammack, Esq. Lori Bullock, Esq. Nicole L. Ballante, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 Facsimile: (510) 436-0291 E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com cjoshi@baileyglasser.com jhammack@baileyglasser.com lbullock@baileyglasser.com nballante@baileyglasser.com - and - Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN P.O. Box 1311 Monterey, CA 93942 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com CANDID CARE: Thomas Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN THOMAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CANDID CARE CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-05472-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): (a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA against Defendant Candid Care Co. On behalf of Representative Plaintiff and others similarly situated; (b) Approving Representative Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent to join form; (c) Directing that notice be sent at Representative Plaintiff's expense by United States mail, email, and text message to the following class: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt telephone- based customer service employees employed by Defendant at any time in the three years preceding the date of the filing of this Action to the present, who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek and in the same workweek booted up their computer, logged into software programs, or reviewed emails prior to the start of their shift , or monitored or responded to messages on Slack." (d) Directing Defendant to provide within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma- delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above that includes their full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, personal email addresses, and phone numbers; and (e) Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any potential opt-in plaintiff. The Plaintiff and other members of the purported class are hourly, non-exempt telephone-based customer service employees. Defendant's rules require that Class Members be fully logged in and ready to be in queue to take customer calls at the exact start time of their scheduled shift. As such, Class Members must boot up their computers, log into the different software applications they need to perform their primary job duties, and respond to any emails or other outstanding issues prior to the start of their scheduled shift. Moreover, Class Members use a messaging application called "Slack" to communicate with co-workers. Defendant expects Class Members to respond to Slack messages, even if the Class Member is not currently on-the-clock. The Defendant allegedly does not pay Class Members for any of this time spent performing compensable work. The Defendant makes and sells products to straighten teeth. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34bnJZ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. (0074304) 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CANTEX CONTINUING: Wallace Suit Seeks OT Pay for Medical Staff -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WALLACE AND KIPP CLAYTON ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CANTEX CONTINUING CARE NETWORK LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00187 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2022) is a class action seeking to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that during their employment with Defendant, they often worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA. According to its website, Cantex provides transitional and residential healthcare services in approximately 36 Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) throughout the state of Texas, including facilities in San Antonio Texas. Cantex also has SNFs located in the states of Louisiana and New Mexico. Mr. Wallace worked for Defendant as a full-time Physical Therapist (PT) from April 2016 to May 2019 and again from January 2020 through the present. As a PT, Plaintiff Wallace always worked for Defendant at its Sorrento Skilled Nursing Facility located at 2739 Babcock Road, San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Clayton worked for Defendant as a full-time Occupational Therapist (OT) from March of 2015 or 2016 through the present. As an OT, Plaintiff Clayton worked for Defendant primarily at its Sorrento Skilled Nursing Facility located at 2739 Babcock Road, San Antonio, Texas, but also periodically at its Stone Oak Skilled Nursing Facility located at 19638 Stone Oak parkway, San Antonio, Texas, and at its Windemere at Westover Hills Skilled Nursing Facility located at 11106 Christus Hills, San Antonio, Texas when those facilities are understaffed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Burke, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 338-2560 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: mburke@schneiderwallace.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT: Mitchell FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CHRISEANNA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC and FREDRICK JACOBS, Case No. 2022-CC-000138, was removed from the County Court in and for Marion County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00108 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Celebrity's Management Company, LLC is a hospitality company in Florida. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ashwin R. Trehan, Esq. Alyssa Castelli, Esq. SPIRE LAW, LLC 2572 W. State Road 426, Suite 2088 Oviedo, FL 32765 E-mail: ashwin@spirelawfirm.com alyssa@spirelawfirm.com CHULA VISTA: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Sartin Suit With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed with prejudice the case, JOSEPH SARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHULA VISTA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1890 (E.D. Wis.). I. Background The Chula Vista Resort & Waterpark is a resort in Wisconsin Dells comprised of a hotel, condominium residences, a golf course, and indoor and outdoor waterparks. It is owned by Chula Vista, Inc., of which Mike Kaminski is the chairman and CEO. Plaintiffs Kenneth Riche, Robert Silberman, and Tony Edwards all owned condominiums at the resort during the alleged class period. Riche and Silberman have since sold their units. The Defendants' proposed findings of fact do not state whether Edwards still owns a unit. He is referenced in the proposed findings of fact only to say that he "is an experienced real estate investor, having owned hundreds of properties over his career." Plaintiffs Joseph Sartin and Scott Willock never personally owned any unit. Rather, they were members of Abbsandra 2622, LLC, which previously owned a unit. Abbsandra 2622, LLC is not a party to the action. Owners of condominium units within the resort may participate in a rental program operated by CVR Management, LLC. Abbsandra LLC as well as Riche, Silberman, and Edwards entered into to a rental management agreement with CVR regarding the rental of their condominiums. Under the rental management agreement between condominium owners and CVR, CVR had sole discretion to set rental rates. At the heart of the litigation is "The Club," which Chula Vista created in 2009 and announced at that year's meeting of condominium owners. The Club charged members a membership fee of between $5,000 and $10,000, which was paid to Chula Vista. In exchange, Club members received discounts on condominium rentals as well as on hotel rooms, food, beverages, spa services, golf, and resort merchandise. Chula Vista retained all Club membership fees. The Plaintiffs' claim is, in effect, that The Club deprived them of rental income they otherwise would have received. In their view, they suffered the costs of The Club (in the form of discounts on condominium rentals) without enjoying any share of the benefits (the membership fees). The Plaintiffs filed the proposed class action complaint on Nov. 30, 2018 and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of a new rental management agreement. The complaint includes, in relevant part, claims for conversion, theft by fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The complaint also includes a claim for an "unconscionable contract of adhesion," which relates to the 2018 rental management agreement. Following all parties consenting to the full jurisdiction of the Court, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 22, 2019, the Court denied the motion. It subsequently granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act but denied the motion on all other grounds. Currently before the Court are numerous motions. The Defendants seek summary judgment and to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert. The Plaintiffs seek to exclude the Defendants' experts and to certify a class. The parties also filed motions seeking to restrict access to numerous documents. II. Discussion Judge Duffin holds that it is easy to recognize why the Plaintiffs feel they were wronged. The Defendants sold discounted access to their condominium units without cutting the Plaintiffs in on the fees. The Plaintiffs believe that, when members of The Club rented the Plaintiffs' units at a discount, but for The Club those members would have rented their units at a market rate. Thus, the Plaintiffs believe that it's only fair that they should get some of the membership fees that Chula Vista collected. But to obtain relief in Court, a party must have standing to pursue a claim, the Defendant must be plausibly liable, and the perceived wrong must be presented in terms of a cognizable claim for relief. Judge Duffin finds that Joseph Sartin and Scott Willock are not proper Plaintiffs in the action because they did not personally own a condominium unit at Chula Vista. Rather, they were merely members of an LLC that owned a condominium. Therefore, they must be dismissed as plaintiffs. Mike Kaminski is not a proper Defendant because the Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence that any allegedly unlawful action he took was outside his capacity as an official of Chula Vista, Inc. Therefore, Judge Duffin must dismiss all claims asserted against him and must dismiss him as a Defendant. The remaining Plaintiffs' civil conversion claims (Counts 1 and 2) fail because they have not presented evidence that any Defendant withheld from them any property in which they had a possessory interest. No fiduciary relationship existed between the Plaintiffs and any Defendant, and therefore the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty (Counts 12 and 13) and constructive fraud (Counts 7 and 8) claims fail. And the Plaintiffs' claims for theft by fraud (Counts 4 and 5) and misrepresentation (Counts 15, 16, 19 and 20) fail because the Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of false representation by a Defendant. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief regarding the 2018 rental management agreement (Count 30) is moot because the 2018 agreement has been superseded by the 2020 rental management agreement. III. Order For these reasons, Judge Duffin granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He granted the motion for summary judgment filed by CVR Management LLC, Chula Vista Inc., and Michael Kaminski. The Plaintiffs' complaint and the action are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk will enter judgment accordingly. Judge Duffin denied as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Karen Romrell. He dismissed as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Defendants' experts Richard Bero and David Sangree and their motion to certify class. Judge Duffin, finding good cause, granted the motions to restrict documents to case participants (ECF Nos. 122; 127; 134; 142; 148; 155). A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4yzz2bem from Leagle.com. COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Faces Workers' Class Action After Cyber Attack ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Erickson, writing for Missoulian, reports that a spokesperson for Community Medical Center has responded to a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of employees who allege that they were underpaid by the hospital. The lawsuit was filed in Missoula County District Court on behalf of hundreds of workers who allege that the hospital inaccurately counted hours for many of them and hasn't fixed the problem. The Montana Nurses Association is not a party to the lawsuit, but represents 257 nurses at Community Medical Center for collective bargaining purposes. Megan Condra, the director of marketing and community relations at the hospital in Missoula, said the hospital is disappointed the union has taken legal action. "Particularly because this issue stems from a ransomware attack with a third-party vendor," Condra said. "In December, we learned that the Kronos Enterprise System, our cloud-based timekeeping platform, went down nationwide due to a ransomware issue on the national Kronos system. This situation impacted all companies and employees worldwide that utilize the cloud-based version of this payroll system." The hospital had to implement manual entry procedures, she said. "Every employee continued to be paid every pay cycle as we worked through this unfortunate situation," she said. "In some instances, employees were overpaid and in other instances they were underpaid, largely resulting from delayed pay premiums and differentials." The hospital also worked individually with employees who worked additional hours beyond their regular schedule to supplement their extra earnings as quickly as possible, she said. The lawsuit alleges that after Dec. 12, the hospital simply paid employees for the same number of hours they had worked in the previous pay period, even though many employees may have actually worked more hours. "When we regained access to the Kronos system in late January, our facility timekeepers begun the reconciliation process going back to the initial impacted pay period of December 11, 2021," Condra said. "That process was recently completed, and the final data reconciliation is now underway to address any remaining wage discrepancies." After the problem was identified, the hospital immediately began communicating to all employees and encouraged them to go to human resources if they were concerned about their paycheck, Condra said. "And we performed initial, estimated reconciliations for immediate payment on an individual basis in cases of financial hardship," Condra said. "In an additional attempt to proactively ensure staff were paid as accurately as possible, a reconciliation was completed after the first two pay dates with any identified underpayments being made to staff." The lawsuit alleges that a large number of CMC employees are individually owed hundreds or thousands of dollars in unpaid wages. Vicky Byrd, a nurse who is the CEO of the Montana Nurses Association, released a statement saying the hospital needs to resolve the issue immediately because many workers can't afford to miss even a partial paycheck. "Since this process was completed, we know of no employee who has been underpaid by thousands of dollars as alleged," Condra said. "In fact, at this point, it appears there may be at least as many overpayments as there are underpayments, a fact that is conveniently ignored in these ongoing and disappointing allegations." A final data reconciliation is underway to address any wage discrepancies, she noted, and the hospital has said it will hire an independent auditor to review and validate the accuracy of "this extraordinary complex payroll reconciliation process." She anticipates that will begin in the next 30 days. "We are so appreciative of our team who has worked around the clock for the past two months to address the impact of this malicious ransomware attack on our employees," Condra said. "Although this criminal act was completely beyond our control, we will continue to work nonstop toward a final resolution of this matter. Ensuring our caregivers are compensated accurately for serving our patients and community is of utmost importance to us." Community Medical Center is owned by LifePoint Health, a Tennessee-based for-profit corporation. [GN] CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN L.L.C., d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER and THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification. According to the complaint, CLC's response raises a class-wide issue: whether the "retainers" it collects for its credit repair services are exactly what they sound like -- down payments that violate Section 1679b(b) of CROA. The Plaintiff contends this class-wide merit issue will be resolved in his favor because each retainer is calculated as a percentage of the total costs of the credit repair services to be performed, before the customer entered into CLC's Engagement Agreement. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vADjJk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Rapp, Esq. A.J. Stecklein, Esq. Matthew S. Robertson, Esq. STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED 748 Ann Ave Kansas City, KS 66101 Telephone: (913) 371-0727 Facsimile: (913) 371-0727 E-mail: mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com CUMBERLAND VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Optional Masking Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Schmidt, writing for WHTM, reports that a group of parents is suing the Cumberland Valley School District for making masks optional. The class-action lawsuit is a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act. The parents named 'John Doe and Jane Doe' in the lawsuit claim their kids cannot attend school in person if other students are not masked. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener Law Commonwealth says some students are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The biggest question he said is "whether it is a reasonable accommodation for these children's disabilities." Does the district think the lawsuit is a reasonable request? abc27 reached out to Cumberland Valley on Monday, Feb. 21. The district responded, saying, "We are aware of the lawsuit that was recently filed against the District. As requested by our District Solicitor, we do not comment on matters of pending litigation." [GN] DELOITTE LLP: Gordon Ball Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Gordon Ball LLC (www.gordonball.com) announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased The Southern Company (SOUTHERN) (NYSE: SO) common stock. The case, Formby, et al, v. Deloitte, 1:22-cv-00670-WMR, is pending in the United States District Court of Georgia, Northern District. The class action is brought against Deloitte, LLP and Deloitte & Touche, LLP who have been SOUTHERN and Mississippi Power Company outside auditors since 2002. The complaint alleges that Deloitte violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act including SEC rule 10b-5 and Section 17(a)(1)-(3) of the Securities Act regarding SOUTHERN financial condition and/or concealing material adverse omissions from investors about the true status of its investment in the Kemper County Energy Facility Construction Project in Kemper County, Mississippi. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of SOUTHERN, you may, no later than April 25, 2022, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Gordon Ball LLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel. If you wish to discuss your rights, please contact Gordon Ball LLC at (865) 525-7028. A copy of this complaint is available on our website www.gordonball.com. [GN] DOGFISH HEAD: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Struck in Contreras --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTRERAS, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOGFISH HEAD COMPANIES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09695-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order striking Schedule for Class Certification Briefing. In advance of any motion for class certification, the parties are directed to comply with Section III of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, including filing pre-motion letters, as appropriate, Judge Torres says. Dogfish Head operates as a brewing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tm1TLa at no extra charge.[CC] DT EMPLOYER: Kraut Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ERICKA KRAUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC; DT MANAGEMENT, LLC; DOUBLETREE EMPLOYER, LLC; HILTON EMPLOYER, INC.; HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER, LLC; EMBASSY SUITES EMPLOYER, LLC; CURIO EMPLOYER, LLC; HAMPTONS INNS EMPLOYER, LLC; HLT CONRAD DOMESTIC EMPLOYER, LLC; HLT CONRAD DOMESTIC, LLC; CONRAD EMPLOYER, LLC; WALDORF-ASTORIA EMPLOYER, LLC; HOMEWOOD SUITES EMPLOYER, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2132004, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00349 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California' Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods and pay meal period premiums at correct rates; failure to provide rest periods and pay rest period premiums at correct rates; failure to pay all wages due during employment, including minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; failure to pay all wages due to terminated employees; unfair business practices; and civil penalties. DT Employer LLC is a limited liability company in California. DT Management, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Doubletree Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Hilton Employer, Inc. is a limited liability company in California. Hilton Hotel Employer, LLC is a hospitality company in California. Embassy Suites Employer, LLC is a hotel chain company in California. Curio Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Hamptons Inns Employer, LLC is a hospitality company in California. HLT Conrad Domestic Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. HLT Conrad Domestic, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Conrad Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Waldorf-Astoria Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. Homewood Suites Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cynthia L. Filla, Esq. Connie L. Chen, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Cynthia.Filla@jacksonlewis.com Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Steam Line Failure ---------------------------------------------------------- Marina Waters, writing for TimesNews, reports that Eastman officials have determined the company's Jan. 31 rupture was caused by a "failure" in a steam line fitting. There is no evidence so far of any steam system operation deficiency, a Feb. 21 press release from Eastman Chemical Co. stated. The release also said, according to its preliminary conclusions, air test results following the rupture show no detectable asbestos. Eastman is also conducting an inspection of the steam line system and working with a third party to evaluate the results of the inspection, according to the press release. "We are focused on both the investigation and safe start-up of portions of the plant impacted by the steam line failure," said Mark Bogle, Eastman vice president and Tennessee Operations site leader. "Keeping our workers and the community safe is the most important responsibility we have. We are grateful to the Eastman team and our contract partners, and we appreciate the support we continue to receive from the community." A high pressure steam line failure at the plant sent noise, vibrations and eventually debris throughout the city on Jan. 31. Later that day, officials said initial testing of the debris showed that at least some of the material damaged in the event contained asbestos. According to the release, Eastman has since distributed almost 700 car wash vouchers, visited 500 nearby residents, mailed 300 letters with the debris testing results to residents in the Green Acres neighborhood and conducted more than 180 air monitoring samples in Green Acres. Eastman's steam system delivers power throughout the plant. According to the release, Eastman inspects its steam piping on a regular basis. The company is conducting an inspection of its steam distribution system "to ensure integrity of its operations," the release stated. A Knoxville-based law firm filed a class-action lawsuit that includes at least one Kingsport resident as a plaintiff. The filing, according to documents from Sullivan County Circuit Court, includes claims for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability for "ultrahazardous" activity. According to a press release from the law firm, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, attorneys also joined a physician and environmental consultant to conduct a town hall meeting with local residents to hear their concerns following the steam line failure. Eastman is releasing updates on the rupture. That page is available at www.eastman.com. The community can also contact Eastman by calling the Care Line at (423) 229-CARE. [GN] EL SEGUNDO, CA: Faces McDaniel Suit Over Discrimination, Harassment ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMY McDANIEL, an individual v. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a public entity; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-01351 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the City of El Segundo, in connection with their approved, adopted, and ratified policies constituting a continuing pattern and practice of retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and intentional violations of the rights guaranteed to Plaintiff under the United States Constitution and California state law, and public policy. The Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and other individuals similarly situated, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed with the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD). The Plaintiff began working for the ESPD as a civilian Police Assistant in 2014. Throughout her employment with the City, Plaintiff performed her various responsibilities in an exemplary fashion. In addition to her office job duties, the Plaintiff played an integral role in the development and management of the ESPD’s social media and website. The Plaintiff built the website for the ESPD and ran its social media accounts. In her role, the Plaintiff became well known as the person who exclusively handles the ESPD's social media and website. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was completely ostracized by Command Staff and their "chosen" and favored employees. The Plaintiff continued to work the equivalent of two jobs without rest or meal breaks, and no progress was made to provide her with the training that her predecessor received. Exhausted by the stress and hostility, Plaintiff returned to the lower paying position of Police Assistant, even though she preferred the Crime Prevention Analyst I position. Even after being constructively demoted, the retaliatory conduct continued and still continues, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. Aleksandra Urban, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2211 Facsimile: (310) 322-2252 E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com thomas@kallaw.com aleksandra@kallaw.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation ------------------------------------------------------------- LAKINDAL SMITH and KEITH MARTIN, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC, t/a FAMILY DOLLAR, and DOLLAR TREE, INC. t/a FAMILY DOLLAR, Case No. 1:22-cv-00208 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2022) arises out of the recently disclosed rodent infestation of a distribution center operated by Defendant Family Dollar in West Memphis, Arkansas. The warehouse stored and shipped products, including products that were intended for human and animal consumption. As a result of the alleged rodent infestation, Plaintiffs and thousands of Class Members who purchased these products were subjected to actual harm, the lawsuit says. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on February 18, 2022, that Family Dollar stores in six states may have received products from a distribution center in West Memphis, Arkansas that were contaminated by a rodent infestation. The agency warning includes items purchased since January of 2021, such as food for the Plaintiffs' and their family, cosmetics, vitamins and dietary supplements, over-the-counter medications, surgical masks, feminine hygiene products, and contact lens cleaning solutions, and toiletry items among others. The FDA is asking Family Dollar customers to contact the company if they purchased any of these products. The agency also recommends discarding any medical items immediately and is working with the store chain to begin a product recall. Family Dollar has issued a voluntary recall which covered numerous FDA regulated products, including medicine, pet food and cosmetics, that were sold between January 2021 and February 2022 in Family Dollar stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated bring claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. Family Dollar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dollar Tree. Dollar Tree is a Fortune 200 company and a leading operator of discount variety stores in North America for more than thirty years. The company operates more than 15,500 stores across the 48 contiguous states and five Canadian provinces, supported by a coast-to-coast logistics network and more than 193,000 associates. Family Dollar operates a distribution center in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Ste. 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro jlangone@wiselaw.pro - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com J. Luke Sanderson* - and - J. Luke Sanderson, Esq. WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, PC 208 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 523-1844 E-mail: Luke@wcwslaw.com FANATICS INC: Montrose Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE MONTROSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., Case No. 16-2022-CA-000436, was removed from the 4th Judicial. Circuit, Duval County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 25, 2022. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00219 to the proceeding. On or about January 26, 2022, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida. The Complaint alleges that Fanatics violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act, in connection with charging Plaintiff a "Handling Fee" and breached the contract between the parties. The Defendant denies the allegations and relief sought in the Class Action Complaint. Fanatics is an American online retailer of licensed sportswear, sports equipment, and merchandise. It was formed in 1995 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendant is represented by: Lorence J. Bielby, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 222-6891 Facsimile: (850) 681-0207 E-mail: BielbyL@gtlaw.com HoffmannM@gtlaw.com - and - Mark F. Bideau GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 650-7900 Facsimile: (561) 561-6222 E-mail: BideauM@gtlaw.com ThomasD@gtlaw.com - and - Stephanie Peral, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue Suite 4400 Miami FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 E-mail: perals@gtlaw.com collazoe@gtlaw.com FCA US: Court Adjourns March 11 Settlement Conference Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order regarding stipulation setting schedule for class certification briefing and pretrial Deadlines: Settlement conference summary deadline set for March 11, 2022 and settlement conference set for March 21, 2022 are adjourned without date. New dates to be set, Judge Berg issues. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[CC] FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Averts Athletes' Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Braden Keith, writing for Swim Swam, reports that both plaintiffs and defendants in the ongoing legal dispute between the International Swimming League and FINA have scored victories in court in the battle toward establishing a class certification, which would dramatically increase the stakes of the case, because plaintiffs would essentially be suing on behalf of a much larger number of athltes. The case revolves around whether or not FINA behaved in violation of anti-trust law with regard to athlete participation in a 2018 Energy for Swim meet that was a precursor event to the International Swimming League. It claims violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which forbids organizations from engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim tortious interference with contractual relations or prospective economic relations, for collusion to unreasonably restrict competition, and for monopoly. While the International Swimming League is not a party to the case, it is using the three named plaintiffs, Tom Shields, Katinka Hosszu, and Michael Andrew, as a surrogate in court. ISL has also filed a related case, and as such is named as an interested party in court filings. The ISL's founder Konstantin Grigorishin is also funding the plaintiffs' case. FINA EVISCERATED BY JUDGE, ORDERED TO PAY COSTS The side of the athletes and the pro league won a significant financial victory when US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley admonished FINA for a filing made to the court. The filing, which was in response to what FINA characterized as a "change in the Plaintiffs' expert's damages theory," included revelation of confidential information from settlement negotiations between the two sides. FINA said that they felt it was okay to disclose that information because the communications occurred between the parties and after settlement conference proceedings had ended, which the judge rejected. FINA further argued that "confidentiality rules should not be used to conceal unethical conduct," which the judge also rejected. FINA's goal with the filing was to argue that the Plaintiffs are not adequate class representations, according to the order to strike submitted by the judge. The judge wrote a scathing conclusion that accused FINA of that called it the most "egregious" violation of a rule regarding disclosure of settlement conversation that it has seen in at least a decade. This Court has conducted more than 1000 settlement conferences over the past 10 years. During that time it has never witnessed a violation of ADR Local Rule 7-4 as egregious as FINA's here. Not only did that violation damage Plaintiffs by requiring them to file a motion to strike and reply, it led to the loss of a settlement magistrate judge who had been working with the parties for over 22 months. FINA's insistence that it can unilaterally decide what settlement communications can be disclosed has thus wasted precious public resources in addition to the settlement judge's heroic efforts at facilitating settlement. Further, FINA's conduct has damaged the entire ADR program of the Northern District of California and thus the administration of justice. The success of settlement negotiations "depends largely on the willingness of the parties to freely disclose their intentions, desires, and the strengths and weaknesses of their case; and upon the ability of the [third party] to maintain a neutral position while carefully preserving the confidences that have been revealed." In re County of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Sadly, as a result of FINA's breach, parties will have reason to question whether the promise of confidentiality will actually be honored. Paperwork submitted by the athletes' lawyers included costs of $136,799. CLASS AGREEMENT REJECTED The court ruled that the Plaintiffs had not adequately provided support for acting as a class when seeking damages from FINA. They did, however, find that in seeking injunctive relief, they had met that adequacy, because in the case of injunction, the interest of all athletes moved together. Among the cases cited were White v. NCAA, where student-athletes argued that the NCAA's grant-in-aid rule put a limit on student-athletes' earnings. In that case, the courts agreed with the logic of the argument by the NCAA against certification of a class, but ultimately said that the specifics of the Plaintiffs' damages claim supported a class. In this case, though, the court said that the Plaintiffs' claim was different -- the argument was made that there was a "fixed pot" of money, and that swimmers lost the opportunity to compete with others for a share of a "fixed pot" of money." Whereas in the NCAAs case, there was "unfettered discretion" to limit money (in other words, prevent athletes from seeking compensation from outside parties and brands), in this case, it was a zero-sum: that some athletes gain and others lose, according to the Plaintiffs' argument. That means that all athletes do not stand to gain in the same direction as they did in the NCAA's case, so the court rejected that as a supporting ruling for class action. The court also pointed to the ownership by Andrew and Hosszu of league teams, plus funding of the plaintiffs' case by Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the ISL, creates a "risk of divided loyalties," which also undercuts their request for class status. The court did say, though, that these things were not a concern with regards to the injunctive relief sought, which allows Plaintiffs to file as a class to stop FINA from interfering with athletes participating in ISL via threats of suspension. In this case, the courts have decided that the injunctive class is uniform enough to be granted, but the damages class, which seeks financial compensation from FINA, is not. This does not rule on the merits of the claims by the Plaintiffs against FINA, it just limits their ability to act as a class that represents a much broader set of athletes. That will serve as a huge blow to the Plaintiffs and the ISL, because class status would have resulted in a substantially higher calculated damage if they won their case against FINA. OWNERSHIP STAKES REVEALED Among the more interesting revelations in the judge's orders are the first public disclosure of ownership stakes in the league's teams. Michael Andrew and his parents own 40% of the New York Breakers, a team that Michael Andrew no longer races for, his mom Tina is no longer the general manager of, and his dad Peter is no longer the head coach of. It also reveals that Hosszu is a 40% owner of Team Iron. Through discussion of whether team ownership is a common characteristic among all class members, it is also revealed that two swimmers other than Andrew and Hosszu also have an ownership interest in an ISL team. The court said that this gave those owners a $5,000 incentive to support a settlement with the class, even if it is not fair to all members of the class. The documents also reveal that two other athletes have ownership stakes in teams, though the fillings that reveal those identities have been sealed by the court. The ownership structure of the league is still not entirely clear, but as of last year, Grigroshin remained a majority owner in most of the league's teams. Two recent as general managers have resigned include that Rob Woodhouse, former GM of the London Roar, is a "minority owner" of the team, while former DC Trident GM Kaitlin Sandeno says that she has no ownership stake in the team. [GN] FIRSTCASH INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 21 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. FCFS Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstcash-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1 BHG Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1 BFLY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/butterfly-network-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * FirstCash, Inc. (NASDAQ:FCFS) This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of FirstCash common stock between February 1, 2018 and November 12, 2021, both dates inclusive. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 15, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstcash-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (a) FirstCash had made more than 3,600 loans to over 1,000 active-duty members of the military and their families at usurious interest rates above 36% - and often exceeding 200% - in violation of the Military Lending Act ("MLA") and the Consent Order Cash America had entered into with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "Order"); (b) FirstCash had failed to implement the remedial measures imposed by the Order; (c) FirstCash's financial results were, in substantial part, the product of the Company's violations of the MLA and the Order; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, FirstCash was exposed to a material undisclosed risk of legal, reputational and financial harm if the Company's violations of the MLA and the Order were ever publicly disclosed. 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=23903&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. Butterfly Network, Inc. f/k/a Longview Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:BFLY) This lawsuit is one behalf of: (a) all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Butterfly securities between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive and/or (b) all holders of Butterfly common stock as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021 to consider approval of the merger between Longview Acquisition Corp. and Butterfly. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 18, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/butterfly-network-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) Butterfly had overstated its post-merger business and financial prospects; (ii) notwithstanding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Butterfly's financial projections failed to take into account the pandemic's broad consequences, which included healthcare logistical challenges, and medical personnel fatigue; (iii) accordingly, Butterfly's gross margin levels and revenue projections were less sustainable than the Company had represented; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Butterfly's business and financial condition; 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] FLEET 18: Court Directs Parties to Consult Local Rule 3.02 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE CABALLERO v. FLEET 18, INC. and REY LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-00156-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. entered an order directing the parties to: -- Read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. -- Consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). If a CMR is required, utilization of the attached CMR form is mandatory. The Court aid, "This Court makes an active effort to review each case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest, and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within fourteen (14) days from the day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is directed to file and serve a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pzD4KI at no extra charge.[CC] FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carrol Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY CARROLL, TODD VAN DER JAGT, JERRY RAY, TONY JELINEK, STEPHEN ANDERSON, AND FRED MINOR ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERALD K. DITTMER, DEREK P. SCHMIDT, and UNNAMED FIDUCIARIES OF FLEXSTEEL'S ERISA-GOVERNED SEVERANCE PLAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01005-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order for: 1. Certification of a Class for settlement purposes; 2. Preliminary Approval of the settlement; 3. Approval of class notice to class members; 4. Appointment of Class Counsel; 5. Setting deadlines for filing claims, making objections, opting out and the final fairness hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement; 6. The Defendants do not resist this motion. Flexsteel manufactures and sells wooden and upholstered furniture for the retail, contract, and recreational vehicle furniture markets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sEg52N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq. Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq. O'Brien & Marquard, P.L.C. 2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S Davenport, Iowa 52807 Telephone: 563-355-6060 Facsimile: (563) 355-6666 E-mail: dao@emprights.com kawm@emprights.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302 Valparaiso, IN 46383 Telephone: (219) 242-8668 Facsimile: (219) 242-8669 E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com - and - Jesse R. Dill, Esq. Pabst Boiler House 31243 North 10th Street, Suite 200 Milwaukee, WI 53205 Telephone: (414) 239-6400 Facsimile: (414) 755-8289 E-mail: jesse.dill@ogletree.com FREDDIE MAC: Breach of Contract Securities Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (doing business as Freddie Mac) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2022, that a consolidated complaint was filed against the company alleging that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement breached Freddie Mac and Federal National Mortgage Association's respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts. Three putative class action lawsuits were consolidated: "Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA," filed on July 29, 2013; "American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA," filed on July 30, 2013; and "Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation," filed on September 18, 2013. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement breached Freddie Mac and Federal National Mortgage Association's respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government sponsored enterprise based in Virginia. GATOS SILVER: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 25 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO) (a) common stock pursuant to the Company's October 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or (b) securities between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022. Gatos Silver engages in the exploration, development, and production of precious metals. "the mineral resource and reserve estimates in the 2020 Technical Report should not be relied upon." What is this Case About: Gatos Silver, Inc. (GATO) Announces Errors in Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates in its 2020 Technical Report According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement in support of the IPO and during the class period. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the technical report for Gatos Silver's primary mine contained certain errors, and (2) the mineral reserves had been overstated by as much as 50%. On January 25, 2022, Gatos Silver provided a resource and reserve update for the Los Gatos Joint Venture, concluding "that there were errors in the technical report entitled 'Los Gatos Project, Chihuahua, Mexico' with an effective date of July 1, 2020 (the '2020 Technical Report'), as well as indications that there is an overestimation in the existing resource model." Therefore, "[o]n a preliminary basis, the Company estimates a potential reduction of the metal content of CLG's mineral reserve ranging from 30% to 50% of the metal content remaining after depletion" and advised that "the mineral resource and reserve estimates in the 2020 Technical Report should not be relied upon." Following this news, Gatos Silver stock fell by 69% to close at $3.17 per share on January 26, 2022. By the commencement of the lawsuit, Gatos Silver shares were still down significantly from its $7.00 per share IPO price. Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Gatos Silver, Inc. (GATO) pursuant to the Company's October 2020 IPO or between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022, you have until April 25, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses.[GN] GE CAPITAL CONSUMER: Belton Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2022, that a preliminary approval of a class action settlement was filed by the plaintiff. On April 30, 2014 "Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending," a putative class action adversary proceeding was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On December 15, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying the adversary proceeding pending an appeal to the District Court of the Bankruptcy Court's order denying the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On October 14, 2015, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court and on November 4, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On March 4, 2019, on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the District Court vacated its decision reversing the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On June 16, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Bank's appeal of the District Court's decision. On October 5, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Synchrony Financial (formerly known as GE Capital Consumer Lending) is a consumer financial services company based in Connecticut. GEICO GENERAL: Partly Wins Bids to File Under Seal in Nichols Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MERLE NICHOLS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign automobile insurance company, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01253-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part GEICO's three motions to seal. I. Background All the three motions are brought by Defendant GEICO, are unopposed by Plaintiff Merle Nichols, and concern substantially similar subject matter. The first was filed on May 15, 2021, regarding the parties' Joint Status Report (redacted version filed as Docket Number 139, sealed version filed as Docket Number 143) and the Defendant's Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (redacted version filed as Docket Number 140, sealed version filed as Docket Number 142). The second motion to seal was filed on Aug. 18, 2021, regarding the Defendant's Motion for a Stay Pending En Banc Review (redacted version filed as Docket Number 150, sealed version filed as Docket Number 152). The third motion was filed on Nov. 24, 2021, regarding an Updated Joint Status Report (redacted version filed as Docket Number 157, sealed version filed as Docket Number 159). On Nov. 29, 2021, the Court terminated two of the underlying motions because they had been withdrawn. None of the filings the parties seek to seal are dispositive motions. A protective order is in place affording limited protection against public disclosure of certain designated confidential material, but by its own terms, it does not "presumptively entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal." After adopting the parties' proposed stipulated protective order, the Court granted motions to seal several documents, including a hearing transcript. A subsequent court order requires the parties to confer and submit any sealing requests in the form of joint statements. The Court has since granted motions to seal by the parties that complied with that order. The parties have conferred and submitted the instant sealing requests in the form of joint statements. II. Discussion The Court's previous order allowed sealing of the following, with respect to motions relating to class certification: (1) documents containing GEICO's confidential trade secrets or proprietary competitive information; (2) confidential medical information for GEICO insureds or claimants who are not parties to the lawsuit; and (3) briefs or declarations containing confidential information. Much of the information the parties are currently seeking to seal is sufficiently similar -- if not identical to -- the competitive business information previously allowed to be filed under seal. In charts summarizing why sealing would be appropriate under the heading "Reasons for Confidentiality Designation," GEICO asserts that the materials contain information "derived from" three declarations of employee Roberto Noriega and related to its "confidential claims adjusting procedures and claims sampling contained therein, as well as the confidential information contained in prior documents already under seal." GEICO's allegations of harm do not get much more specific in the remainder of the joint statements. In all three joint statements, GEICO uses the same stock language to describe the "specific discussions of confidential information, including GEICO's processing of PIP claims, and GEICO's analysis and tracking of these claims" that it has redacted. It then offers a chronology of the other motions to seal granted by the Court with examples of the information it has been allowed to seal in the past. Similarly, in each of the relevant joint statements, GEICO avers alternatives are insufficient because the information it is seeking leave to seal includes the company's "confidential trade secrets and proprietary confidential competitive information" that is "substantively indistinguishable from information this Court has already ruled should be maintained under seal in the matter," is "identifiable to GEICO," and "cannot be redacted," due to its pertinence to the associated filing(s). Likewise, in all three statements, Plaintiff Nichols' position regarding potential alternatives to sealing is represented as one of non-objection and lack of "sufficient knowledge to assess the asserted proprietary sensitivity" of the information at issue. Judge Lin's instant decision does not disturb previous rulings in the case. Materials that have previously been allowed to be sealed will remain under seal. However, Judge Lin finds no good cause to allow the parties to seal information that relates purely to the amount of time they expect litigating this case will take. The Court has not previously allowed this type of information to be filed under seal. Additionally, the Court has specifically informed the parties that it "will not accept motions to seal that fail to comply with the Local Rules and offer only boilerplate reasons to seal documents from the public domain." It directed that each sealing request must be accompanied by (1) "specific examples" of the harm that would result from allowing the material (or portions thereof) into the public domain and (2) "articulated reasons" why less restrictive alternatives to sealing would be insufficient. Yet, the parties fail to supply in their joint statements any rationale supporting their attempt to veil from public disclosure information about the length of time their case will likely be pending before the Court. Particularly troubling, according to Judge Lin, is GEICO's attempt to conceal its outrageous request for a 200-day (40-week) jury trial. She says, this extraordinary, unwarranted, and absolutely unsupported demand on taxpayer-supported judicial resources is totally at odds with the timeframe that Geico (along with the Plaintiff) initially estimated would be required to try the case if it had been certified as a class action. The Court has the power to issue sanctions against attorneys and firms that engage in bad faith conduct, and it will not tolerate such abusive litigation tactics going forward. III. Conclusion Judge Lin granted in part and denied in part the parties' pending motions to seal. The parties are ordered to re-file the documents currently labeled with Docket Numbers 139, 140, 150, and 157 without redactions for any estimates or calculations regarding the amount of time it will take for review of claim files or to otherwise try the case. The Clerk of court is instructed to strike Docket Numbers 139, 140, 150, and 157. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/br8m4u2x from Leagle.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hackler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro entered a scheduling order a follows: Event Deadline -- Written Discovery Feb. 28, 20221 -- Discovery Depositions of Fact March 29, 2022 Witnesses: -- The Plaintiffs Motion for Class March 29, 2022 Certification: -- The Defendant's Response to May 13, 2022 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: -- Motions for Summary Judgment: May 13, 2022 -- All Other Civil Motions (Including June 14, 2022 Daubed Motions; Excluding Motions in Limine): -- The Plaintiffs Reply in Support of June 14, 2022 Motion for Class Certification -- Responses to Motions for Summary June 14, 2022 Judgment: -- Replies in Support of Motions for July 15, 2022 Summary Judgment: -- Depositions of All Witnesses Taken July 15, 2022 for Use at Trial: -- Proposed Pre-Trial Order: Aug. 15, 2022 General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing corporation. Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, the company is the largest automobile manufacturer based in the United States and one of the largest worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IKK1QA at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit has survived another dismissal challenge from General Motors, but only a few California claims remain from the four plaintiffs who sued. The judge has allowed the plaintiffs to change and refile their lawsuit three times, but this time the judge dismissed certain claims without leave to amend the claims. The Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit includes: "Plaintiffs [who] seek to represent a Class of all persons and entities who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX, and XTS vehicles and 2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR, and Escalade vehicles equipped with General Motors' Cadillac User Experience [CUE] touch screen display in the state of California." According to the Cadillac CUE lawsuit, those models have defective infotainment touchscreens that delaminate or separate from the touchscreen glass. The CUE infotainment system controls the audio, phone and climate inputs for the car and displays the backup camera image. But the plaintiffs allege mechanical or thermal stress causes the CUE touchscreen to show spiderweb-like patterns on the display. This allegedly prevents a vehicle occupant from using the touchscreen due to the placement of the screws and rubberized gasket that hold the plastic cover to the frame of the CUE. Specifically, the Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit alleges the plastic cover is anchored to the touch screen by eight screws, but only two screws are placed on "the bottom portion of the plastic cover, which causes it to flex and move when pressure is applied." The plaintiffs claim this makes the plastic cover prone to separating from the touchscreen glass. Additionally, the rubber gasket is allegedly cut in a way that creates too much space between the touchscreen and the plastic cover, which "allows for more flexibility in the plastic cover, which leads to the spider-webbing defect." The CUE class action further alleges temperature changes cause delamination between the plastic cover and the touchscreen glass. Bringing the Cadillac to a dealer allegedly does no good because any replacement CUE components are replaced with equally defective replacement parts. Motion to Dismiss the Cadillac CUE Class Action Lawsuit Because this was the third amended lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, multiple claims against GM had already been dismissed in previous actions. This time around Judge Linda Lopez dismissed several claims and granted GM's motion to dismiss "injunctive claims (1) to remove and replace their CUE Systems with a suitable alternative product that does not contain the alleged defects and (2) to perform a recall and repair." The judge also dismissed a claim against GM to prevent the automaker from selling or leasing the Cadillac vehicles, and certain California and unjust enrichment claims were also dismissed. The plaintiffs did find support for a claim they have standing to compel General Motors to "reform its warranty to cover the injury alleged and to notify all Class Members that such warranty has been reformed." Judge Lopez also refused to dismiss the "implied warranty of merchantability claim pursuant to California Commercial Code section 2314." The Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California - Goldstein, et al., v. General Motors LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law, and Berger Montague. [GN] GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Hearing Set in March ----------------------------------------------------------- Max Mason and Jemima Whyte, writing for Australian Financial Review, report that former market darling GetSwift and its directors are appealing a Federal Court loss to the corporate regulator for what a judge lashed as a "public relations-driven approach to disclosure" designed to pump up the technology company's share price. It comes as GetSwift chief executive Bane Hunter resigned from the last mile logistics services business and Joel MacDonald, the company's president, was appointed interim chief executive on Feb. 18 in Canada, where the company was relisted in January 2021 after successfully applying to leave the Australian Securities Exchange in late 2020. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission launched a legal action against GetSwift and directors Mr Hunter and former AFL footballer Mr MacDonald in February 2019. It later amended its claim to include former director Brett Eagle. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which represents GetSwift, Mr MacDonald and Mr Hunter, confirmed an appeal had been filed on behalf of its clients. Mr Eagle's appeal was filed by law firm Baker McKenzie on Feb. 18 The deadline for appeal was 4pm on Friday, Feb. 18. A series of articles in The Australian Financial Review questioning GetSwift's rapid-fire ASX disclosures revealed the company had failed to update the market when it lost customers after trial periods. These revelations helped drive the ASX to tighten disclosure requirements in 2018 and prompted ASIC's legal action. In its legal case, the corporate regulator alleged GetSwift issued a string of misleading announcements about customers it had secured in deals in 2017, which caused its share price to shoot up 1900 per cent. In the November decision now being appealed by GetSwift and the directors, Justice Michael Lee ruled Mr Hunter was "knowingly involved" in 16 of the 22 continuous disclosure breaches, 29 of the misleading and deceptive conduct contraventions and had breached his director's duties. Case management hearing Justice Lee found Mr MacDonald was "knowingly involved" in 20 of the 22 continuous disclosure breaches, 33 of the misleading and deceptive conduct contraventions and had breached his director's duties. He ruled Mr Eagle was "knowingly involved" in three of the 22 continuous disclosure breaches and had breached his director's duties. GetSwift noted in its Canadian quarterly filings that it intended to appeal. "In regards to both the appeal and the hearing, the corporation has recorded a provision which has been included in general and administrative expenses within the condensed interim consolidated statements of loss and other comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended December 31, 2021," it said. The company, which delisted from the ASX and is now trading on Canada's NEO exchange, told investors in July last year it had agreed with the shareholders to settle a separate, long-running class action. However, questions arose about GetSwift's ability to fund the $1.5 million upfront payout - to go along with continuing contributions from future capital raisings - as the company tries to find enough cash to keep running in the short term. A case management hearing will be held for the class action suit in March. In its second quarter results, GetSwift said it was "in the process to secure enough capital funding to continue operations in the short term". "Despite a working capital deficiency of ($US3,424,736) as at December 31, 2021, the corporation has a reasonable expectation that it should be able to obtain short-term funding by the end of February 2022 that will provide the corporation with sufficient working capital for the next 4-5 months," the company's accounts said. "Following such short-term funding, the corporation is planning to obtain additional funding for over the longer term." Four days after GetSwift's quarterly results, the company announced the resignation of Mr Hunter. "Bane's passion for growing GetSwift into a global enterprise was only outmatched by his dedication to the GetSwift team," GetSwift chairman Stanley Pierre-Louis said. "While the board reluctantly accepts his resignation, we are grateful to Bane for his vision, dedication and relentless efforts to achieve successful outcomes for the company, its employees and, most importantly, its shareholders. Bane's future will no doubt be filled with successes." [GN] GIRARD, OH: Legislation on Traffic Cameras Proposed Amid Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dvid Skolnick, writing for Tribune Chronicle, reports that an Ohio House member who has proposed legislation to restrict the use of traffic cameras over the years has introduced several new bills on their use. "Traffic cameras have proven to be a nuisance to the public, providing zero increase to public safety," said state Rep. Tom Patton, R-Strongsville. "While I understand their purpose in principle, I have yet to see it in practice." Girard Mayor James Melfi, whose city uses speed cameras, said Patton's proposals don't "bother me. We've seen and heard proposals before. We're in the business of protecting citizens and pedestrians and raising revenue. If this legislation is passed, we would follow it." Of Patton's seven new bills, four were introduced in the last legislative session, but didn't get out of committee. Those four would prohibit: -- A community that doesn't operate a fire department or an emergency medical service organization to use traffic photo-monitoring devices. -- A community with fewer than 200 residents from using the devices. -- A community from issuing a total number of traffic citations using the devices annually that exceeds two times its population. -- A community from getting more than 30 percent of its total annual revenue from the issuance of citations from the devices. The new Patton proposals would: -- Prohibit the placement of traffic cameras within a half-mile of an interstate highway entrance. -- Prohibit a community located in a county with a population of at least 1 million from using traffic cameras on interstate highways. Only Franklin and Cuyahoga counties have populations that size. -- Require 80 percent of all revenue from traffic camera citations to be used for law enforcement expenses. IN GIRARD Melfi said the 80 percent proposal would impact Girard as about 40 percent of the money collected through speed camera citations goes to the police department. The rest, he said, is used for street improvements such as paving and the purchase a few years ago of a street sweeper as well as toward recreation. "We're trying to slow traffic down and create revenue, which is a problem to some," Melfi said. "Slower speeds make for safer roads." Even if all of Patton's bills pass, Melfi said the city will continue to use speed cameras. "These bills provide reasonable solutions to our ever-growing problem of the misuse of local authority," Patton said. Patton said the proposal related to county population is because Linndale, a community near Cleveland with about 100 residents, makes about 95 percent of its general revenues from the issuance of fines, licenses and permits generated by traffic camera citations. CORRUPT? Attorney Marc Dann, who is representing a group of people who got speeding citations in Girard in a class-action suit, said the cameras are a "cesspool for corruption." Dann, a former state attorney general, said he co-sponsored legislation to change the traffic camera laws during his time in the state Senate from 2003 to 2006. The cameras are "a cash grab by communities that are more concerned with money than traffic enforcement," Dann said. More than 7,700 people driving on a section of Interstate 80 in Girard were cited and billed for speeding for about a month as the cameras were set for a construction zone of 55 mph when the construction had finished Dec. 7, 2017, and the regular 65 mph limit was in force. One sign was left on the road stating the speed limit was 55 mph. Judge Andrew Logan of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court agreed to an out-of-court settlement with Blue Line Solutions, the traffic camera company, in December 2021. Logan also absolved the city of any financial blame. Dann filed an appeal with the 11th District Court of Appeals seeking damages from the city. "It's literally highway robbery," Dann said. He added: "You fight more crime when you pull people over for speeding than using the cameras. Pulling people over not only deters speeding, but you get the opportunity to get drug dealers who are on I-80 or people with a back seat full of AK-47s. You're giving up something by not doing traffic stops." HIGH COURT Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court heard a case from Newburgh Heights and East Cleveland, both in Cuyahoga County, contending a state law approved in 2019 related to traffic cameras was unconstitutional. That law required these cases be heard in municipal or county courts rather than administrative hearings and reduced a community's Local Government Fund payment by the amount it received in traffic camera citations. The Cleveland-based 8th District Court of Appeals ruled that the Local Government Fund reduction as well as an advanced deposit requirement for filing fees and court costs violated home rule. The state appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Feb. 16 that New Miami in Butler County didn't have to refund $3 million to motorists who received speed-camera tickets. The village had collected about $3 million in a 20-month period, starting in July 2012, from speed cameras from people driving at least 11 mph over the limit. Those in that class-action lawsuit contend the camera program is unconstitutional. The court ruled to let a 12th District Court of Appeals decision from October 2020 in favor of the village stand. [GN] GRASS CLIPS: Fails to Pay Landscapers' Overtime, Cortez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL VALENTIN CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRASS CLIPS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00717-AT (N.D. GA., Feb. 18, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Cortez was employed by the Defendant as landscaper. GRASS CLIPS, INC. offers complete landscape and lawn maintenance to commercial and residential clients. [BN] 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 GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Bid to Certify Eviction Class Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA WALLACE, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as to the Eviction Class; and 2. denying as to the Collection Letter Class. The Court said, "The Defendants argue that statutory and treble damages available under Counts II and III of the Plaintiff's Complaint weigh against class certification because they (1) provide ample incentives for bringing individual actions and (2) will be distorted under the DCA "to the point of ruination." The Court, however, dismissed Counts II and III in an Order issued simultaneously with this Order, rendering this argument moot. In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)." In this purported class action, the Plaintiff alleges that her landlords charged her "Eviction Fees" in February 2018 in violation of North Carolina's Residential Rental Agreements Act, and other laws. The Plaintiff leased an apartment from "Greystar" from April 23, 2017, until June 21, 2018. After Plaintiff missed her February 2018 rental payment, the Defendants filed for summary ejectment in state court, issued Plaintiff a collection letter, and charged her a $201 eviction "filing fee" "[to dismiss the eviction filing" (hereinafter "Eviction Fees"). The Plaintiff immediately paid the Eviction Fees, late fee, and outstanding rent. The Defendants then voluntarily dismissed their ejectment action. "Greystar" is a brand used by a network of entities that managed 159 properties in North Carolina throughout the relevant time period. If a tenant at a Greystar managed property failed to pay rent, Greystar employees would issue and send a collection letter generated from a template, identical or similar to the one sent to Plaintiff. They would then upload the tenant's information into an online portal called Nationwide Eviction, a service used to hire attorneys to file summary ejectment actions and add Eviction Fees to tenant ledgers. Greystar charged between $181 and $201 for each eviction filing plus $30 for each additional tenant on the lease. The Plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of herself and those similarly situated in state court, and Defendants removed to this Court on June 13, 2018. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 24, 2018, which alleges that the threat and collection of Eviction Fees violated the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act ("RRAA"), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act ("DCA"), and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"). A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tr5I1M at no extra charge.[CC] GRILL CREATIONS: Faces Stark Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL STARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRILL CREATIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01072 (D.N.J., Feb. 28, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning on or about July 12, 2021, the Defendant began bombarding the Plaintiff with telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 2468. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Defendant is a restaurant specializing in Mexican-style cuisine. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com HAIER US: Parties in Jones Suit Directed to Confer Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheryl Jones v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., doing business as GE Appliances, Case No. 6:22-cv-00409 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification, says Judge Byron. The nature of suit states contract -- contract product liability. GE Appliances is an American home appliance manufacturer based in Louisville, Kentucky. It has been majority owned by multinational home appliances company Haier since 2016.[CC] HALLMARK AVIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Discovery in Elhassa ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALMA ELHASSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HALLMARK AVIATION SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-09768-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman Leentered an order denying the motion to stay discovery. The Court said, "The Court cannot say that the Defendant has made a strong showing that it is likely to on its argument that there is no private right of action for the late payment of wages. The New York Appellate Division First Department has held that the New York Labor Law permits employees to seek liquidated damages for the untimely payment of wages even if the wages are no longer past due. But, as the Defendant admits, the question in Konkur had to do with the implication of a private right of action for a different provision of the NYLL. Vega rested on a different ground. Vega did not hold that a private right of action was implied for the late payment of wages. It concluded that the NeYLL "expressly provides a private right of action for [the late payment of wages]. Defendant's position that no private right of action exists is dependent on its erroneous assertion that the late payment of wages is not an underpayment of wages." Without prejudging the ultimate outcome of the motion to dismiss, those decisions are sufficient to cast doubt on the assertion that Defendant has made a "strong showing" that it is likely to succeed." The Defendant offers load and flight control, crew administration, check-in and ticketing, centralized baggage, and training services at airports throughout the country, including at LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The Plaintiff was employed as a customer service agent at JFK Airport from July 2019 through March 2021, and from November 7, 2021 to present. She brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similar customer service agents who work or have worked for Hallmark in New York in the past six years to remedy what she claims are violations of the NYLL. Specifically, she alleges two separate violations of the NYLL. First, she alleges that Defendant failed to pay her wages on the weekly basis upon which she was entitled to be paid as a manual laborer and thus Defendant has violated the timely payment of wages provisions under the NYLL. Second, she alleges that she (and other members of the class) did not receive wage notices and wage statements as required by the NYLL; although Defendant gave her a numerical code to use on its proprietary computer system, it did not provide her an email or password which is necessary access the paystub and the software does not allow one to set up an email or password. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sALQdb at no extra charge.[CC] HEIDI WASHINGTON: Jason Sanders Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON L. SANDERS v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00510-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motions seeking class certification; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDQvLA at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: DoC Faces Class Action Over Prison Inhumane Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5Chicago reports that prisoners at an Illinois Department of Corrections facility in Joliet suffer through nightmare living conditions, with rat-infested cells, rotten food and raw sewage overflowing into common areas, a lawsuit says. The suit, which is asking to be granted class-action status, was filed on Feb. 17 against top officials of the Northern Reception and Classification Center. It says they have violated the constitutional rights of the estimated 1,000 people incarcerated there. Living spaces and common areas are infested with mice, rats, birds and insects, according to the suit filed against warden David Gomez and Rob Jeffreys, the facility's director, who are accused of having allowed inhumane conditions to develop and ignored pleas to act. "Mice run in and out of cells all night long. Cockroaches crawl up the walls, crawl into bedding and bury themselves in commissary items. Gnats and flies swarm the pools of flooded water in common shower areas," according to the lawsuit, filed by the Uptown People's Law Center and Jenner & Block. Winter is when the vermin problem is at its worst, as more mice and rats come inside to escape the cold, the lawsuit says. The sound of running mice echoes through the cells at night, according to the lawsuit, disrupting prisoners' sleep. "Within the confines of their cells, prisoners have no escape from the bugs and mice that crawl, scurry and burrow in every corner," the lawsuit said. "This sense of helplessness, on a day-to-day basis, degrades the psychological health of all prisoners who experience it." The Northern Reception and Classification Center is an adult male intake and processing unit for the entire Department of Correction system. Prisoners stay there while awaiting transfer to a permanent institution, but there is no limit on how long that can take. The facility has 1,800 beds and 24 housing units. "Entering prison is always going to be a shock," said Alan Mills, executive director of the Uptown People's Law Center. "But forcing people to endure infestation by vermin, undrinkable water and extended solitary confinement when they first enter Illinois' prison system is unacceptable and serves no legitimate purpose." The lawsuit also claims prisoners are living with unsafe water and deficient plumbing. Faucets at sinks inside the cells often don't work -- and when they do, they sometimes dispense brown water that smells like sewage. Likewise, toilets in the cells sometimes have no water and other times overflow or back up into sinks -- "where prisoners are supposed to get their drinking water, brush their teeth and wash their hands." Prisoners often use their own clothing or towels to clean up, the lawsuit alleges, and those soiled items are never replaced. The Illinois Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. There are also allegations of prisoners being fed only spoiled food that sometimes makes them ill. "Prisoners who do eat the food are routinely forced to eat around moldy, rotten patches of food," according to the lawsuit. Another problem cited in the lawsuit is lack of "yard time" for prisoners. Since November 2021, according to the lawsuit, prisoners at the facility have had no out-of-cell time -- and the cells often are too small to exercise. "Prison officials have known how bad the conditions are for years, but they've chosen to ignore the situation and shuffle prisoners along in the penal system," said Ben Bradford, an attorney with Jenner & Block. "We want to shine a light on the inhumane conditions at the Northern Reception Center; it's time to amplify prisoners' voices and force change at this facility." [GN] ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Response in Werner Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL K. WERNER, v. GREGORY HACKER, Case No. 3:21-cv-01431-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting him a 14-day extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. On January 25, 2022, this Court resolved several pending matters and directed that the Defendant respond to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction by February 24, 2022. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3trCyzB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lisa Cook, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: (217) 785-4555 Facsimile: (217) 782-8767 E-mail: lisa.cook@ilag.gov INGALLS MEMORIAL: HIPAA Protects Worker Info, Court Finds in Mazya ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, LUCILLE MOSBY, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THE INGALLS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, UCM COMMUNITY HEALTH & HOSPITAL DIVISION, INC., and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants. YANA MAZYA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, OMNICELL, INC., and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendants (Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Defendants-Appellants), Case Nos. 1-20-0822 and 1-21-0895, cons (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Sixth Division, issued an Opinion: a. finding that the legislature did not exclude employee biometric information from its protections, consistent with the plain language of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; and b. answering the following certified question in the negative: Does finger-scan information collected by a health care provider from its employees fall within the Biometric Information Privacy Act's exclusion for 'information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,' 740 ILCS 14/10, when the employee's finger-scan information is used for purposes related to 'healthcare,' 'treatment,' 'payment,' and/or 'operations' as those terms are defined by the HIPAA statute and regulations? I. Background Plaintiff Mosby filed a class-action suit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Defendants Ingalls Memorial Hospital and UCM Community Health & Hospital Division, Inc. (collectively Ingalls), and Becton, Dickinson and Co. (BD) (collectively Group Defendants One). Similarly, Plaintiff Yana Mazya filed a class-action suit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare (collectively Group Defendants Two). During the course of the litigation, Group Defendants One filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019) to have the Court answer this certified question: Whether the exclusion in Section 10 of BIPA for information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment, or operations under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 applies to biometric information of health care workers (as opposed to patients) collected, used or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under HIPAA? Subsequently, Group Defendants Two also filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 308 concerning the same issue: Does finger-scan information collected by a health care provider from its employees fall within the Biometric Information Privacy Act's exclusion for 'information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,' 740 ILCS 14/10, when the employee's finger-scan information is used for purposes related to 'healthcare,' 'treatment,' 'payment,' and/or 'operations' as those terms are defined by the HIPAA statute and regulations? Both Droup Defendants' petitions for leave to appeal were permitted. However, at this time, the only question submitted for the Court's review is the question submitted by Group Defendants two. II. Analysis On appeal, Northwestern contends that the Court should answer the certified question in the affirmative because the plain language of section 10 demonstrates that employee biometric information used in medication dispensing systems is excluded from protections of the Act. The Appellate Court opines that the Act on which the certified question is based defines "biometric information" as "any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual." The Act defines "biometric identifiers" as "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry." he parties do not dispute that the fingerprint scan of the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hospital employees is a biometric identifier and, when stored, this fingerprint constitutes biometric information as outlined in the Act. Northwestern and the amici contend that the circuit court erred in finding that the carveouts for health-related information apply only to information taken from a patient because the plain language of the Act does not read to limit patient biometric data. They maintain that biometric identifiers as defined by the Act included an "or" exception as they pertain to health care information. The Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court did not err in holding that Northwestern is not exempt from the Act and that it excludes only patient biometric data from its protections because patient data is already protected by HIPAA. They assert that this would in effect leave thousands of hospital workers unprotected from the risks that the Act was designed to protect against. The Plaintiffs assert that Northwestern's interpretation of how "or" creates two clauses would make sense if the "under HIPAA" language was not present because patient information is the only information governed by HIPAA. The Appellate Court opines that the language of the statute is clear and simple disagreement between the parties will not create ambiguity in the statute. What is excluded from the protections of section 10 are (1) information from the patient in a healthcare setting and (2) information that is already protected "under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996." Even taking into consideration the disjunctive "or," section 10 still has the same effect of excluding those two classifications of information. Indeed, the disjunctive "or" means that patient information and information under HIPAA are alternatives that are to be considered separately. At oral argument, Northwestern argued that the Appeallte Court should not consider the terminology "under HIPAA" and instead it should consider this as "defined by HIPAA." However, "under HIPAA" is what the Act expressly states, and that cannot be ignored. The Appellate Court is simply unable to rewrite the statute. Either way, it holds that the biometric information of employees is simply not defined or protected "under HIPAA." Accordingly, the plain language of the statute does not exclude employee information from the Act's protections because they are neither (1) patients nor (2) protected under HIPAA. The Appeallte Court further finds that, if the legislature intended to create a wide-ranging exemption for hospitals, it would have done so, since the Act does contain a separate blanket exclusion. This is demonstrated in the Act when the legislature expressly provided that the Act was not to apply to financial institutions subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and employees, contractors, or subcontractors of local government or the State as provided in section 25. Finally, Northwestern's inclusion of employee's biometric information under the exclusion goes beyond the plain language of the Act. The Appellate Court is unable to rewrite the statute to add provisions or limitations that the legislature did not include. No rule of construction permits the Appellate Court to declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports. There is simply no provision or reference to the protection of employee biometric data in the Act or in HIPAA. Thus, the Appellate Court will not add employee biometric data as information to be excluded by the Act because it would be contrary to the plain language of the Act. Based thereon, it need not consider other sources in order to find the statutory meaning. III. Conclusion Consistent with the plain language of the Act, the Appellate Court finds that the legislature did not exclude employee biometric information from its protections, and it answers the certified question in the negative. It remands this cause for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/43z7zwpd from Leagle.com. Joseph A. Strubbe -- jstrubbe@vedderprice.com -- Frederic T. Knape, and Zachary J. Watters, of Vedder Price P.C., and Gary M. Miller, Matthew C. Wolfe, and Elisabeth A. Hutchinson, of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., both of Chicago, for Appellants Ingalls Memorial Hospital, UCM Community Health & Hospital Division, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and Company. Joel Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- and Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Chicago, for other Appellants. James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Ryan F. Stephan, Andrew C. Ficzko, Catherine T. Mitchell, and Paige L. Smith, of Stephan Zouras, LLP, of Chicago, for the Appellees. Michael A. Woods, of Naperville, and Richard H. Tilghman -- rhtilghman@nixonpeabody.com -- of Nixon Peabody LLP, and Bonnie Keane DelGobbo and Joel Griswold, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, both of Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Health and Hospital Association, et al. INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY MEJIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE, INC.; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED and DOES I to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09564-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the deadline for her to file motion for class certification until after the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, scheduled for March 28, 2022. Inglewood delivers beverage. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCghcK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Pooja V Patel, Esq.) LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com ppatel@lelawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East | Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 201-1532 jbrophy@seyfarth.com INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Wallace Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIQUAN WALLACE, v. INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES LLC, TRIHOP MANAGEMENT LLC, TRIHOP 177TH STREET LLC, TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, TRIHOP 69TH STREET LLC, JOHN DOE LLC, BEN ASHKENAZY, EDWARD SCANNAPIECO, and KWESI THOMAS, Case No. 1:21-cv-06993-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of his intention to move for Certification of this action, or in the alternative, so-order the below proposed briefing schedule as follows: -- Opening Brief March 11, 2022 -- Defendants' Opposition April 11, 2022 -- Plaintiffs' Reply April 25, 2022 The Plaintiff intends to move for collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all employees of the Defendants who have been subject to a common and unified policy of unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages, uniform mainteance and costs damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's fees and cost under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) all of which caused the Defendants' employees substantial economic harm. IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain that specializes in breakfast foods. It is owned by Dine Brands Global—a company formed after IHOP's purchase of Applebee's, with 99% of the restaurants run by independent franchisees. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KabXxA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com IT'SUGAR LLC: Fails to Comply FACTA, Hall Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JUNE A. HALL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. IT'SUGAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. CACE-22-002402 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 25, 2022) arises from Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law which requires persons that accept debit cards or credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate certain card number account information on printed receipts provided to consumers. Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with FCRA by printing the first 10 digits of their customers' credit card and debit card numbers on point-of-sale transaction receipts. As a result of Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and others who conducted business with Defendant during the time frame relevant to this action have suffered a violation of their substantive rights under 15 U.S.C. section 1681c(g), an invasion of their privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe handling of their account information, breach of an implied bailment, exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft, financial loss, and were unfairly burdened with the need to keep or destroy the receipt, so as to prevent further disclosure of their sensitive credit or debit card information. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class allege an actual or legal injury herein and have a sufficient interest at stake in this controversy that will be affected by the outcome of the litigation. The Defendant manufactures candy and other confectionery products. The Company offers cupcakes, geeks delights, bacon lovers, and mustache products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com ezebersky@zpllp.com - and - Christopher W. Legg, Esq. CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A. 499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (954) 962-2333 Facsimile: (954) 960-6565 E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com J & J SAFETYMATE: Faces Kim Suit Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heung Yol Kim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J & J Safetymate Corp. dba College Point Safety Mate and Yun Hee Kim, Case No. 1:22-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022) seeks recover unpaid overtime wages, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants' unlawful actions, overtime wage, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants own and operate College Point Safety Mate, a safety equipment supply store at 58-19 College Point Blvd., Flushing New York. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated at the statutorily overtime wage as required by law. Kim was employed as a store clerk by Defendants from September 2013, through January 23, 2022. During the employment period for the Defendants, Kim was an individual who engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce and handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. J & J owns and operates College Point Safety Mate in Flushing New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee NJ 07024 Telephone: (718) 573-1111 E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com JAMES LEBLANC: Expert Reports Must be Submitted by March 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY v. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233 (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Scott D Johnson entered an order on motion for extension of time as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert reports for class certification must now be submitted to the opposing party on or before March 4, 2022. -- All other pending deadlines remain unchanged. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] JOHNS MANVILLE: Bid to Strike Chase Class Suit Junked ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chase Manufacturing, Inc. v. Johns Manville Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00872-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Hegarty entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to strike (filed January 14, 2022); the Defendant's motion to exclude (filed December 6, 2021); and the Plaintiff's Motion to exclude (filed December 6, 2021). The question of whether the Plaintiff can prove the merits of its claims for relief remains unanswered. It will be Plaintiff's burden to explain how it must prove its case and what evidence supports its theories. It must do so on the full record. This Court sees no reason to strike or otherwise exclude the challenged expert witness reports, the Court says. The Plaintiff contends that the law of the case forecloses the need for an explanation of the mechanical insulation industry. Plaintiff refers to the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at Chase Mfg., Inc. v. Johns Manville Corp., No. 19-cv-00872-MEH, 2021 WL 50871 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2021). In it and preceding rulings, the Court declined to define the relevant market to necessarily include calsil's end users within its scope or to exclude the possibility that factors other than price may influence calsil demand. The Court did not enter summary judgment in Defendant's favor. Moreover, that ruling was limited to the record then available. The Plaintiff itself regards Defendant's endeavor as "premature," and at the time, the Plaintiff complained that the Defendant was ignoring the "highly fact-intensive" task of "defining a relevant product market." The undisputed material facts that the Court drew from the then record were measured and limited in scope. Neither they nor other aspects of that ruling prevents a fuller inquiry into whether Plaintiff can prove an antitrust violation. The Court finds no basis to exclude the challenged opinions of Mr. King on Rule 702 or Daubert grounds. Johns Manville is an American corporation based in Denver, Colorado that manufactures insulation, roofing materials, and engineered products. Chase designs, engineers and manufactures a wide variety of decorative products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBG633 at no extra charge.[CC] JOLO INC: Saad, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH SAAD, ET AL., v. JOLO, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-11377-TSH (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the proposed Class(es) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs Deanna Gallo, Brittany Duchaine, Sanchare Kelly, and Leah Saad as the Class Representative for each respective Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 3. Appointing their counsel as Class Counsel for each Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and 4. Providing for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hz3iDe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David D. Dishman, Esq.. DISHMAN LAW, PC 224 Lewis Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-523-5252 E-mail: david@dishmanlaw.com - and - Tod A. Cochran, Esq. PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC 2 Liberty Square, 10 th Floor Boston MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 367-7200 E-mail: tcochran@pylerome.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Michael D. Pushee, Esq. Formisano & Co., P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite 1 Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: (401) 944-9691 E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz Loses Bid to Certify Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RODOLFO TECOCOATZI-ORTIZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. JUST SALAD LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-7342 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. I. Background The Plaintiffs in the case are 16 former employees of Just Salad restaurant locations who worked as delivery persons. The Defendants are Just Salad LLC; 24 Just Salad franchises; and Nicholas Kenner, Just Salad's cofounder and chief executive officer. The Plaintiffs advance 15 causes of action, alleging that the Defendants: a. Violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and related regulations by illegally retaining tips (Counts 1 and 2); b. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by taking unlawful kickbacks (Counts 3 and 4); c. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by willfully failing to pay the minimum wage (Counts 5 and 6); d. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by failing to pay the plaintiffs overtime wages (Counts 7, 8, and 9); e. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to pay spread of hours wages (Count 10); f. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to keep adequate weekly payroll records (Count 11); g. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to provide tip credit notices at the time of hire and thereafter (Count 12); h. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to provide the Plaintiffs with compliant pay stubs (Count 13); i. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to reimburse the Plaintiffs for uniform maintenance costs (Count 14); and j. Breached an implied contractual obligation to reimburse the Plaintiffs for costs associated with their bicycles and other delivery vehicles (Count 15). The Defendants have moved for summary judgment dismissing all the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. II. Discussion A. The Defendants first argue that all claims against Kenner should be dismissed because he was not an "employer" of the Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA or the NYLL. Judge Koeltl opines that n reasonable jury could find that Kenner was the Plaintiffs' "employer" under either the FLSA or NYLL. Although he is an owner and founder of Just Salad, there is no genuine dispute that Kenner did not exercise day-to-day supervision over delivery personnel and was not involved in scheduling or hiring/firing decisions. The Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence regarding Kenner's role in any just Salad Store. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Kenner ever gave any direction to any of the Plaintiffs or ever interacted with any of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs point to several aspects of Kenner's job responsibilities that they contend demonstrate that he was an employer of them, but these arguments are without merit. The fact that Kenner made certain high-level corporate level decisions that were remote from the day-to-day conditions of the Plaintiffs' employment is insufficient to demonstrate that Kenner is an "employer" of the plaintiffs within the meaning of the NYLL or FLSA. Accordingly, all claims against Kenner are dismissed with prejudice. B. The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing all claims against 12 Defendants, arguing that there is no evidence that any Plaintiff was ever employed by those Defendants. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they never worked at ten of these locations, but instead argue that all the Just Salad Defendants are liable under the so-called single integrated enterprise theory of liability. Judge Koeltl holds that although the Plaintiffs contend that certain human resources functions were centralized across the Just Salad locations, district managers worked with the general managers of certain locations, and certain policies applied across all locations, the Plaintiffs fail to explain how the stores where they did not work had any control or supervision over them. There is also no evidence that the operations of different locations were "interrelated" or that the stores at which the Plaintiffs did not work had any input into the employment or human resources decisions at the stores where the Plaintiffs did work. Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that all the Just Salad stores are part of the same corporate structure or under common ownership and management. Indeed, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify any Just Salad franchisor or any corporate parent entity that might control all the Just Salad stores. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing all claims against Just Salad nd the ten stores where the Plaintiffs never worked is granted. C. The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing all FLSA claims advanced by Carranza and Medel as untimely. Claims alleging willful violations of the FLSA, such as the claims in the case, are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Claims under the FLSA accrue "when the employer fails to pay the required compensation for any work week at the regular pay day for the period when the workweek ends." Judge Koeltl finds that Carranza and Medel have not worked for any Defendant since December 2011 and October 2012, respectively. Accordingly, all of Carranza's and Medel's FLSA claims are untimely unless their claims were filed before December 2014 or October 2015. Both the Plaintiffs filed their consents to become Plaintiffs in the action on Aug. 14, 2018. Therefore, all of Carranza's and Medel's claims arising under the FLSA must be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. D. The remaining Plaintiffs assert four categories of claims that arise under both the FLSA and NYLL: Dailure to pay the minimum wage and provide proper tip credit notices (Counts 5, 6, and 12); illegal retention of tips (Counts 1 and 2); unlawful kickbacks (Counts 3 and 4); and failure to pay adequate overtime wages (Counts 7, 8, and 9). The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing all these claims. First, Judge Koeltl holds that it is undisputed that during the entire FLSA limitations period, the hourly salaries of Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, and Zapotitlan Sanchez did not drop below $7.50, which is above the federal minimum wage.Accordingly, all FLSA minimum wage and tip credit claims advanced by Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, and Zapotitlan Sanchez are dismissed with prejudice. Whether the remaining minimum wage and tip credit claims must also be dismissed depends on whether the Defendants' tip credit practices complied with the relevant statutes. Second, Judge Koeltl dismissed all claims arising under the NYLL and the FLSA based on the allegation that the Defendants illegally retained the Plaintiffs' tips with prejudice as to all remaining Plaintiffs. He finds no genuine dispute that third party delivery providers -- Grub Hub and Seamless -- took and retained the delivery fees, not the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' arguments based on the credit card processing fees are likewise without merit because the Plaintiffs made no such allegations in their complaint and raised the argument for the first time in their brief in opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Third, Judge Koeltl holds that all FLSA tip credit notice claims advanced by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Baten, Ramos Flores, Pereda Abarca, and Zempoalteca Montes. All FLSA and NYLL tip credit notice claims advanced by Fernandez Gutierrez and Galeana are dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining NYLL and FLSA tip credit notice claims is denied. Fourth, Judge Koeltl opines that the non-tipped side work claims arising under the FLSA advanced by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, and Ramos Flores. The non-tipped side work claims arising under the FLSA and the NYLL for the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Lema Mayancela, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Yuquilema Mullo, and Fernandez Gutierrez. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining NYLL and FLSA non-tipped side work claims is denied. Fifth, Judge Koeltl finds that the Defendants do not specifically address this claim in their motion for summary judgment. The Defendants also do not point to any evidence disputing this claim or contend that Galeana's wages for that period were above the federal minimum wage even if the alleged kickback was taken. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing Galeana's kickback claim is denied. Because the Plaintiffs point to no evidence supporting any kickback claim arising under the FLSA or NYLL asserted by any other Plaintiff, all those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Sixth, the overtime claims arising under the FLSA advanced by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Ramos Flores, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Zempoalteca Montes, Fernandez Gutierrez, and Lema Mayancela. The overtime claims arising under the NYLL advanced by Galeana, Fernandez Gutierrez, Lema Mayancela, and Baten are also dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining NYLL and FLSA overtime claims is denied. E. Judge Koeltl rules that all the remaining state law claims advanced by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Fernandez Gutierrez, Medel, and Carranza. The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these Plaintiffs' state law claims. Any concerns about judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are limited because this case is still at a relatively early stage of the litigation. Moreover, while there may be some overlap at a high level of generality between these Plaintiffs' state law claims on one hand and the remaining Plaintiffs' federal and state law claims on the other, the proof that would support the claims of each Plaintiff is distinct. As illustrated, whether a plaintiff has a meritorious claim turns on evidence unique to each plaintiff. F. Judge Koeltl now addresses the remaining state law claims advanced by de la Cruz Rosas, Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca Montes, Encalada Abad, Lema Mayancela, Yuquilema Mullo, and Ramirez Ocegueda. First, he finds that because none of the Plaintiffs with remaining state law claims have pointed to any evidence supporting a spread of hours claim, any such claims are dismissed with prejudice. Second, the records that the Defendants submitted seem to satisfy the necessary requirements. Accordingly, any payroll records claims (Count 11) are dismissed with prejudice. Third, Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiffs do not appear to contest that their wage statements apprised the Plaintiffs of the total tip credit that the Defendants took in the relevant earnings period. The Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority that supports their proposed interpretation of the statute or offer any persuasive reason for why a notice of the total tip credit claimed for a given pay period is not a sufficient disclosure that they defendants took an "allowance" against the Plaintiffs' wages. Accordingly, any wage statement claims (Count 13) are dismissed with prejudice. Fourth, Judge Koeltl dismissed any bicycle maintenance claims (Count 15) with prejudice. He finds that nosuch FLSA claim were included in the Plaintiffs' complaint. Instead, the complaint framed claims arising out of bicycle costs solely as claims for breach of implied contract. G. In a bench opinion dated Jan. 10, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for collective certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) without prejudice. In so doing, the Court explained that under the then-existing record, "determining whether violations of the FLSA occurred for each of the Plaintiffs is an individualized inquiry" and that "it would not be possible" to resolve those claims on a collective basis. Now, after the Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs filed a "cross motion" for class certification seeking certification of the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: All deliverymen and food preparers who were employed or are currently employed by Defendants during the six years immediately preceding the initiation of the action, or Aug. 14, 2012, up to the date of the decision on the cross motion for class certification. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' cross motion should be denied because it is untimely, improper, and because the proposed class does not meet any of the requirements for class certification under Rule 23. Judge Koeltl holds that the timing of the Plaintiffs' cross motion prejudices the Defendants and "undermines the efficiency of the judicial process." Accordingly, the cross motion is denied as untimely. He also finds that the Plaintiffs' cross motion also fails on the merits. He says, they have plainly failed to demonstrate several necessary conditions for class certification, including commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority. Moreover, Judge Koeltl holds that questions of fact relating to each Plaintiff will certainly predominate over questions common to any class, making resolution of these claims by class action inefficient and not feasible. The claims advanced by the Plaintiffs could not be resolved on this motion for summary judgment without delving into the experience that each Plaintiff had working for the Defendants and parsing the evidence unique to each Plaintiff. Because none of the Plaintiffs' claims could be resolved without a detailed analysis of evidence particular to each Plaintiff, these claims plainly cannot and should not be resolved on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for class certification is denied. III. Conclusion Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not discussed, he finds the arguments to be either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons: a. The Plaintiffs' cross motion for class certification is denied; b. All claims against the following Defendants are dismissed: Kenner, Just Salad LLC, Just Salad GP LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; Just Salad Partners LLC d/b/a Just Salad Financial District; Just Salad State Street LLC; Just Salad Park Slope LLC; Just Salad Herald Square LLC; Just Salad 2056 Broadway LLC; Just Salad 140 8th Ave LLC; Just Salad Woodbury LLC; Just Salad 291 7th Avenue LLC; and Just Salad 437 5th Avenue LLC; c. All of Rosario's claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; d. All the Plaintiffs' illegal retention of tips claims arising under the FLSA and NYLL, including those for wage or tip theft are dismissed with prejudice; e. All the Plaintiffs' claims arising under the FLSA and NYLL relating to kickbacks, except for those advanced by Galeana, are dismissed with prejudice; f. All the claims arising under the FLSA advanced by Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Carranza, and Medel are dismissed with prejudice. Baten's overtime claim arising under the NYLL is dismissed with prejudice. All these Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice; g. All the tip credit notice and overtime claims arising under the FLSA advanced by Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca Montes, and Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed with prejudice; h.All the tip credit notice and overtime claims arising under the NYLL advanced by Galeana and Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed with prejudice; i. All the overtime claims arising under the FLSA and NYLL advanced by Lema Mayancela are dismissed with prejudice; j. All the non-tipped side work claims arising under the FLSA and the NYLL advanced by Lema Mayancela, Fernandez Gutierrez, and Yuquilema Mullo are dismissed with prejudice; k. All remaining claims arising under state law advanced by Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed without prejudice; l. All remaining claims arising under state law advanced by the following plaintiffs, except for those relating to uniform maintenance costs, are dismissed with prejudice: de la Cruz Rosas, Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca Montes, Encalada Abad, Lema Mayancela, Yuquilema Mullo, and Ramirez Ocegueda. m. All other claims and the Defendants remain in the case. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 130 and 142. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mzamz from Leagle.com. JUUL LABS: Canastota Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- CANASTOTA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01183-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Canastota Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 120 Roberts Street in Canastota, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hermon-DeKalb Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HERMON-DEKALB CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01180 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit contends. Hermon-DeKalb Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 709 East DeKalb Road in DeKalb Junction, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Alpine School Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01196 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Alpine School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 575 North 100 East in American Fork, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: East Irondequoit Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------- EAST IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01179 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. East Irondequoit Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 600 Pardee Road in Rochester, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Worcester Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ WORCESTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01185 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Worcester Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 198 Main Street in Worcester, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Fremont County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho --------------------------------------------------------------- FREMONT COUNTY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01195 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Fremont County Joint School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 945 West 1st North in St. Anthony, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Castleford School Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CASTLEFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01190 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Castleford School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 500 Main Street in Castleford, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Renaissance Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth --------------------------------------------------------------- THE RENAISSANCE CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01182 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Renaissance Charter School is a charter school with its offices located at 35-59 81st Street in Jackson Heights, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Twin Falls Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------------- TWIN FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01187-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Twin Falls School District is a charter school with its offices located on 201 Main Avenue West in Twin Falls, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John Bid to File Under Seal Information Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNA ST. JOHN, v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-01347-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Daniel C. Irick entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to file under seal confidential information in Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on January 31, 2022. The Court is not convinced that a less onerous alternative to sealing these exhibits is unavailable. Although the Court may agree that confidential commercial information, as a general matter, could sometimes be appropriately subject to a sealing order, it does not necessarily follow that the protection of such interests requires a complete sealing of the exhibits at issue.For these reasons, the Court is also unconvinced that good cause exists to seal the exhibits at issue. There is a "presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records," right through the sealing of portions of this Court's docket because, at base, the parties have entered into a confidentiality agreement. The Court finds that the parties' general interest discussed in the Motion does not outweigh the public's common law right to open proceedings. Keller Williams is an American technology and international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pAIWTX at no extra charge.[CC] KIM BIMESTEFER: Bid for Extension of Time to File Reply OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. A., P. B. and P. C. v. Kim Bimestefer, Case No. 1:21-cv-02381 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class and unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages. The Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class, to and including March 25, 2022. The Plaintiffs are further granted leave to file excess pages, not to exceed 30, in their reply, says Judge Rodriguez. The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.[CC] KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Deadline Extension Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul Martinez and Philippe Vieux, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Knight Transportation, Inc., Which Will Do Business In California As Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter granting the joint stipulation filed on February 16, 2022 to extend the filing deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by approximately nine months and continue the deadlines for Defendant to comply with the February 3, 2022 discovery order. The Plaintiffs contends that they simply seek the nine-month extension for their class certification filing deadline. The Plaintiffs gave Defendant Knight Transportation notice of Plaintiffs' intent to file this Ex Parte Application on February 25, 2022. The Defendant was advised that if it filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application, such opposition must be filed no later than twenty-four hours after the filing of this Ex Parte Application. The Defendant does not intend to oppose this Ex Parte Application. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vDqQof at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Loera Annaliz, Esq. Lebe Law, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Annaliz@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Luis Ariasv, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434 9100 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullincom, jellis@sheppardmullin.com larias@sheppardmullin.com L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action contends that the inclusion of the word "Paris" on certain L'Oreal cosmetics misleads reasonable consumers into believing the products are imported from France. The 32-page case says that millions of American consumers have overpaid for certain L'Oreal Paris products that "are not what they claim to be" given the items are made in the company's factory in Arkansas. As the suit tells it, L'Oreal charges U.S. consumers a "corresponding premium price" based on the representation that the cosmetics at issue, whose labels also include French language descriptions, are imported from France. "In fact, the L'Oreal Products are not even designed in France (much less made there and then imported into the U.S.)," the complaint says. According to the suit, defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. is based in New York, and the back of each product label states in "tiny print" "L'Oreal USA, New York, NY." Per the case, American consumers associate French beauty products with quality, luxury and prestige and as such are willing to pay a higher price for the items. The complaint argues that within the beauty industry, a product labeled as "Paris" is enough to cause a reasonable consumer to believe that the item is from France and pay a corresponding premium. "Nothing on the front label, or in any of Defendant's advertisements, states or suggests that the L'Oreal Products are not actually manufactured in Paris, and are instead manufactured in Arkansas and elsewhere," the complaint says. "To the contrary, in each L'Oreal Product, Defendant hides this information on the back or side of the label, in small text." The lawsuit stresses that L'Oreal's fine-print disclosures do not stop reasonable consumers from being misled as to the products' origin. The specific L'Oreal products covered by the case include all items that bear the word "Paris" but are not made in France. The proposed class action looks to represent all consumers who bought a L'Oreal product bearing the word "Paris" in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Bylaws Limit Stockholders' Rights, Kent Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT v. JAMES R. ANDERSON, D. JEFFREY RICHARDSON, ROBIN A. ABRAMS, E. JENSEN, ANJALI JOSHI, JAMES P. LEDERER, KRISHNA RANGASAYEE, and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 2022-0183 (Del Ch., Feb. 25, 2022) is a verified stockholder class action complaint for a judicial declaration that the Bylaws impermissibly limit stockholders' rights in violation of Delaware law. The Defendants have allegedly attempted to impose such a limitation by purporting to eliminate the right to act by written consent explicitly guaranteed to Lattice's stockholders under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL"). Specifically, Section 228(a) of the DGCL ("Section 228(a)") prohibits Delaware corporations from restricting stockholders' right to act via consent, either written or made in an electronic transmission, unless such restriction is set forth in a corporation's certificate of incorporation. Lattice's Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter") says nothing about stockholder action via written consent. Lattice's Bylaws, as amended as of November 3, 2016, (the "Bylaws"), however, purport to prohibit stockholder action via written consent. This limitation violates Section 228(a), is invalid, and requires immediate corrective action, says the suit. Stockholders of a Delaware corporation have three ways to take corporate action: by voting at an annual meeting, by voting at a special meeting, and via stockholder consent. These are the exclusive avenues for stockholders to make their voices heard -- particularly in case of disagreement with a company's board of directors. As such, Delaware law unambiguously protects them, and Delaware courts closely scrutinize any attempts to restrict or limit these rights to take action. Plaintiff Michael Kent is, and has continuously been at all relevant times, a stockholder of the Company. Lattice is a semiconductor company specializing in low power programmable technology. The Company, which was initially incorporated in Delaware on March 1, 1985, has since then amended its governing documents multiple times. Through one of these amendments to Lattice's Bylaws in 2004, the Company purported to eliminate stockholders' right to act by written consent. The Bylaws were amended in 2009 and 2016, but this restriction remained unchanged. The current Bylaws became effective as of November 3, 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1441 Broadway, 6th Floor No. 6161 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 LINK SNACKS: Products Contain MSG, Schoolcraft Class Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Schoolcraft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Link Snacks Inc. d/b/a/ Jack Link's, Case No. 3:22-cv-05105-BHS (W.D. Wash., Feb. 28, 2022) alleges that Jack Links led Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers to believe that its Products do not have added MSG by prominently labeling and advertising the beef jerky and meat snack products as "NO ADDED MSG," but the truth is that the Products contain ingredients such as yeast extract and soy sauce, that do contain MSG. According to the complaint, the Products that Defendant prominently labels "NO ADDED MSG" actually do have added MSG. By labeling its Products deceptively, Defendant misled consumers, caused them to buy Products that they do not actually want, and caused them to overpay for Products that aren't what they claim to be, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff brings certain claims on behalf of the proposed class of: "all persons who purchased a No MSG Product in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations (the "Nationwide Class"). For other claims, Plaintiff brings those claims on behalf of a subclass of consumers who live in the identified states (the "Consumer Protection Subclass"). For certain claims, Plaintiff also brings those claims on behalf of a subclass of consumers who, like Plaintiff, purchased No MSG Products in Washington (the "Washington Subclass"). Jack Links makes, markets, labels, distributes and sells beef jerky and meat snack products that are labeled and advertised as having "NO ADDED MSG." Glutamic acid and its salts are known as "free glutamates." Free glutamates provide an "umami" or savory taste to food. Umami taste induces salivary secretion, meaning that it makes your mouth water. This can improve the taste of food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Alex Van Dyke, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com alex@dovel.com - and - Zack Broslavsky, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 575-2550 Facsimile: (310) 464-3550 E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com LVNV FUNDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod in Norton -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA NORTON v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-05051-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and awarding attorneys' fees and costs as follows: -- Class counsel is awarded $239,373 in fees and $2,053.58 in costs; and -- Norton is awarded $5,000 as an incentive award. The Court said, "Within 21 days after the final distribution of settlement funds (including to the cy pres recipient) and payment of attorneys' fees, class counsel shall file a Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements. The Post-Distribution Accounting must contain all information listed in the Guidance, and shall be filed with the court and posted on the Settlement Website." On October 21, 2008, non-party Arrow Financial Services, LLC filed a collections action against Norton in San Mateo County Superior Court, alleging that Norton failed to tender owed amounts to Arrow. On December 26, 2008, the state court entered a default judgment against Norton in the amount of $3,986.60. On February 24, 2012, H&Z filed a substitution of counsel to appear on behalf of Arrow in the state court action. On May 17, 2012, H&Z caused a writ of execution to issue from a state court in the amount of $5,853.07. Norton's wages were garnished in the amount of $323.55 in August and September 2012. The Defendants sought and obtained five more writs of execution between December 27, 2013 and September 1, 2017. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IFru8c at no extra charge.[CC] MANHATTAN BEER: Sued Over Hidden 10-Cent Bottle Deposit Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that an Armonk, New York restaurant has filed a proposed class action in which it alleges Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC has engaged in "widespread billing fraud" against small businesses by way of imposing additional bottle deposit charges. The 23-page lawsuit alleges Manhattan Beer, reportedly the largest single-market beer wholesaler in the U.S., has hidden within its invoices an extra 10-cent charge in the deposit the company is required to charge customers under the New York State Returnable Container Act of 1982, or the "Bottle Bill." Under the law, beer distributors such as the defendant must collect a five-cent deposit on each bottle delivered, the case says. According to the suit, Manhattan Beer "dupes its customers," of which there are reportedly more than 23,000 in New York alone, into paying an extra 10 cents on 24-bottle orders and believing that the 10-cent charge is part of the state-mandated bottle deposit. "This deceptive billing practice leads customers like Plaintiff Cap 111, which ran a small restaurant, to think that the $1.30 'deposit' Manhattan Beer billed for a 24-bottle case of beer is legitimate, when in fact the Company is only authorized by law to collect $1.20 in deposit fees," the complaint says. "That is, 24 bottles x $0.05 = $1.20. Not the $1.30 Manhattan Beer sneaks into its invoices." The lawsuit stresses that the additional 10-cent charges "add up quickly" given Manhattan Beer reportedly sells more than 45 million cases of beer per year. "Even if Manhattan Beer added the extra 10 cents onto just half of the 45 million cases it delivers annually, that results in millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains," the suit alleges. "Specifically, 22,500,000 cases x $0.10 = $2,250,000 per year. Manhattan Beer extracts millions of dollars from its customers every year by this deceptive and fraudulent scheme." The lawsuit goes on to allege that Manhattan Beer is well aware that its "billing scheme" is fraudulent and unlawful, as the company, the suit says, declines to charge "more sophisticated customers," such as supermarkets, the extra 10 cents on 24-bottle cases. "Instead, Manhattan Beer's scheme preys on the small businesses that rely on the giant distributor to do the right thing when it comes to billing," the plaintiff charges. According to the case, Manhattan beer is "the only game in town" for its more than 23,000 New York customers since the company has exclusive distribution rights for Corona, Coors Light, Heineken and many other popular brands. Small businesses are thus left locked into buying from Manhattan Beer, and in doing so "innocently pay fraudulent deposit charges to a company with annual sales that exceed one billion dollars a year," the lawsuit claims. "Sales of alcoholic beverages, including beer, are the lifeblood of many restaurants and convenience stores, especially those owned and operated by small business owners," the plaintiff states. "To target consumers with impermissible bottle deposit charges using the cover of state action, as Defendants have done for years, is unconscionable." The lawsuit looks to represent all Manhattan Beer customers in the United States who purchased bottled beer from the company and were charged $1.30 as a deposit for 24-bottle cases during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. [GN] MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Suit Challenges Asset Forfeiture ------------------------------------------------------------ Flint Mccolgan, writing for Boston Herald, reports that a class-action lawsuit headed by a Boston-area woman challenging asset forfeiture on the federal level is casting light on an issue that's also subject to reform efforts on Beacon Hill. Partnered House and Senate bills requiring greater transparency and accountability on civil asset forfeiture -- the tool police use to seize money and assets purportedly linked to crime -- this month received an extended reporting deadline to April 15. "The Fourth Amendment exists to protect people's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures," said state Rep. Danillo Sena, D-Acton, in an October hearing before the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. "But right now state law enforcement agencies seize significant amounts of money and property from people often when they have done nothing wrong." The bills, H.3233 and S.2105, sponsored by Sena and state Sen. Becca Rausch, D-Needham, would require the attorney general, district attorneys and police to report annually on property seizures and expenditures, and for a public database that would report a variety of information including location, estimated value, length of seizure and if the suspect ever faced criminal charges. Dan Alban, the senior lawyer in the lawsuit that challenges federal agencies for detaining and seizing more than $82,000 from a Boston-area woman at the Pittsburgh International Airport despite never charging her with a crime also gave testimony in support of the Massachusetts bills. "Without more information about how forfeiture is used in the Bay State, legislators are at a disadvantage considering potential reforms," said Alban, co-director of the Institute for Justice's National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse. Alban -- whose firm says Massachusetts "has the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country" -- said that without adequate data collection and public reporting, it's impossible to account for these "off budget" expenditures and that these bills would allow lawmakers to hold district attorneys and other agencies accountable. The Institute for Justice reported that from 2000 to 2019, $327 million was forfeited in Massachusetts, including $24 million under federal law that was returned to the commonwealth. Nationally, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform -- on which sit two Boston-area lawmakers, Reps. Stephen Lynch and Ayanna Pressley -- held a hearing on the issue that then-chairman Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said was the first in Congress for seven years. "Many of these operations are in fact trampling every major component of constitutional due process," Raskin said Dec. 8. "Law enforcement agents can seize and permanently deprive people of their assets without ever arresting them."[GN] MATCH GROUP: Benouis Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIR ALI CHERIF BENOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MATCH GROUP, INC., AMANDA W. GINSBERG, and GARY SWIDLER, Case No. 3:19-cv-02356-S (N.D. Tex.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 23 and Rule 23.2 of the Local Civil Rules: 1. Certifying a class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) between November 6, 2018 and January 31, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against the Defendants Match, Ginsberg, and Swidler for violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of Match at all relevant times, members and their immediate families and their legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have, or had, a controlling interest. 2. Appointing Plaintiff as a Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel, and Kendall Law Group, PLLC as Local Counsel for the Class. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mj16Dj at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Samir Ali Cherif Benouis, are: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq. Jennifer B. Sobers, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mltuccillo@pomlaw.com jbsobers@pomlaw.com Co-Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com Local Counsel for the Class, are: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com Additional Counsel for Samir Ali Cheri Benouis, are: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com MEIJER INC: Misleads Consumers Over Non-Drowsy Products, Moore Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBIE MOORE, SAMANTHA HATFIELD, and GARY GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEIJER, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-10417-GCS-CI (E.D. Mich., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges that Defendant misled the Plaintiffs and other consumers about the effects of the Non-Drowsy Meijer Products. The Defendant makes, sells, and markets over-the-counter cough, cold and flu medicine (the "Non-Drowsy Meijer Products"), including generic Meijer versions of brands like DayQuil and Robitussin. Like the branded versions, these medicines contain the active ingredient Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("DXM"), an ingredient that causes drowsiness, says the suit. The Defendant's Non-Drowsy Meijer Products state prominently on the front of their label that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime" products (juxtaposed against Defendant's "Nighttime" versions). By prominently labeling these products as "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime," Defendant led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy Meijer Products do not cause drowsiness, and that drowsiness is not a side effect of those products. The Defendant also led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that those products are for use during the day, and can be safely and satisfactorily consumed during waking hours, at work, and while driving and operating machinery. But the truth is that products containing DXM -- and thus the Non-Drowsy Meijer Products -- do cause drowsiness, and that drowsiness is a known side effect of DXM (a fact not known by the average consumer). In reality, the Products cause drowsiness, which in effect destroys the primary reason for purchasing the "Daytime" Products in the first place -- for use during the day, when consumers do not want to be drowsy, added the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this case for themselves and for millions of other consumers who purchased Non-Drowsy Meijer Products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: 313-303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com MERCEDES BENZ: Order on Class Certification Entered in Calabasas ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calabasas Luxury Motorcars, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08805-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding class certification: -- Joint Brief The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. -- Citation to Evidence All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. -- Unnecessary Sections The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. -- Evidentiary Appendix The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). -- Failure to Comply with this Order If it appears from the joint brief that the parties have not discharged their meet and confer obligations in good faith, that the parties have not worked to fully integrate the document, or that the parties have otherwise failed to fully comply with this Order, the motion shall be stricken, and the parties shall be required to repeat the process. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand. Mercedes-Benz USA was founded in 1965 to integrate sales in the most important foreign market into the Group. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HEB61B at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headrests -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Mercedes-Benz headrest lawsuit alleges customers complain their active headrests deployed without collisions, suddenly smacking occupants on their heads. The Mercedes headrest lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Joseph Monopoli (New York), James Fitzpatrick (North Carolina), Synthia Praglin (California) and Sawntanaia Harris (California). Harris is the only plaintiff who claims the headrest unintentionally deployed, meaning three of the plaintiffs sued even though they didn't have any problems with their headrests. The plaintiffs and several Florida Mercedes owners sued the automaker and headrest manufacturer Grammer in a Florida district court, but the class action lawsuit was dismissed except for one claim made by two Florida owners. The plaintiffs then filed a headrest lawsuit in a Georgia district court which heard the same arguments but ruled differently than the Florida court. According to the Mercedes headrest class action, the active head restraint is called the NECK-PRO and is used to prevent whiplash injuries in rear-end collisions. The headrest propels forward and upward to prevent the occupant's head from suddenly flying backward. The plaintiffs say the internal headrest mechanism uses a latch pin that keeps the active headrest in place until a collision occurs. The latch pin allegedly must hold back 75 pounds of force and is made with cheap plastic allegedly prone to break. The lawsuit alleges the plastic breaks and causes the headrest to strike the head of the occupant without a collision. According to the class action lawsuit, the headrest is moving at 12 miles per hour when it hits the driver or passenger. Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes Headrest Lawsuit Mercedes-Benz filed a motion to dismiss the headrest class action lawsuit, following the same playbook it used to get the same lawsuit dismissed in Florida. However, the judge came to a somewhat different conclusion this time. Mercedes succeeded in getting multiple claims tossed, including the following: -- Fraudulent Misrepresentation -- Negligent Design & Manufacture -- Negligent Failure to Warn -- California False Advertising Law -- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act -- North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act -- Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act -- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act -- Monopoli's and Fitzpatrick's unjust enrichment claims -- Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief But while Judge Steven D. Grimberg did dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, he denied to dismiss a fraudulent concealment claim as well as a New York business law claim. Additionally, Judge Grimberg ruled plaintiffs Praglin and Harris may pursue unjust enrichment claims. The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Monopoli, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Caplan Cobb LLP, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Santiago Burger LLP, and Law Office of George Franjola. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Adult Entertainers File Suit Over Web Traffic ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Dworetzky at Bay City News Foundation reports that a 39-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California uses the phrase "on information and belief," a total of 34 times in asserting far-reaching claims by a class of adult entertainers against Meta Platforms Inc. and its subsidiaries, Instagram and Facebook. The phrase "on information and belief" is a legal phrase that lawyers use in federal court when they want to allege something in a complaint that they believe to be true, but do not yet have all the facts to prove it. The colorful class action suit was brought by three adult entertainers on behalf of themselves "and all others similarly situated." They allege that for many years they had business arrangements with various adult entertainment websites. When paying customers came to those sites and watched videos of the plaintiffs engaged in adult activity, the websites would share the payments with the entertainers. Because of their financial stake in the viewership, the entertainers tried to drive traffic to the adult websites where their videos could be seen. An important tool was their presence on the major social media platforms, particularly Instagram and Facebook. The entertainers worked to build up their views, likes and follows in the hope that those people would go to one of the sites where the entertainers' videos could be viewed. The complaint alleges that all worked well until late 2018 or early 2019. Until that point, "the online adult entertainment industry was a vibrant, competitive market." Plaintiff Dawn Dangaard a/k/a Alana Evans allegedly had more than 100,000 followers on Instagram at that time. However, in October of 2018 the complaint alleges that a Florida resident named Leonid Radvinsky acquired ownership of a U.K. and Hong Kong registered company named Fenix International Limited. Fenix, through a Delaware subsidiary headquartered in Florida, owned and operated "OnlyFans," an adult entertainment website. The complaint says that OnlyFans competed with the adult websites where plaintiffs' videos were available. After the acquisition, plaintiffs started to notice that their posts were being deleted or hidden on the social media apps they used to promote their work, resulting in a substantial drop in their traffic. The consequence was a corresponding drop of views of their videos on the adult websites they worked with. The complaint alleges that even though the websites with plaintiffs' videos experienced steadily decreasing traffic, visits to the OnlyFans platform grew dramatically. Charts included in the complaint show OnlyFans total monthly web traffic growing from less than 3 million to nearly 12 million from June 2019 to June 2021. Similar charts show dramatic losses of traffic at several unidentified competing adult websites over the same period. The complaint asserts that OnlyFans "quickly became one of the most dominant players in the adult industry" growing to be the 86th largest website in the United States and the "4th largest adult pay website in the world." The complaint alleges that OnlyFans growth resulted from it "gaining an enormous advantage over its competitors by wrongfully manipulating behind-the-scenes databases, and in the process harming thousands of small entrepreneurs who rely on social media. . . . ." Liberally using the "on information and belief" qualifier, the complaint alleges a complicated scheme to "blacklist" the plaintiffs on social media platforms so that their web traffic would be dramatically reduced or eliminated. The key to the scheme was allegedly a database initially created by several social media companies under the name "Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism." The database allegedly included "hashes, or unique digital footprints" of "violent terrorist content that had been flagged and removed . . . . " from social media platforms. The complaint says that many social media companies use the database "to identify and quickly remove potential terrorist content on their respective platforms." The theory of the lawsuit is that following the acquisition of OnlyFans by Radvinsky, the plaintiffs' information was surreptitiously added to the GIFCT database resulting in them being blacklisted as terrorists or otherwise dangerous individuals even though they had no terrorist involvement. This was allegedly done to harm the businesses of the adult sites that competed with OnlyFans, "in order to improve the market position, revenue, power, and otherwise benefit OnlyFans and its owner, Radvinsky." The complaint alleges that the scheme "required and involved" unidentified "employees or agents" of Meta, Instagram and Facebook to manipulate the database information, but the complaint only identifies the people involved as "John Does" at this time. The plaintiffs assert that the potential class of plaintiffs includes more than a hundred people and that their claims exceed $5 million. In addition to Meta and its subsidiaries, the suit names Radvinsky, Fenix and the Fenix subsidiary that owns the OnlyFans platform. The complaint was filed by the law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, a plaintiffs' class action firm. The firm's website claims that the firm "pioneered federal class action litigation. . . . " and, in the last 50 years, has recovered more than $50 billion for its clients. No response to the complaint has yet been filed. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Bid to Compel Layser to Produce Docs Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D.Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order regarding November 11, 2021 discovery dispute re layser supboena. The Court denies Meta's request for an order compelling Ms. Layser to produce documents responsive to Meta's September 17, 2021 subpoena. However, this order does not 3 Meta from taking discovery of Ms. Layser should it in the future serve discovery requests that comply with the foregoing guidance and are supported by a sufficient justification. Ms. Layser sued Meta on January 13, 2021. Layser v. Facebook, No. 21-cv-00337. Her case was related to and consolidated with this action. The consolidated amended complaint on behalf of the Advertiser Plaintiffs names Ms. Layser as a plaintiff. According to this amended complaint, Meta engaged in "a scheme to unlawfully monopolize the market for social advertising" that allowed it to charge supracompetitive prices for social advertisements. The amended complaint includes allegations specific to Ms. Layser. On August 5, 2021, Ms. Layser voluntarily dismissed her claims against Meta without prejudice. About six weeks later, Meta served a Rule 45 document subpoena on Ms. Layser seeking categories of documents. Ms. Layser objects to producing any responsive documents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HBg0RR at no extra charge.[CC] MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Sanders Complaint v. MDOC ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case, JASON L. SANDERS, Plaintiff v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-510 (W.D. Mich.). I. Background The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. The Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington and the following IBC personnel: Warden Unknown Macauley; Deputy Wardens Unknown Walzac and Unknown McBride; Prisoner Counselors Unknown Battle and Unknown Stroller; Food Service Director Unknown Klien; Grievance Coordinator Unknown Robinson; Captain Unknown Bennikson; Lieutenant Unknown Harrison; Inspector Unknown Gibson; Corrections Officers Unknown Gibson, Unknown Burch, Unknown Crips, Unknown Simon, Unknown Muchowski, Unknown George, and Unknown Parish; Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown Party #1; Healthcare Unit Supervisor Unknown Party #2; and Nurses Unknown Strong and C. Corning. The Plaintiff's complaint initially appears to resemble many others that have been brought in the Western District of Michigan by prisoners with legitimate fears posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and frustrations with their prisons' responses. But on closer inspection, that is different in important ways. It appears to be the Plaintiff's fourth of seven complaints since August 2020 that he has brought against many of the same defendants. The Plaintiff has sued Defendant Washington in five of the seven actions, and he has sued Defendant Macauley in all seven. His amended complaint also duplicates allegations he has raised in prior and later actions. The Plaintiff alleges in the instant amended complaint conduct from several discrete events at IBC, the first of which occurred by December 2020 and the last of which occurred after the start of April 2021. The first and earliest allegation that reasonably can be construed as a claim alleges that Defendants Washington and Macauley interfered with the Plaintiff's access to the courts by closing the IBC law library. By the end of December 2020, after the Plaintiff "attempted to grieve" issues related to COVID-19, Defendant Robinson threatened to place the Plaintiff on modified access to the grievance process. The Plaintiff explains that he contacted internal affairs and legal affairs to report IBC staff's failures to comply with Governor Whitmer's executive orders related to COVID-19. He appears to allege that Defendant Robinson's conduct implicated Defendants Battle, Stroller, and Macauley as well. In early February 2021, the B.1.1.7 variant of the novel coronavirus infected kitchen workers first in Unit 7, next in Unit 6, and finally in Unit 3, and "Defendants Washington and Macauley refused to shut down the IBC food service" dining hall. Around Feb. 9, 2021, Defendants Macauley and Battle allegedly moved Plaintiff and inmate Steele (not a party), who worked in food service, to a new cell on Unit 7. The Plaintiff was then tested, and his results returned negative. After spending several more hours in the cell with Steele, the Plaintiff was moved to a quarantine cell, apparently on another unit, for those prisoners who had been in close contact with individuals ill with COVID-19. The Plaintiff contends that he was restricted while quarantined. He complains that Unit 7 prisoners "were denied exercise yard" and given only "8 minutes" for phone calls and "5 minutes" of J-Pay daily. He further alleges that Defendants Washington, Macauley, and Walzac "mixed" the population in Unit 7, housing both Security Level 4 and Security Level 2 prisoners, "which created a hostile and unsafe environment for the lower custody prisoners." Neither administrative nor custodial staff at IBC conducted rounds on the COVID-19 unit. The Plaintiff further alleges that medical staff did not adequately treat him while he was ill with COVID-19. The remainder of the Plaintiff's allegations apply more generally to the pandemic. Summarizing his allegations, the Plaintiff contends that IBC staff "did not take proper precautions" to prevent Plaintiff from contracting COVID-19. He avers that social distancing in IBC was impossible. Also mixed within the Plaintiff's amended complaint is an incomplete declaration. It appears that the Plaintiff wrote the declaration himself and left the name and signature of the declarant open. It remains unsigned. Finally, the Plaintiff lists what he styles as 15 "legal claims" for relief. Many of the claims each assert multiple rights to relief related to his allegations. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, $100,000 in compensatory damages against each Defendant, $100,000 in punitive damages against each Defendant, and costs. II. Discussion A. Motion to amend the complaint The Plaintiff has filed an unsigned motion to amend the complaint, two motions to certify a class, and a motion to appoint counsel. The Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint arrived several days before his amended complaint. Both filings appear to have been mailed on the same day, and the amended complaint serves as the operative pleading. The Plaintiff is unrepresented and has not signed the motion. On July 8, 2021, the Court informed the Plaintiff that it would strike the motion from the record without further order if Plaintiff did not submit his signature within 21 days. The Plaintiff did not submit his signature within 21 days. B. Motions to certify class and to amend The Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking class certification. He has further filed a motion to amend stating that he intends to state to the Court the number of putative class members, however, he omitted any such number. Judge Jonker holds that it is well established that pro se litigants are "inadequate class representatives." He explains that pro se prisoners generally may not bring class action lawsuits concerning prison conditions because pro se prisoners are not able to represent fairly a class. Because the Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, he finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, Judge Jonker will deny the Plaintiff's request for class certification. C. Motion to appoint counsel The Plaintiff has also asked the Court to appoint counsel. Indigent parties in civil cases have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney. The Court may, however, request an attorney to serve as counsel, in its discretion. Judge Jonker opines that appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether to exercise its discretion, the Court should consider the complexity of the issues, the procedural posture of the case, and the Plaintiff's apparent ability to prosecute the action without the help of counsel. Judge Jonker has carefully considered these factors and determines that, at this stage of the case, the assistance of counsel does not appear necessary to the proper presentation of the Plaintiff's position. Hence, the Plaintiff's motion will be denied. D. Misjoinder The Plaintiff brings the action against 22 Defendants, alleging discrete events that occurred over approximately four months, with at least 15 "claims." Judge Jonker explains that to allow the Plaintiff to proceed with improperly joined claims and the Defendants in a single action would permit him to circumvent the PLRA's filing fee provisions and allow him to avoid having to incur a "strike" for purposes of Section 1915(g), should any of his putative claims turn out to be frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim. Courts are therefore obligated to reject misjoined complaints like the Plaintiff's. Judge Jonker will look to the first named Defendant and the earliest clear factual allegations involving that the Defendant to determine which portions of the action should be considered related. The Plaintiff names Defendant Washington as the first Defendant in the caption of the amended complaint in the list of the Defendants and in his allegations giving rise to a putative claim. As noted, the Plaintiff's first and earliest allegations that reasonably give rise to a claim assert that Defendants Washington and Macauley closed IBC's law library, and the Plaintiff purportedly missed a court deadline as a result. Judge Jonker finds that the conduct by Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning is wholly unrelated to the Plaintiff's putative claim regarding IBC's closed law library. Moreover, there is neither a transaction or occurrence, nor a question of law or fact, that is common to all the Defendants. The Plaintiff has, therefore, improperly joined to this action Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning as well as the claims against Defendant Macauley other than the Plaintiff's claim that Macauley closed the law library. Because he has concluded that the Plaintiff has improperly joined to the action multiple Defendants and the claims against them, Judge Jonker must determine an appropriate remedy. He finds that whether or not the Plaintiff receives the benefit of tolling during the administrative exhaustion period, and during the pendency of the action, the Plaintiff has sufficient time in the limitations period to file new complaints against Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, Corning, and Macauley, and he will not suffer gratuitous harm if claims against these Defendants are dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Jonker will exercise discretion under Rule 21 and drop Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning from the suit, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice to the institution of new, separate lawsuits. He will further dismiss without prejudice the misjoined claims against Defendant Macauley. If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his claims against the dismissed the Defendants, he will do so by filing new civil actions on the form provided by the Court, and paying the required filing fee or applying in the manner required by law to proceed in forma pauperis. E. Failure To State a Claim The Plaintiff alleges several constitutional violations. He alleges that Defendants Washington and Macauley interfered with his access to the courts. He further alleges that Defendant Washington violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Washington retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. First, Judge Jonker holds that the Plaintiff utterly fails to demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury. The Plaintiff neither alleges the basis for his underlying action nor indicates that he sought to attack his sentence or challenge the conditions of confinement. Further, it is not at all clear what, if any, remedy was lost to him. Consequently, Juge Jonker will, therefore, dismiss his access to the courts claim. Second, he opines that (i) the Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim for policies that restricted access to phones, J-Pay, and the prison yard; (ii) the Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Washington for the policy that permitted mixing prisoners from different security levels on a COVID-19 outbreak unit; (iii) at this stage in the proceedings, the Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to satisfy the objective and subjective prongs of the deliberate indifference test in any of his claims so he may not maintain an Eighth Amendment claim against her for sharing a cell while quarantining; (iv) the Plaintiff has not presented any facts to support his conclusion that Defendant Washington retaliated against him because he complained to his family so his speculative allegation fails to state a claim; and (v) the Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Washington engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. III. Conclusion Judge Jonker denies the Plaintiff's pending motions. Additionally, pursuant to Rules 18, 20, and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he determines that Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning are misjoined in the action. He dropps them from the suit, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice. He also dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Macauley other than the retained claim that Macauley interfered with the Plaintiff's access to the courts. Further, having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Judge Jonker determines that the Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c). Judge Jonker must next decide whether an appeal of the action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3). For the same reasons he concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint is properly dismissed, Judge Jonker also concludes that any issue the Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Accordingly, he certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). A judgment consistent with Judge Jonker's opinion will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/37yjdmjw from Leagle.com. MORLEY COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Journagin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JOURNAGIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MORLEY COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10443-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Feb. 28, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted to it. This sensitive information, includes, without limitation, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, client and/or member identification numbers, medical diagnostic and treatment information, and health insurance information including medications, conditions, and providers (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII and PHI had been accessed and potentially acquired by an unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future, to destroy information no longer necessary to retain for purposes for which the information was first obtained from Class Members, and to provide a sum of money sufficient to provide to Plaintiff and Class Members identity theft protective services for their respective lifetimes as Plaintiff and Class Members will be at an increased risk of identity theft due to the conduct of Morley . Beginning on August 1, 2021, Morley discovered that it could not access data on its computer systems. After investigation, Morley learned that an unauthorized third party had gained access to files on its services where sensitive PII was stored (the "Data Breach"). In its Notice of Data Breach published on its website on February 2, 2022, Morley advises that the data accessed contained PII. However, the Notice provides scant other information, including how long these unauthorized third-parties had access to the sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Additionally, Morley has failed to adequately explain why it took six months to begin notifying individuals that their PII had been accessed by an unauthorized third-party, the suit contends. This case involves a breach of a computer system by an unknown third-party, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure and potential acquisition of the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members to unknown third-parties. As a result of Defendant's alleged failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was accessed and/or acquired and is now in the hands of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now and will forever face a substantial increased risk of identity theft. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant time and money in the future to protect themselves due to Morley's failures, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Morley as well as various clients. Morley is an international provider of business services to Fortune 500 companies. Its services include business process outsourcing, organizing meetings and incentives, and designing, fabricating, and installing exhibits and displays. Morley assists clients in industries including automotive, healthcare, technology, and communications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 739-1950 E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca Kester, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com fkester@ForThePeople.com MSP RECOVERY: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-23749-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for a brief enlargement of time to the class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiff will file its class March 1, 2022 certification motion and include the reports of any class certification experts with the motion. -- The Parties agree to set mutually March 11, 2022 agreeable dates for the depositions of Plaintiff's class certification experts to occur by: -- The Defendant will file its opposition April 1, 2022 to the class certification motion and include the reports of any class certification experts with the opposition. The parties agree to set mutually agreeable dates for the depositions of the Defendant's class certification experts. -- The Plaintiff will file its reply to April 18, 2022 Defendant's opposition: MSP Recovery is the leading Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer Act Recovery Specialist. Ace American operates as an insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KglRxR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Amanda McGovern, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: amcgovern@riveromestre.com arivero@riveromestre.com receptionist@riveromestre.com - and - Francesco Zincone, Esq. Eduardo Bertran Esq. J. Alfredo Armas, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI 4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 Facsimile: (786) 221-2903 E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com alfred@armaslaw.com - and - Charles E. Whorton, Esq. John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com jruiz@msprecovery.com The Defendant is represented by: Valerie Greenberg, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. Alexander J. Hall, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast 7th Street, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: valerie.greenberg@akerman.com debra.atkinson@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com maria.ossorio@akerman.com alexander.hall@akerman.com kim.stathopulos@akerman.com - and - Bryce L. Friedman, Esq. Alan C. Turner, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Facsimile: (212) 455-2502 E-mail: bfriedman@stblaw.com aturner@stblaw.com MUTUAL SECURITIES: Bids for Attys.' Fees in Milliner Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03354-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the parties' motions for awards of attorneys' fees pursuant to a provision in the settlement agreement and California Civil Code section 1717. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joann Brem executed a written settlement agreement with Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. ("MSI") on June 1, 2018. MSI later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in the case, arguing that the Plaintiffs and their counsel, David Sturgeon-Garcia, had breached them. The Court ruled on portions of the motion in July 2019 and held one part in abeyance pending the issuance of a determinative decision by the California Supreme Court. In June 2021, the Court ruled on the remaining dispute. Both sides now move for awards of attorneys' fees pursuant to a provision in the settlement agreement and California Civil Code section 1717, each arguing that it is the prevailing party on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. These motions are suitable for resolution without a hearing. II. Background Plaintiffs Milliner and Brem filed the case as a putative class action asserting claims stemming from MSI's brokerage agreement with them. On June 1, 2018, following a settlement conference before Judge Ryu, the parties resolved the case and executed a written settlement agreement that contained a confidentiality provision. The parties subsequently consented to have this court conduct all further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). The case was dismissed on Sept. 11, 2018. In April 2019, MSI filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in the case. It argued that the Plaintiffs and Sturgeon-Garcia breached the settlement agreement, including its confidentiality provision, among other things. In its motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the stipulated protective order, MSI argued that the Plaintiffs and/or Sturgeon-Garcia violated the terms of the settlement agreement in three ways, as follows: 1) Sturgeon-Garcia attached confidential documents and deposition transcripts produced and/or used in this case to the Gilotti claim in violation of the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision (issue one); 2) Sturgeon-Garcia attached the settlement agreement to the Gilotti claim in violation of the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision (issue two); and 3) the settlement agreement required Milliner to dismiss her FINRA statement of claim but she failed to do so (issue three). MSI asked the Court to order the Plaintiffs and Sturgeon-Garcia to pay its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement pursuant to a provision in the agreement. The Court issued an order on July 8, 2019. As to issue one, it found that Sturgeon-Garcia's submission of materials from the litigation did not violate the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision. The Court held issue two in abeyance pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court that bore on the question of whether Sturgeon-Garcia was bound by the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision because he was not a party to the agreement and had not signed it in any capacity. It found that "the question of whether Sturgeon-Garcia is bound by the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement remains unsettled." As to issue three, the Court found that "Milliner's continuing failure to dismiss her FINRA claim does not violate the exact wording of the settlement agreement." Nonetheless, it noted that it was "baffling" why the claim was still pending and ordered Milliner to dismiss her FINRA claims against MSI within seven days of the date of the order. The Court deferred ruling on MSI's request for attorneys' fees and expenses pending the outcome of issue two. The parties notified the Court after the California Supreme Court issued Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal. 5th 781 (2019). The Court then set a briefing schedule on the impact of the decision. On June 28, 2021, the Court ruled on issue two; that is, whether the Plaintiffs and/or Sturgeon-Garcia violated the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision by attaching a copy of the settlement agreement to the Gilotti claim. It concluded that "in the absence of any evidence that Sturgeon-Garcia consented to the settlement agreement and the confidentiality provision therein, MSI has not established that he was bound by it." Therefore, the Court held that MSI "has not established that he breached the confidentiality provision" in connection with the Gilotti claim. It also ruled that MSI had not established that Milliner or Brem "personally breached any provision of the settlement agreement." The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an award of attorneys' fees, arguing that MSI moved "to enforce the Settlement Agreement, and lost" and that the Plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" under the attorneys' fees provision. MSI subsequently filed its own motion for an award of attorneys' fees. It argues that it is the prevailing party because it obtained "essentially all the relief that it sought when it filed its motion to enforce the settlement agreement, while the Plaintiffs obtained no relief." III. Discussion In the case, each side contends that it is the prevailing party under section 1717. In its opening brief, the Plaintiffs simply assert that MSI "filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, and lost." For its part, MSI acknowledges that it was "not completely successful in enforcing the settlement agreement against the Plaintiffs' counsel," but argues that MSI "obtained essentially all the relief that it sought when it filed its motion to enforce the settlement agreement, while the Plaintiffs obtained no relief." In their opposition to MSI's motion, the Plaintiffs assert that they "ultimately prevailed on a practical level on all the contract claims," arguing that the court found in their favor on issues one and two. As to issue three, whether Milliner was required to dismiss her FINRA statement of claim, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court found that "there was no technical violation of the settlement agreement." To determine whether to award contractual fees to a prevailing party under section 1717, Judge Ryu explains that the Court must "compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties' demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives." She finds that neither side can claim a clear victory in the case. Given the mixed outcome of MSI's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, neither side achieved a "simple, unqualified win." Judge Ryu holds that although MSI technically did not obtain a legal win on any of the three bases for its motion, it achieved meaningful results toward its litigation objectives on two of the three issues through the relief granted by the Court. In light of the equivocal results of MSI's motion to enforce the settlement, Judge Ryu finds that there was no prevailing party on the contract pursuant to section 1717(b)(1). She thus declines to award fees to either side. Both motions are denied. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ryu denied the parties' motions for attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ntbfc74z from Leagle.com. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Flores Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joshua Burgener, Esq., of Dickinson Wright, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on February 1, 2022 -- the first day of Black History Month -- Brian Flores, the former head football coach of the Miami Dolphins, filed a class action lawsuit against his former team, as well as the New York Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the National Football League ("NFL") for discriminatorily denying employment to Black candidates to serve as Head Coaches, Offensive and Defensive Coordinators, Quarterback Coaches, and General Managers. The 58-page, 261-paragraph Complaint also put the other 29 teams in the NFL on notice that they too could be Defendants in this action. The Complaint lays out the history of alleged discrimination in the NFL, and includes quotes from senior NFL executives admonishing teams for the league's lack of progress in hiring minority candidates. "Any criticism we get for lack of representation at the GM and head coach positions, we deserve," quoting the NFL's Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer, Jonathan Beane. The Complaint relies on data showing just how few head coaches, offensive, defensive, and special teams coordinators, quarterback coaches, and general managers are black, especially when you consider that 70% of NFL players are black. What is fascinating about Flores' lawsuit is how much the Complaint relies on information that has been apparent (and discussed) for years. In many ways, the Complaint itself could have just as easily have appeared in Sports Illustrated or a segment on ESPN rather than a filing in federal court. And, while much of what Flores' lawyers set out in the Complaint were matters of public record, there are some facts or allegations that were not -- specifically, a text message exchange between Coach Flores and his former boss, and current head coach of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, wherein Belichick congratulated Flores on being hired for a job he had yet to interview for, only to realize later he had "f-ed up" because he thought he was corresponding with another former protege also named Brian. Oops. Flores also alleges that Miami Dolphins owner Steven Ross offered to pay him $100,000 for each game the team lost during the 2019 season to secure a higher draft pick. While this explosive allegation rocked the NFL and has serious implications for the league and Ross' ability to continue to own the Dolphins, if the charges are substantiated, it has very little to do with whether Flores was fired because of his race. In fact, there is a strong argument that Flores' decision not to "play ball" with the owner's desire to tank - commendable as it was - and not the color of his skin, is why he was fired. And, as any manager or HR professional knows, employees can basically be fired for any reason, so long as the reason isn't illegal (i.e., discriminatory or because that individual engaged in protected behavior). As a commercial and employment litigator, to say nothing of an avid sports fan, I will be following this case very closely to see what transpires in the weeks ahead. The headline of Jacob Gershman's Wall Street Journal article from February 4, 2022, says it all "Brian Flores Case Could Test NFL -- If Lawsuit Survives Early Hurdles." Here's what I will be looking for and the questions I have been asking: Is the NFL even a proper party? Brian Flores never worked for the NFL per se and was neither interviewed, hired, nor fired by the NFL. I could certainly see the NFL filing a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim up which relief can be granted; Did Brian Flores' contract with the Dolphins have an arbitration provision? If so, I am sure they will seek to remove the case to private arbitration and out of the limelight of the Southern District of New York and the federal court system generally; Which comes back to a larger question -- to what lengths will the NFL and the teams he has sued go to to stop this lawsuit in its tracks? In the most mundane cases, discovery is a beast, but the sheer volume of (not all relevant, but potentially embarrassing) information that could come to light is astonishing. Just ask Jon Gruden what can happen when lawyers start looking through your emails. The NFL will do everything it can to stop this matter from being litigated either in court or the court of public opinion; Will anyone else join Flores' suit? To date, other Black head coaches have given interviews sharing their own experiences, but none have signed on. Former Cleveland Browns coach Hue Jackson said he was encouraged to lose but had to walk back comments that he was affirmatively offered money to do so; What will the NFL do internally? Since the Complaint was filed, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo to all thirty-two NFL teams calling the diversity among its coaches to be "unacceptable" and promising to "reevaluate" the league's current diversity, equity, and inclusion policies (a direct reference to the Rooney Rule that was implemented after Johnny Cochran threatened the sue) and requires NFL teams to interview at least one Black candidate for all head coaching vacancies. During his press conference ahead of Super Bowl XVI, Goodell went further, saying the league had "really focused to try and get the kind of [diversity] results that we would expect and [the NFL] fell short…but a long shot." On the one hand, the league wants to look like it's doing something; on the other hand, it does not want to do anything to bolster Flores' case should it be allowed to proceed forward. Moreover, the league cannot (yet) mandate that teams hire particular candidates. Any changes to NFL policies (like strengthening the Rooney Rule) will require approval of at least 75% of the NFL owners or twenty-four out of thirty-two teams. Will Flores coach in the NFL in 2022? So far, he remains unemployed, despite being a career 24-25 as a head coach, and previously considered one of the most sought-after candidates when he was surprisingly fired by the Dolphins. Flores' legal team has already suggested that he was not hired to be the head man for the Houston Texans because of this lawsuit, and there are presently no head coaching vacancies in the NFL. At the end of the day, the NFL, and the thirty-two teams that comprise the league, are workplaces subject to the same employment laws as everyone else -- their workplaces are just more interesting. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Discrimination Suit to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Benton, writing for msn, reports that even before the New York Giants finished conducting their head coaching search, they were slapped with a class-action lawsuit courtesy of Brian Flores. In the legal filings, Flores, who is also suing the NFL and several of its teams, claims that he was "humiliated" by the Giants, believing they ran him through a "sham interview" process to give the impression a minority coach was a serious candidate. The Giants emphatically denied Flores' allegations of racial discrimination. "The allegation that the Giants' decision had been made prior to Friday evening, January 28, is false. And to base that allegation on a text exchange with Bill Belichick in which he ultimately states that he "thinks" Brian Daboll would get the job is irresponsible. The text exchange occurred the day before Coach Daboll's in-person interview even took place. Giants' ownership would never hire a head coach based only on a 20-minute zoom interview, which is all that Mr. Daboll had at that point," the Giants said in part. After his filing, Flores continued to receive head coaching interest from the Houston Texans. However, after they passed on Flores and instead hired Lovie Smith, they, too, found themselves added to Flores' lawsuit. Even after being hired as a defensive assistant and linebackers coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers, Flores and his representatives maintain that the lawsuit will move forward. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Says Race Played Role in Dolphins Firing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hal Habib, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that Brian Flores, speaking on a podcast released on Feb. 21, said he believes race was a factor in his firing by the Dolphins. Flores has a class-action suit pending accusing the NFL of discriminatory hiring practices. It also alleges that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross attempted to bribe him to lose games in 2019 to enhance the team's draft position, a charge Ross denied. Flores, who is Black, had not alleged his dismissal was related to race until now. "I think race played a role in my firing," Flores said on the "I Am Athlete" podcast. "What I mean by that is, there were things I was asked to do. There were conversations that were had. I was made out to be a difficult person to work with. I think my white counterparts wouldn't have been asked to do the things I was asked to do." Flores appeared on the podcast with former receivers Brandon Marshall and Chad Johnson, who both briefly played for the Dolphins before Flores arrived, and Sun-Sentinel Dolphins reporter Omar Kelly. Flores did not specify which "things" were requested of him that he felt were inappropriate. The Dolphins referred to their earlier statement released by Ross. "With regards to the allegations being made by Brian Flores, I am a man of honor and integrity and cannot let them stand without responding," Ross said. "I take great personal exception to these malicious attacks, and the truth must be known. His allegations are false, malicious and defamatory. We understand there are media reports stating that the NFL intends to investigate his claims, and we will cooperate fully. I welcome that investigation and I am eager to defend my personal integrity, and the integrity and values of the entire Miami Dolphins organization, from these baseless, unfair and disparaging claims." When Flores was fired Jan. 10, Ross cited his inability to work collaboratively. "Look," Flores said. "I'm a strong personality. I know that played a role. You need to be that to be a head coach in the National Football League." Flores on the timing of the suit: 'I thought there was power in filing it then' The Pittsburgh Steelers announced on Feb. 19 that they were adding Flores to Mike Tomlin's staff as a senior defensive assistant/linebackers. When the suit was filed, Tomlin was the league's lone Black head coach and Flores was a finalist for head coaching openings with the New York Giants and Houston Texans. Flores said he wished to make a statement by filling the suit, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, while under consideration for head coaching positions. "I thought there was power in filing it right then," he said. "I was going to put it all on the line. That's how important it was to me." It originally appeared Flores made a concerted effort to avoid linking the Dolphins to racism. While serving as Dolphins coach, he and general manager Chris Grier formed the only Black head coach/GM tandem in the NFL. In addition, Marvin Allen is the assistant GM and Reggie McKenzie is senior personnel executive. They too are Black. The Dolphins were honored by the Fritz Pollard Alliance in 2020 for diversity. Two years ago, NBC analyst and Pro Football Hall of Famer Tony Dungy, speaking in West Palm Beach, called Ross' diverse hiring practices "a blueprint" for the league. He credited Ross with thinking "outside the box" to find qualified candidates. "I think they look for a leader," Dungy said at the time. "They look for somebody from a winning organization who had leadership qualities, who can direct them for a long time, and Brian Flores reminds me a lot of myself." Believing that taking the matter to court could benefit minorities in general, Flores said he told his wife, Jennifer, "I'm not going to be able to live with myself if I don't file this lawsuit." Flores said he declined to sign the Dolphins' separation agreement -- thus giving up pay for the remaining two years on his contract -- because it would have meant conceding the right to sue or speak his mind. Flores still must contend with a common clause in NFL contracts calling for disputes to be settled by arbitration rather than in court. The Texans' job instead went to Lovie Smith, a Black man who hadn't been considered a finalist. The Dolphins hired Mike McDaniel, who is biracial. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, speaking during Super Bowl week, acknowledged frustration at the league's inability to achieve diversity in key positions including head coach and general manager. On the podcast, Flores said NFL owners ignore qualifications and instead side with familiarity while hiring mostly white men for high-ranking positions. "There's a change of heart that needs to happen," Flores said. "We've got to open our minds up." Goodell speculated it might be time to scrap the Rooney Rule, which requires minority candidates to be interviewed for key openings, in favor of a more comprehensive strategy to promote diversity. Flores said change will require Black ownership of NFL teams and an "oversight committee" to review hiring and firing throughout the league. "Maybe it's a collection of individuals that aren't affiliated with the team," he said. Johnson responded by saying NFL owners would never cede such control. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: GM Comments on Decision to Hire Former Coach --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Rutter, writing for TribLive, reports that as evidenced by the decision to hire Brian Flores, the Pittsburgh Steelers weren't scared away by the former Miami Dolphins coach's class-action lawsuit against the NFL, which claims racial discrimination in the league's hiring practices. General manager Kevin Colbert, though, said the organization wasn't making a statement by giving Flores a chance to coach the team's linebackers in the role of senior defensive assistant. "It says we hired a very good quality defensive coach that can maybe help us win games," Colbert said on Feb. 21. "Beyond that, there is nothing else to say." Flores, 40, was fired by the Dolphins after compiling back-to-back winning seasons that brought his record to 24-25 in three years in Miami. He named the Dolphins, the Denver Broncos and New York Giants in his lawsuit against the NFL. Such a lawsuit could make a coach untouchable, but the Steelers ended any speculation on whether Flores ever would get another coaching opportunity. Colbert said he had minimal input in coach Mike Tomlin's decision to add Flores to the coaching staff. The Steelers had an opening after Keith Butler retired as defensive coordinator and senior defensive assistant Teryl Austin was promoted to take Butler's place. "Coach Tomlin makes every coaching hire," Colbert said. "He will come to me at different times and say, 'I'm interviewing so and so, do you know anything about him or could you find out some things about him.' When he brought coach Flores' name up as a potential (hire), I was excited about it. "Coach Flores has been a successful defensive coordinator and head coach. The thing that's really intriguing about Brian is he started off in the personnel world. I'm excited to get with him and see what kind of ideas he can bring to us from a coaching standpoint as well as a personnel standpoint." Flores was 23 when he joined the New England Patriots in 2003 as a scouting assistant. He became a pro scout before joining coach Bill Belichick's staff in 2008. He has coached special teams, safeties and linebackers while making the defensive play calls late in his tenure with the Patriots. Other items Colbert addressed: -- The Steelers remain open to defensive end Stephon Tuitt returning in 2022 even though he didn't play last season, and his 2022 salary cap figure is nearly $14 million. A knee injury that required surgery, combined with the death of his brother in a hit-and-run accident, contributed to Tuitt missing the 2021 season. "We're very open to continuing to help him," Colbert said. "We'll continue to evaluate that position and his availability to us. We just hope for the best for him as he tries to come back and be a part of the Pittsburgh Steelers." -- One thing he wishes he could revisit from 2021 was providing more experience for the offensive line in the wake of Maurkice Pouncey's retirement, David DeCastro's injury and the exit of Matt Feiler and Alejandro Villanueva in free agency. Guard Trai Turner and backup Joe Haeg were the only significant additions in a group that included rookies Kendrick Green and Dan Moore Jr. and second-year guard Kevin Dotson. "If I have any regrets, it's probably from not adding another veteran, an affordable veteran that maybe could have eased the growth time for that group," Colbert said. "We knew it was going to be a tough year." [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: May Face Dolphin Wagers Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that nearly three weeks ago, former Dolphins coach Brian Flores dropped a bomb on the NFL by suing the league for racial discrimination in the hiring, compensation, and retention of Black coaches. The lawsuit included a separate allegation that Flores fell out of favor because he refused to go along with a plan to tank in 2019, ultimately refusing an offer from team owner Stephen Ross of $100,000 per loss. Making the claim that Ross wanted to lose even more jarring is the fact that it allegedly happened at the dawn of the age of legalized sports wagering. As of 2019, roughly six states had legalized sports wagering programs. To the extent that the tanking plan worked, the Dolphins deliberately lost games that someone, somewhere bet hard-earned money they'd win. For that reason, it's hard not to imagine that the Dolphins and the NFL will eventually face a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all those gamblers who placed wagers on the Dolphins to win, either via the money line or with application of the point spread. The argument would be simple. The owner's alleged desire to lose games taints the outcome of every loss, justifying a refund of all money wagered and lost. It's too early to know what Flores will say regarding the tanking plan in 2019. The available evidence suggests that he may have gone along with it through the Week Five bye. The Dolphins lost in Week One to the Ravens, 59-10. Then came a 43-0 loss to the Patriots, a 31-6 drubbing in Dallas, and a 30-10 loss to the Chargers. During the bye, Flores announced that Josh Rosen would serve as the starting quarterback for the rest of the year. During a Week Six game against Washington, Flores replaced Rosen with Ryan Fitzpatrick. The Dolphins went from losing by a score of 17-3 to a final outcome of 17-16. In hindsight, that could be the moment at which Flores decided to break from the tanking plan. Immediately after the loss to Washington, Flores said Rosen remains the starter. The next day, Flores opened the door for Fitzpatrick to reclaim the job. Two days later, it was official -- Rosen out, Fitzpatrick in. After starting 0-7, the Dolphins went 5-4. Even without specific testimony from Flores as to whether tanking happened and if so when it ended, it looks like there was something happening. Indeed, some league insiders wondered in September whether it wasn't a one-year tank or Tua but a two-year effort to land Trevor Lawrence. Regardless, there's a class action waiting to be filed. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been filed yet. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pittsburgh Steelers Hires Flores Following Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tori Powell, writing for CBS News, reports that The Pittsburgh Steelers named former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores as its senior defensive assistant/linebackers coach, the team said on Feb. 19. The announcement comes weeks after Flores filed a lawsuit against the NFL and several of its teams for racial discrimination. "I am excited about Brian Flores joining our coaching staff given his history of developing and teaching defensive players during his time in the NFL," Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin said in a statement on Feb. 19. "Brian's resume speaks for itself, and I look forward to him adding his expertise to help our team." Flores began his career with the New England Patriots, where he spent 11 seasons in various coaching positions, according to the Steelers. He arrived at the team after playing football at Boston College. In 2019, Flores was hired as the head coach of the Dolphins. After leading the team to back-to-back winning seasons, Flores was fired. Earlier this month, Flores filed a class-action lawsuit against the NFL, the New York Giants, the Dolphins, the Denver Broncos and unnamed individuals for several instances of alleged racial discrimination. Among the allegations in the lawsuit, Flores claims that the Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered to pay him $100,000 for every loss during the coach's first season because Ross wanted to protect the team's draft pick. Flores said standing up against Ross hurt his standing within the organization and led to his firing. The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, also claims that the Giants had already chosen someone as their new coach before Flores interviewed for the position. Flores also alleged that when he interviewed for the head coach position with the Broncos, interviewers arrived late and hungover. The NFL, Dolphins, Broncos and Giants have denied the lawsuit's claims. A law firm including former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the Obama administration has been hired by the NFL to defend it and its teams, CBS Miami reported. Today, there are three minority head coaches out of 32 in the league. The Steelers' Tomlin is one of them. Meanwhile, about 70% of players in the NFL are Black. "We didn't have to file a lawsuit for the world to know that there's a problem from a hiring standpoint in regards to minority coaches in the National Football League," Flores exclusively told "CBS Mornings." "The numbers speak for themselves. We filed the lawsuit so that we could create some change and that's important to me." Analisa Novak contributed reporting. [GN] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Stipulated Scheduling Order Entered in Smith --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01217-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered a stipulated scheduling order as follows: 1) All class discovery and discovery regarding the damages claims of plaintiff, Brendan Smith to be completed by June 1, 2022; 2) Expert reports regarding the damages claims of plaintiff, Brendan Smith, if necessary, to be exchanged by June 15, 2022; and 3) The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by July 1, 2022. The Court will schedule a further case management conference following a ruling on the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products that protect your many sides. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqYmxQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Nicholas A. Cummins, Esq. BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC 1500 Market Street, 32nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A.L. Battle, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 North High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 NCI GROUP: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO GONZALEZ on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. NCI GROUP, INC., dba NCI BUILDING SYSTEMS; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00948 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony W. Ishii entered an order setting deadlines and hearings. The Court has deemed the motion to certify class. As such, the hearing is vacated and the motion will be taken under submission as of that date, says Judge Ishii. The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation. NCI Group designs, manufactures, and markets metal products.[CC] NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Extension for Discovery Deadline Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN, BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a, NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT; NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for class certification discovery as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline --Close of Pre-Certification March 31, 2022 June 29, 2022 Fact Discovery --Deadline to amend the March 31, 2022 June 29, 2022 pleadings or add new parties --Telephone Status Conference April 5, 2022 July 5, 2022 to set deadlines for next phase of litigation Nemacolin is in the resort hotel business. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3py6qJu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joy D. Llaguno, Esq. HOOK & HOOK PLLC 430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101 Waynesburg, PA 15370 Telephone: 724-802-7144 Facsimile: 724-802-7959 E-mail: jllaguno@hooklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: William E. Blick, Esq. Jessica G. Lucas, Esq. Marc T. Thirkell, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 577-7400 Facsimile: (412) 347-5461 E-mail: wblick@grsm.com jlucas@grsm.com mthirkell@grsm.com NETFLIX INC: City of Beaumont Mulls Lawsuit Over Franchise Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Kersey, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reports that the City of Beaumont is suing Netflix, Hulu, and Disney for failure to pay franchise fees. At the Feb. 15 city council meeting, the city attorney was officially authorized to file the lawsuit. The city alleges that the companies violated the 2005 Texas Video Service Providers Act, according to a public notice. "The city's desired outcome in pursuing the litigation is to recover from the VSPs damages owed to the city for failure to pay franchise fees and obtain an order requiring the VSPs to pay the franchise fees going forward," the public notice stated. This is not a nationwide law, City Attorney Sharae Reed said. It is Texas specific, and to her knowledge, Netflix, Hulu and Disney are not paying the franchise fees to any cities in Texas. "I'm not privileged to say what other cities are doing, but I am aware of some other cities who are in a class action lawsuit," Reed said. "It's each city filing their own individual lawsuits, and then we're coming together." All three companies are expected to vigorously oppose the charge, so the city is hoping to employ highly-skilled lawyers on the case. Beaumont intends to work with three law firms on the lawsuit — McKool Smith, P.C., Ashcroft Sutton Reyes LLC, and Korein Tillery LLC. McKool Smith was founded in 1991 and was recognized in 2020 as one of leading firms for commercial litigation by Chambers USA, the domestic branch of an international company that ranks the skill of law firms and individual lawyers. McKool Smith was also named a "Texas Powerhouse Firm" in 2019 by Law360, which authors news on the legal profession. Ashcroft Sutton Reyes was founded in 2008 by former U.S. Attorney General, Missouri Gov. and Sen. John Ashcroft. It is composed of several former high-ranking government officials who bring years of expertise in government law. They have a track record of helping governments recover billions of dollars lost to contractual breaches, tax evasion, theft, waste, fraud and abuse. Korein Tillery consistently ranks as on the National Law Journal's "Plaintiff's Hot List" as one of the country's top plaintiff firms. In 2014 and 2015, it was deemed by NLJ as one of the top 50 Elite Trial Lawyers. In Missouri, two lawyers from the firm litigated the first known filed lawsuit seeking to require streaming providers to pay franchise fees to cities. Currently, they are working on similar cases in Georgia and Indiana. Should the lawsuit prove successful for the city, recovered franchise fees will be used to pay for essential municipal services going forward. Councilmember at-large AJ Turner said he had received calls from residents who were concerned about potentially losing their streaming services. Though much is still unclear about the case, Reed made sure individual streamers knew there was nothing to fear during the Feb. 15 city council meeting. "We're not canceling anybody's subscriptions," she said. [GN] NEW MILLENIUM: Underpays Home Attendants, Joseph Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HYACINTHE JOSEPH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEW MILLENIUM NY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01029 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks redress for systematic underpayment of minimum and overtime wages against Defendant, a provider of home health care for the elderly and infirm. The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action on behalf of similarly situated home attendants, personal care aides and/or home health aides (the "Collective or Class Members") The Defendant, by failing to pay promptly Plaintiff, the Collective and Class Members the federal and state mandated minimum wage and overtime, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2016 until January 2022. Plaintiff and the others at all times maintained and lived in their own separate residences. The job duties of the Plaintiff and the others included, but were not limited to the following: personal care services, such as assistance with walking, bathing, dressing, personal grooming, meal preparation, feeding and toileting; heavy and light cleaning, such as vacuuming, mopping, dusting, cleaning windows, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry and taking out garbage; shopping; running errands; escorting clients; and taking care of household visitors and pets. New Millennium is a home care provider that services Forest Hills, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS www.wimslaw.com 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 Facsimile: (646) 393-9552 E-mail: dwims@wimslaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Living Conditions in Prison City Remain Abysmal ------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that living conditions in New York City's prison system remain abysmal -- even after 40 years of federal oversight by a court-appointed monitor brought in at taxpayers' expense, records show. The city's deeply troubled Department of Correction had come under intense scrutiny in the mid-1970s, when pre-trial detainees brought seven different class-action lawsuits alleging confinement conditions were so poor that their constitutional rights were violated. In 1982, then-Manhattan federal Judge Morris Lasker signed off on a settlement agreement requiring the DOC to drastically improve the jails' "environmental conditions." The pact also created an independent monitoring entity, called the Office of Compliance Consultants, to try to help speed up the process. Four decades later, harsh critics including lawyers for the Legal Aid Society, who represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuits over jail conditions, say the situation is still horrific. "Conditions in the jails are deteriorating at an exponential rate," Legal Aid wrote to a judge this past fall. "People in custody are living in filth and darkness, and as a result of massive neglect and mismanagement, the jails and the people confined in them are in crisis." Legal Aid was responding to an October status report to the court filed by OCC Deputy Director Nicole Austin-Best -- who all but agreed that Rikers Island, for one, is a disaster. The OCC is one of at least 11 federal- or state-appointed monitors or "special masters" overseeing ongoing cases aimed at ridding city agencies of longtime negligence and misfeasance. As the Sunday Post exclusively reported, the city has forked over a total of at least $111 million to these high-priced overseers to help fix serious failures: from horrific conditions in public housing to alleged racist practices at the NYPD and FDNY. In terms of the city's jails, in addition to the OCC, there are two other court-appointed groups handling related issues: one involving correction officers accused of routinely using excessive force on juvenile detainees, and another seeking to ensure mentally ill detainees get access to medical treatment and other services upon release. But none of the court-appointed monitors have been on the job as long as the OCC. The OCC has received enough judicial extensions to continue operating for 40 years while racking up hefty fees on the taxpayers' dime -- and as the Rikers Island jail complex remains plagued by poor ventilation, filthy cells and plenty of rodents, records show. The DOC rejected a request by The Post under the Freedom of Information Law seeking its 40-year payment history to the OCC. Instead, it only provided the monitoring agency's cost to taxpayers from 2018 through 2021, which totaled nearly $1.5 million. The OCC works closely with the DOC, has its own staff and sometimes uses outside consultants. All hires and other expenses must be approved by parties in the ongoing litigation. In her October status report, Austin-Best, who records show is paid $150,000 yearly, said the city continues to have difficulty providing inmates clean jail cells, proper ventilation, adequate lighting and other basic living necessities. Those conditions are in violation of a 2001 order by the late Manhattan federal Judge Harold Baer Jr. Austin-Best said the DOC is failing to comply with many of its mandates and that sanitary conditions on Rikers island had gotten especially worse over the previous year, including a "significant increase in vermin activity." She questioned whether DOC staffing shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic played a role. Legal Aid said in its response that the "disgusting, inhumane conditions are markedly worse" than those Baer found "sanctionable" two decades earlier. "Compliance is not just backsliding," they said. Ex-City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who released an analysis in December exposing how costs to house city inmates had reached all-time high while violent jail incidents skyrocketed, said he supports the use of monitors and special masters but believes they need to be held more accountable for their work. "We need monitors, but we need better results," he said. City Councilman Keith Powers (D-Manhattan), who chaired the council's Criminal Justice Committee from 2018 through 2021, said the goal is obviously improving city jails so the federal monitors are no longer needed. But he conceded that some conditions plaguing Rikers Island are so challenging they require constant oversight. "We have constantly seen a [jail facility] that is plagued by violence and has failed to provide even basic services," he said. In September, Powers was among a group of elected officials who toured Rikers Island amid a spike in inmate deaths. Afterward, the pols described putrid conditions that included feces and rotting food carpeting the floors, a dozen men packed into a single cell and inmates with chronic health conditions not receiving proper medical care. Two state legislators also said they saw an inmate try to hang himself in front of them. Last year, 16 people died in DOC custody, more than the previous two years combined and the most since 2016, which saw 15 in-custody deaths, records show. Staffing shortages have led to an uptick in inmate violence, insiders say. In a bid to make its jails more humane, the city is preparing to move ahead with ex-Mayor Bill de Blasio's controversial, nearly $9 billion plan to shutter the Rikers Island prison complex and replace it with four smaller jails in every borough but Staten Island. Many critics say the city would be better off building a new state-of-the-art complex on Rikers Island and away from the general public. Austin-Best did not return messages, and DOC declined to comment. [GN] NISSAN MOTOR: Customers Set to Get Compensation in Cartel Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- FleetNews reports that any UK business or motorist who bought or leased a new car, van or truck between October 2006 and September 2015 could be eligible for compensation of up to GBP60 per vehicle. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has given the green light to a class action against multiple maritime car carriers who operated an illegal cartel to manipulate car shipping prices. More than 17 million cars, vans and trucks are said to been affected by a price-fixing scheme run by several international shipping firms. The proceedings against Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Eukor Car Carriers Inc and Compania Sudamericana de Vapores SA were filed in February 2020. It followed the European Commission's decision in 2018 to fine these shipping companies EUR395 million (GBP329m) for fixed prices and rigged bids for roll-on, roll-off (RoRo) transport of vehicles. The EC found that the shippers had coordinated rates, allocated tenders, coordinated reductions of capacity in the market and exchanged commercially sensitive information to maintain or increase the price of intercontinental shipping of new vehicles. When buying or leasing new vehicles, consumers and businesses pay for delivery costs and the class action aims to help that those who were overcharged get their money back. If the collective action, which has been filed by consumer rights champion Mark McLaren, is successful, anyone who bought or leased an affected vehicle will be automatically entitled to compensation. Customers affected include those who bought from Ford, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Peugeot, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Citroen and Renault between October 2006 and September 2015. The claim value is up to GBP60 per new car bought or leased and class members will be able to claim in respect of more than one vehicle. McLaren has instructed Scott+Scott UK LLP as solicitors on behalf of consumers and businesses who purchased or leased new cars or vans, to proceed to trial. He said: "The CPO (Collective Proceedings Order) is a crucial step in our case, and we are delighted at the CAT's decision to authorise our claim to move forward. "We look forward to securing compensation for the millions of UK consumers impacted by the cartelists' illegal behavior." The claim, estimated to be worth GBP150 million, seeks to recover damages for individual customers and businesses who overpaid for their car as a result of higher delivery charges. This differs, says McLaren, differs from earlier claims filed in relation to the RoRo cartel that represented car manufacturers. David Scott, of Scott+Scott UK LLP, said: "This is an important judgment for class members, but also for the UK collective actions regime as a whole. "When granting the collective proceedings order, the Tribunal correctly noted that collective proceedings such as this claim are important for ensuring that wrongdoers like the shipping companies modify their behaviour." [GN] NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Emergency Braking System ---------------------------------------------------------------- MyCarVoice News reports that Nissan's FEB system has been the source of many complaints, with owners claiming that it can unexpectedly engage or fail completely. A class action lawsuit has since been filed against Nissan North America for these alleged defects in its Forward Emergency Braking (FEB) system. The lawsuit claims that despite repeated owner complaints and dealership repair orders, Nissan wrongfully and intentionally concealed the defect forcing owners to pay for repairs. Forward Emergency Braking System Problem According to the lawsuit, the FEB system uses radar sensors(Continental ARS410) to detect obstacles in front of the vehicle. If the FEB system detects an obstacle, the driver is alerted. If the driver does not respond quickly, the FEB system automatically applies the brakes. Vehicle owners however claim the FEB system contains one or more defects resulting in erratic and unexpected behavior. Because of alleged defects with the system, it's therefore unpredictable and poses a safety hazard to drivers and other occupants on the road. Due to defects with the FEB system, vehicle owners have experienced the following behavior: -- Detecting nonexistent obstacles on the road resulting in the automatic triggering of the brakes suddenly, causing the vehicle to slow down abruptly -- Forcing the vehicle to come to a complete stop without warning, and when not required to do so -- FEB system deactivating itself causing drivers to lose their focus on the road and rendering the safety feature completely useless -- Dashboard flashes warning: "Front radar unavailable due to obstruction." The lawsuit alleges that Nissan North America has been wrongfully and intentionally concealing the defect in their Forward Emergency Braking system. Nissan markets its FEB system as: Intelligent feature that uses radar technology to monitor the vehicle's proximity to the vehicle ahead, giving the driver audible and visual display warnings to help the driver reduce the vehicle's speed if a potential frontal collision is detected. If the driver fails to respond, the Forward Emergency Braking system can apply the brakes, helping the driver to avoid the collision or reduce the speed of impact if it is unavoidable. Additionally, vehicle owners claim Nissan's failure to disclose the FEB defect(s) to consumers, despite their knowledge of alleged defects render the vehicles unsafe and unreliable. Despite Owner Complaints, Nissan Refused to Repair or Replace FEB System Nissan had early indications that its FEB system contained one or more defects during pre-production testing. Yet despite consumer complaints, warranty data, and even dealership repair orders, Nissan has not recalled a single vehicle equipped with the FEB system. Instead, the cost of paying to diagnose and repair has been shifted to the consumer. The lawsuit even includes several complaints submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the models listed in the lawsuit. Braking complaints collected by NHTSA over the past 18 months all seem to describe the same phenomenon with drivers reporting their Nissan Rogue "brakes suddenly without warning." Nissan Vehicles Affected The following vehicles are affected by the alleged Forward Emergency Braking system defect: 2019-2021 Nissan Maxima 2020-2021 Nissan Sentra 2020-21 Nissan Versa 2017-2020 Nissan Rogue 2017-2021 Nissan Rogue Sport 2019-2021 Nissan Altima 2020-2021 Nissan Kicks 2021 Nissan Armada 2018-2021 Nissan Leaf 2019-2021 Nissan Murano 2020-2021 Nissan Titan Status of the Nissan Forward Braking System Class Action Litigation The lawsuit was filed on February 15, 2022 in the United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee. Class Action Currently Active Questions About This Lawsuit? MyCarVoice.com is not counsel or the settlement administrator in this class action investigation. Our goal is to inform owners of these vehicles of the current lawsuit. This post will be updated as more information is officially announced. Please consider subscribing to this post for critical updates. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Bid for Leave to File Document Entered in Ayala ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE J. AYALA, JR., on behalf of himself and as representative of other class members similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a NISSAN USA, Case No. 6:20-cv-01625 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr entered an endorsed order granting motion for leave to file document. The Court said, "By Wednesday, March 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs may file replies of no more than 10 pages. The replies should also include briefing on the difference between the class and collective certification standards, whether Plaintiffs are seeking class certification in the alternative to collective certification or vice versa, and any authority addressing whether such motions can be considered simultaneously." The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nissan USA is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[CC] NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Loses Bid to Strike Bennett's Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JUNE BENNETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and GERALD McGHEE, Plaintiffs v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. I. Background The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of consumers, who North American Bancard, LLC ("NAB") allegedly improperly charged undisclosed monthly fees in connection with its credit card processing service and products. NAB offers a "Pay-As-You-Go" credit card processing service, which was advertised as a free service with no setup, monthly, or hidden fees. The Plaintiffs were two of NAB's Pay-As-You-Go customers who were charged multiple fees in the form of a $3.99 per month "inactivity" fee. NAB automatically began withdrawing these inactivity fees from its customers' bank accounts in 2015. To date, NAB has not refunded any of the inactivity fees withdrawn from the Plaintiffs' bank accounts. Plaintiff McGhee filed the original complaint in the Court in March 2017. NAB then filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike class action claims and related allegations on Aug. 27, 2019, which was denied. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to certify the class in October 2020, which the Court denied without prejudice. On Oct. 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC, which added Bennett as a plaintiff. On Jan. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to certify class, which is still pending before the Court. On Feb. 2, 2022, NAB filed the instant motion to strike class action claims. The Order follows. II. Discussion NAB moves to strike the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f). Under that rule, a court may act sua sponte, or NAB must file a motion to strike a pleading or portion thereof either before responding to the pleading, or, if a response is not allowed, within twenty-one days after the relevant pleading is served. First, Judge Battaglia holds that several courts within the Circuit have held that Rule 12(f) is an improper vehicle for dismissing class claims and should rather be addressed through Rule 23. Next, he says, it would be inappropriate against this procedural backdrop to allow NAB to seek certification-related relief now under Rule 12(f). Lastly, under Rule 12(f)(1), he holds that the Court may strike material from a pleading "on its own" at any time, but this provision is obviously inapplicable in the case because the Court is not acting sua sponte -- it is addressing a motion filed by NAB. III. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Battaglia denied NAB's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9ya99f from Leagle.com. NORTH CAROLINA: Court to Hear Motorists' Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Doyle, writing for WGHP, reports that a federal court on Tuesday, Feb. 22, was scheduled to consider the settlement of a suit that the could help protect drivers who have lost their licenses for non-payment of fines and fees. The case is Johnson v. Jessup, a class action suit filed on behalf of motorists who lost licenses because they failed to pay traffic fines and court costs in full within 40 days, as required by North Carolina statute. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder was scheduled to hold a final hearing on what is described as "a proposed class action settlement" at 10 a.m. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice sued in May 2018 on behalf of Seti Johnson and Sharee Smoot under the 14th Amendment. In August 2019 an amended filing made this a class-action suit to represent all who were in similar circumstances. Torre Jessup, then commissioner of the NCDMV, was named as the defendant. The suit cites the 1-page official notice that alerts defendants that their licenses are about to be revoked but, the suit alleges, doesn't tell them all their rights. The suit sought to have North Carolina's law declared unconstitutional, to prevent NC DMV from revoking licenses without a hearing and without establishing options to repay the fines and fees and to require the DMV to restore any licenses that were revoked solely because fines and fees weren't paid on time. Johnson, described in court filings as a young, Black father of three, had lost his job and was unable to pay off his traffic ticket, which moved the DMV to revoke and suspend his license, which, his suit says, prevented him from driving to a job and taking his children to school and daycare. Smoot, described as a Black mother, faced the same situation for two different violations, the suit alleges. She was forced to drive in violation of the law or to lose her job. State law gives motorists 40 days to pay their fines and fees or revoke the license indefinitely. The suit said that law affected 436,000 drivers just in the fall of 2017. Plaintiffs argued that the law unfairly targeted people living in poverty, citing the 15% of North Carolinians living below the poverty line at the time of the filing. Attorneys for the NC DMV argued that the 11th Amendment of the Constitution precluded the federal court from hearing the suit, saying it was a state matter, that the "fundamental fairness" doctrine does not apply. [GN] NOTORIETY GROUP: Kuan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ Megan Kuan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Notoriety Group LLC, Anthony Shnayderman, Nathan Leong, and Niv Shaked, Case No. 1:22-cv-01583 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants pride themselves on having "curated and managed the experience for the main stage vip SkyDeck tables at Electric Zoo Festival 2 since 2015." To accomplish their business goals, Defendants: (i) allegedly mis-classify their servers -- including Plaintiff -- as independent contractors; (ii) fail to pay their servers -- including Plaintiff -- any wages, under the FLSA and NYLL; and (iii) maintain an illegal policy and practice of appropriating their servers' -- including Plaintiff's -- tipped wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendants' event production company, known as "Notoriety Group" in 2019 and 2021. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-managerial employee. The Defendants own, operate and/or control an event production company known as "Notoriety Group". The Defendants hold themselves out as a "New York City-based VIP lifestyle and events management group founded by Nathan Leong and Anthony Shnayderman."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH) between August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important March 14, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Oak Street Health securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=2905 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street Health maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street Health 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 Health 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 Health 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 Oak Street Health's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=2905 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.compkim@rosenlegal.comcases@rosenlegal.comwww.rosenlegal.com [GN] OCTAPHARMA AG: Judge OKs $10M Fingerprint Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that people who donated blood plasma at clinics operated by Octapharma in Illinois may soon see a bit of cash headed their way, under a $10 million settlement approved by a Chicago federal judge to end a class action lawsuit over donor fingerprint scans. The lawyers who led the class action can expect to see more than $3 million land in their accounts, as well, under the deal. On Feb. 16, U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted final approval to the deal. The legal action dates back to 2019, when named plaintiff Mary Crumpton filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Octapharma Plasma. The class action accused the company of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, for the way in which Octapharma required donors to scan their fingerprints to verify their identity when donating plasma. The plaintiffs specifically asserted Octapharma required donors to scan their fingerprint each time they donated plasma, but did not first obtain written consent from donors to scan their prints, nor did they provide donors with written notices regarding how the company would store, use, share and ultimately destroy the scanned prints. Under the deal, Germany-based Octapharma agreed to pay more $9.9 million to settle the claims. From that settlement fund, attorneys who brought the lawsuit would receive one-third of the money, or nearly $3.3 million. The remainder of the funds, after paying settlement administration costs, would be divided among members of the plaintiffs class, which would include everyone who scanned a fingerprint at an Illinois Octapharma location in the past few years. According to documents filed in support of the settlement, the parties estimate that will include more than 76,000 people. If every donor had submitted a valid claim, each could collect about $84. But in her order approving the settlement, Judge Kendall said 22% of eligible class members submitted valid claims. Based on estimates in prior filings in the case, that could mean those class members may receive more than $800 each. Any uncashed or rejected checks from the settlement would be paid to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to Settlement Class Members is reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the claims and defenses available in the Action and the potential risks and likelihood of success of alternatively pursuing litigation on the merits," Kendall wrote in her order granting final approval to the settlement. According to its website, Octapharma operates five Illinois plasma donation sites, including sites in Chicago, Riverside, Melrose Park and Bridgeview. Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys J. Eli Wade-Scott and Schuyler Ufkes, of Edelson, PC, of Chicago, and David Fish, of Fish Potter Bolaños, PC, of Naperville. Octapharma has been represented in the case by attorneys Daniel T. Graham, Timothy R. Herman and Jeffrey M. Sniadanko, of the firm of Clark Hill PLC, of Chicago. [GN] OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS WRENN, and SHARAH TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, v. OUTBACK CARE GROUP LLC and KEN BLACKMON, Case No. 4:21-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the following collective group of non-exempt employees who Defendants failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages due: "All individuals who worked for Defendants as Live-in Care Providers, House Managers or similar positions and received a weekly payment for all time worked within the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present;" 2. authorizing the distribution of the Notice, the Consent to Join Form, and the Reminder Notice; and 3. directing the Defendant, within 21 days of the Court's order, to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer- readable file with the following information for all putative collective members employed at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Collective Action Complaint to present: names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, all telephone numbers (work, cell, and personal), all known email addresses (work and personal), dates of birth, last four digits of social security numbers, and dates of employment. The Plaintiffs allege that, as a regular and routine practice, Defendants violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly-situated persons (1) the minimum wage for all hours worked, and (2) overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated persons a low flat rate per week that was lower than the minimum wage based on the total hours actually worked, and that did not compensate the employees at one-and-one-half their regular rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CcFsMs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael D. 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 PARTICIA COYNE-FAGUE: Ct. Tosses DeBritto's Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy DeBritto v. Particia Coyne-Fague, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00203 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order denying motion to certify class as it fails to demonstrate that the criteria of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition, a pro se plaintiff cannot represent the interests of any other person. LR Gen 205(a)(2), says Judge Mcelroy. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Bocel v. Patzeria Family & Friends Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07384-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a reply in support of his motion for conditional certification. Pursuant to the briefing schedule set by Your Honor's order dated January 3, 2022, The Plaintiff's reply is due on or before February 25, 2022. Because of delays we are encountering in translating back and forth into Spanish for Plaintiff, we respectfully request a one-week extension of the filing deadline, to March 4, 2022. This is the first such request, the Plaintiff's counsel says. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hxswqO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC www.katzmelinger.com 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428.6811 E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rombough Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN ROMBOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00016 (N.D. Iowa., Feb. 21, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Paycom Software, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The Company provides data analytical software products to manage the employment life cycle from recruitment to retirement. Paycom Software serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Puryear, Esq. PURYEAR LAW, P.C. 3719 Bridge Ave # 6 Davenport, IA 52807 Telephone: (563) 265-8344 Facsimile: (866) 415-5032 E-mail: eric@puryearlaw.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 803-1578 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com PETROCHEM INSULATION: Initial CMP Order Entered in Boyuk Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an initial case management order as follows: A. Settlement Negotiations: Counsel for the parties shall confer with their clients and any involved insurance carriers before all case management, status, or pretrial conferences to obtain authority to participate in settlement negotiations conducted by the Court. B. Initial Scheduling: The parties shall comply with the following deadlines: a) Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. March 4, 2022 Civ. P. 26(a) shall be made on or before: b) Additional parties shall be April 22, 2022 joined on or before: c) Pleadings shall be amended on April 22, 2022 or before: d) Class Certification discovery July 29, 2022 shall be completed on or before: e) The Plaintiffs' expert and/or June 24, 2022 third-party data analyst reports as to class certification shall be filed on or before: f) Depositions of the Plaintiffs' July 29, 2022 experts and/or third-party data analysts shall be completed on or before: g) The Defendant's expert reports as July 11, 2022 to class certification shall be filed on or before: h) Depositions of Defendant's experts July 29, 2022 shall be completed on or before: i) The Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Sept. 12, 2022 Class Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: j) The Defendants' Memorandum in Oct. 27, 2022. Opposition to Rule 23 Class Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: k) The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Nov. 11, 2022 in support of Rule 23 class certification, if any, shall be filed by: 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): The parties are advised to comply with all ADR requirements pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2. The parties are directed to promptly schedule and file the notice of the ADR proceeding. A representative of any insurance carrier which may be responsible, in whole or in part, for any portion of the claims alleged and who has full, unilateral settlement authority must attend any ADR proceeding in person if insurance proceeds could cover any portion of a settlement or verdict. 5. Discovery and Other Case Management Disputes: In the Court's experience, many discovery and case management disputes can be promptly resolved in a conference with the and counsel. Petrochem operates as a petrochemical services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MkVecP at no extra charge.[CC] PHYSICIANS WEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Progressive Health and Rehab Corporation v. Physicians Wealth Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00505-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff requests the Court allow this "placeholder" motion for class certification to remain pending to protect against any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(3) and (g). Plaintiff requests that, following discovery and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. Progressive is a health, wellness and fitness company. Physicians Wealth Solutions operates as a financial advisor firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCcrZw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq. MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241-4722 Facsimile: (513) 786-9227 E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com POOL SCREENING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Jenkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AJ JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POOL SCREENING & PORCHES LLC; and MANOUKA JEAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20517-XXXX (S.D.FL. Feb. 21, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jenkins was employed by the Defendant as a driver. POOL SCREENING & PORCHES LLC is a company having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aron Smukler, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ: Wins Summary Judgment v. Talarico ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE TALARICO v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Case No. 1:18-cv-00909-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting the Port Authority's motion for summary judgment. The Court said, "Talarico concedes that this case does not involve the explicit enactment of a policy or any widespread and pervasive custom of recording medical examinations in OMS. Besides in the room where Talarico had her examination, which doubled as a nurse supervisor's office, there is no evidence of cameras in any other room of OMS. Talarico also does not offer a single other instance of the Port Authority recording a medical examination. There is, admittedly, evidence suggesting that other medical examinations had taken place in the room where the doctor examined Talarico's hand, creating the potential for the security camera to record these past examinations. This potential would hinge both on these other examinations happening within the view of the camera, which did not record the entire room, and the curtain within the room not being fully drawn so that the view of the camera was unobstructed. But the potential for an invasion of privacy, on its own, is not a constitutional violation. Because Talarico has not established any policy or custom connected to her alleged constitutional violation, the Port Authority is not liable under Monell as a matter of law. Its motion for summary judgment therefore must be granted." Talarico worked as a senior administrative secretary for the Port Authority Technical Center within its Chief Security Office. The Port Authority was and is a body corporate and politic, created by compact between the states of New York and New Jersey, and recognized and endorsed by Congress. On August 4, 2016, Talarico and one of her supervisors got into an altercation. During this altercation, the supervisor removed Talarico's cellphone from her hand, which Talarico alleges injured her hand. Because of this alleged injury, Talarico visited the OMS, where a doctor examined her hand. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCr8tz at no extra charge.[CC] PREMIUM RETAIL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Nixed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH FRAGA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 21-10751-WGY (D. Mass), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order denying Premium Retail's motion to compel arbitration without prejudice to its renewal should Plaintiff Fraga fail to establish she is a member of a class under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Fraga's motion to a certify a class, is similarly denied without prejudice to its renewal should Fraga demonstrate, prima facie, that she is a member of a class under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Premium Retail provides merchandising and assisted selling services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KfB1TM at no extra charge.[CC] PRIMACARE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Njoroge Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESTHER M. NJOROGE; JECINTA MAINA; JOYCE STUBBS; EBUN OLAJIDE, Plaintiffs v. PRIMACARE PARTNERS LLC d/b/a VISITING ANGELS OF BALTIMORE EAST; and GINA D. NEGRI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00425-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 21, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as in home caregivers. PRIMACARE PARTNERS LLC is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes providing one or more of a wide variety of individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or referral services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Lebau, Esq. Devan M. Wang, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue-Suite 201 Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone: (443) 273-1203 Facsimile: (410) 296-8660 E-mail: sl@joblaws.net PSL ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS AGAR-VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PSL ASSOCIATES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-04306-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to continue class certification deadlines: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification shall be continued from March 18, 2022 to July 22, 2022. 2. The Defendant's deadline to file the Opposition shall be continued from April 18, 2022 to August 19, 2022. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the Reply shall be continued from May 9, 2022 to September 9, 2022. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be continued from May 23, 2022 to September 22, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kb7rPm at no extra charge.[CC] QG PRINTING: Seeks to File Response to Sims' Objections ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QG PRINTING II LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; 74 QC PRINTING II LLC, business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01632-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order under Local Rule 7-10 allowing it to file a response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Evidence that was filed contemporaneously with Plaintiff's reply brief to the Motion for Class Certification. As Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set to be heard on March 4, 2022, there is insufficient time for Defendant to seek relief by any means other than by this Ex Parte Application. Allowing Defendant to file the response to Plaintiff's Objections will not prejudice Plaintiff in any way, the Defendant contends. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cd8Nqf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Benjamin Sanchez, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 E-mail: giskander@littler.com bsanchez@littler.com QUALTEK RECOVERY: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid OT for Logistics Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRISHA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALTEK RECOVERY LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00717 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from QualTek under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, QualTek's recovery logistics workers, like Ferguson, were sent into recovery areas after natural disasters. These workers, like Ferguson, worked to assist recovery in these disaster areas. Ferguson and the workers like her worked over 40 hours each week they worked for QualTek. But Ferguson and these other workers were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the lawsuit says. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, QualTek allegedly classified these workers as independent contractors and paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked. Ferguson worked for QualTek in September 2021. During that time, Ferguson worked exclusively for QualTek. Ferguson was paid by the hour. QualTek classified Ferguson as an independent contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Es. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999 5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law QUEBEC: Faces Suit Over Underfunding of Nunavik's Child Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two survivors of Nunavik's child welfare system hope to bring legal action against the governments of Canada and Quebec, alleging discriminatory and unlawful underfunding of child welfare services, Nunatsiaq News reports. The plaintiffs say that for decades, both governments have breached class members' constitutional right to equality by failing to provide health and social services on a level that is substantively equal to what any other Canadian child receives. The suit also alleges the two governments have deprived Inuit children who required essential health, social and other services of services that were substantively equal to those available to non-Indigenous children in Quebec and Canada. The case will be presented before the Superior Court of Quebec, which will decide if the case will proceed as a class action. [GN] RIPPLE LABS: Bid for Class Certification Due November 18 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order regarding stipulation to modify case schedule as follows: -- Class certification motion: November 18, 2022 -- Class certification opposition: January 27, 2023 -- Class certification reply: March 24, 2023 -- Non-expert discovery cutoff: March 31, 2023 -- Class certification hearing: April 26, 2023 -- Plaintiff's expert disclosures: April 28, 2023 -- Defendants' expert disclosures: May 26, 2023 -- Plaintiff's expert rebuttal: June 23, 2023 -- Expert discovery cutoff: July 21, 2023 -- Dispositive motions filed: August 25, 2023 -- Dispositive motion oppositions: Sept. 22, 2023 -- Dispositive motion replies: Oct. 20, 2023 -- Dispositive motions heard by: Nov. 22, 2023 -- Pretrial conference: Feb. 29, 2024 -- Trial date: March 25, 2024 While the court agrees with the rationale behind the parties' request, and thus grants the stipulation in part, the court also modifies the parties' proposed pretrial and trial dates to conform with the court's long-standing practice of hearing dispositive motions at least 120 days before trial, to afford adequate time for trial preparation after receipt of the order on dispositive motions. Ripple Labs is an American technology company which develops the Ripple payment protocol and exchange network. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sER47X at no extra charge.[CC] SAFEMOON: Celebrities Named in Illegal Crypto Scheme Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- musicfeeds.com.au reports that a new class action lawsuit over a dodged cryptocurrency scheme has named rappers Soulja Boy, Lil Yachty, Backstreet Boy Nick Carter and more as defendants, it has been reported. The 'pump and dump scheme', alleged led by company SafeMoon, is said to have roped in the celebrities to mislead, promote and sell the crypto token 'V1'. The suit alleges that through the celebrities' posts and endorsements the currency's value was inflated, which meant the founder and CEO (Braden John Karony) and other SafeMoon execs had the tip to sell their holdings for a profit. Reported by ClassAction.org, the rise of this particular SafeMoon token took off after being launched in March last year. At its height, the token hit a 875% peak just nine days after the celebrity marketing campaign kicked off. By the end of 2021 though, the SafeMoon token had completely crashed, hitting a low of '$0.0000006521 per token', equating to an 80% drop from its height. Due to the departure of a series of executives, and the company's failure to launch a promised crypto wallet, the suit alleges the scam 'pulled the rug' out from its investors slowly. "On December 31, 2021, the price of the SafeMoon Token hit a low of $0.0000006521 per token, an over 80% drop from its height during the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover," the lawsuit reads. "As of the filing of this Complaint, the trading volume for the SAFEMOON Token has plummeted to around only $60,000." An Instagram post on the official SafeMoon account from last year has addressed the wallet issue. Karony has stated that 'the wallet launch is my utmost priority and I am committed to get you an update as soon as I can'. [GN] SALAS CONCRETE: Class Action Settlement in Cavazos Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CAVAZOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SALAS CONCRETE INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted; 2. The proposed class identified in the settlement agreement is certified for settlement purposes; 3. The Plaintiff's counsel, David Spivak and Maralle Messrelian of The Spivak Law Firm 2 Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group, are appointed as class counsel for settlement purposes; 4. The named plaintiff, John Cavazos, is appointed as class representative for settlement purposes; 5. Simpluris is approved as the settlement claims administrator; 6. The proposed notice is approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 7. The proposed settlement detailed herein is approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate; and 8. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for May 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). The Plaintiff originally filed this class, collective, and representative action in this court on January 14, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 27, 2019, alleging various wage, hour, and other labor-related claims in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which plaintiff claims give rise to penalties under California’s Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA). The Defendant answered on April 22, 2019, denying that it violated any relevant California or federal laws. Thereafter, the parties engaged in "informal discovery," whereby they exchanged "data, information, and documents," and defendant produced "time-keeping records, time and payroll data for putative class members." The Plaintiff John Cavazos was employed by defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee from 2011 until 2018. Salas Concrete is a "licensed concrete contractor that provides a wide range of concrete services, including, but not limited to, supplying, forming, reinforcing, pouring, finishing, and resurfacing concrete." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tkDTbl at no extra charge.[CC] SANTANDER BANK: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05775-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Court entered an order: 1. The Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") is preliminarily approved by this Court; 2. The following state law subclasses, of individuals who worked for Defendant in the position of "Business Operations Manager" ("BOM") are certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement only: a. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in New Jersey or New York anytime between June 29, 2015 and December 31, 2021; b. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New Hampshire at any time between September 8, 2017 and December 31, 2017; and c. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in Rhode Island at any time from September 8, 2018 through December 31, 2021. 3. the Settlement Collective consisting of all individuals who (1) previously filed a valid consent to join the collective action lawsuit with this Court; and (2) have not previously filed a consent to join the FLSA collective with this Court, but who are members of the Rule 23(b)(3) proposed class is certified for settlement purposes only under Section 216(b) of the FLSA; 4. The Plaintiffs Crystal Sanchez, Rabia Ahmed, Andrea Blanchard, Pearl Monteiro, Shaunsey Jackson, Michelle Romano, Joni Henderson, and Peter Sano are appointed as representative of the settlement classes; 5. Mashel Law, LLC and Swartz Swidler, LLC are appointed as Class Counsel; 6. The Notice of Settlement is approved and shall be mailed and emailed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Settlement Agreement to all collective and class members by no later than 30 days following the issuance of this Order; and 7. The Class Counsel shall file the motion for final approval of the settlement sought in the Settlement Agreement on or before May 13, 2022. Santander Bank, N. A., formerly Sovereign Bank, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. It is based in Boston and its principal market is the northeastern United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hwGjy0 at no extra charge.[CC] SEKUNJALO GROUP: Faces Discrimination Class Suit in South Africa ---------------------------------------------------------------- iol.co.za reports that in what has been described as a "fight against boundless public power exercised by banks and other financial institutions", Law Firm, Godrich Gardee Attorneys (GGA) has called on any clients who have experienced alleged racial or any other form of discrimination to join a class action suit against the country's financial institutions. The law firm said it was bracing itself to intervene in the Western Cape Equality Court proceedings instituted by the Sekunjalo Group group of companies and its chairman, Dr Iqbal Surve against some of the country's top banks. That application forms part of a number of legal actions against the banks after they, in an alleged collusive manner, severed ties with some of the companies under the black-owned group, with Nedbank being the latest. The action being taken by the Sekunjalo Group was a "trigger for a space we have wanted to get into as soon as possible," said GGA attorney Godrich Gardee. During a press conference, he said that financial institutions operated "as a cartel with collusive behaviour" and furthermore "acted as an entity to themselves because there is no state bank". "GGA represents thousands of complainants who intend on intervening in the proceedings instituted by Surve and 42 others before the Western Cape Equality Court against various South African banks on the basis of racial discrimination. Our clients represent a small group of South Africans who have been flagrantly overbilled on interest on their mortgage loans, and whose bank accounts have been arbitrarily terminated due to purported 'risk'. The Equality Court case to be heard next month, has been brought against eight of South Africa's leading banks including ABSA Bank, First National Bank, Nedbank, Investec Bank, Sasfin Bank, Mercantile Bank among others. The banks have claimed that they have suffered reputational damage by companies' association to Surve and the wider Sekunjalo Group. The banks cited negative and factually incorrect media articles by the Independent Media's competitors/detractors as the source to underpin their averments. The companies belonging to the Sekunjalo group have never been found guilty of wrongdoing or irregularities even though they have been subjected to multiple investigations including raids by various regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies. This included the Mpati Commission into alleged irregularities at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) in 2019. The Sekunjalo Group of Companies argues that their attack was one based on discrimination on the basis of race. They allege that Nedbank, and the other major banks, terminated the bank accounts of the subsidiaries of the Sekunjalo Group, and have been selective by failing to do the same against companies that are 'white dominant businesses". These include companies such as the Steinhoff Group, EOH Limited, and the Tongaat-Hulett Group - after their banking accounts or facilities were not terminated despite having been found guilty of fraud and various other offences. In inviting clients to join the class action, Gardee called on "those whose banking services such as accounts, credit and loan facilities have been terminated and withdrawn without good cause or on the basis of racial discrimination." "This includes those whose property was sold for next to nothing by the banks pursuant to the termination of loan facilities; those who have been denied banking services such as accounts, credit and loan facilities despite them meeting the requisite qualification for these facilities on the basis of racial discrimination disguised in other forms of discrimination. . . . GGA understands the magnitude and significance of this matter and we are committed in this fight against the unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct by the banks and other financial institutions," said Gardee. Speaking about their interest in the case, Gardee said: "It is common cause that in 1990, when these financial institutions entered the black mortgage market, they petitioned the government to allow them to charge black mortgage holders a premium interest rate in order to maintain profitability - smaller bonds mean smaller profits for banks. . . . The conduct of these institutions goes against the provisions of teh Constitution, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act and the public has too long been defenceless against these commercial giants." [GN] SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Renewed Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elsie Romero et al v. Select Employment Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06369-TJH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., entered an order setting a hearing for the tenewed motion to certify class on March 28, 2022. Select Employment Services is a locally-owned staffing company with experience serving the Laredo and surrounding markets. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K6w9jZ at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT MEDICAL: Filing of Dispositive Bid Allowed in FHPM Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Select Medical Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00820-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered an order that in the absence of a motion for class certification, any dispositive motion shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this Order. The cutoff for discovery has passed. If necessary, following the filing of dispositive motions, this matter will be set for trial, says Judge Pearson. On February 3, 2022, at the insistence of Plaintiff's counsel, the Court permitted a motion moving for class certification to be filed on or before February 14, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. Select Medical is a healthcare company based in Pennsylvania. It owns long term acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, as well as occupational health and physical therapy clinics. Family Health is a medical retail store. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCgHzQ at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT PORTFOLIO: Judge Approved Final Settlement in FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Sinnock at americanbanker.com reports that a U.S. District Court judge has approved a final settlement in which a servicer has agreed to pay over $200,000, plus court and attorneys' fees, to settle a class-action lawsuit over its compliance with a New Jersey law. The suit, Gaffney v. Select Portfolio Servicing, centers on laws that combine to require entities governed by the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act to charge borrowers a statutory interest-rate applicable in New Jersey when a foreclosure judgment occurs, said Ari Marcus, an attorney for the plaintiff. The settlement will be subject to possible appeal for 30 days from its Feb. 14 approval by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Martinotti, and calls for the distribution of money to around 1,500 affected individuals, according to court documents, the attorney, and a press release distributed by his law firm, Marcus & Zelman. Three class members opted out of the settlement, according to a court filing. It's unclear whether the specifics of the case, which the approved settlement would dismiss with prejudice, has ramifications outside of the Garden State, Marcus said. It is still worth noting more broadly because it's a sign of how the recent overhaul of federal debt-collection rules could combine with state regulations to further complicate a more compliance-sensitive environment for servicers. "The [New Jersey] law doesn't say you have the right to sue for this, the law just says if you get a foreclosure judgment, this is your new statutory interest rate that you can charge," Marcus said. However, "the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act says you can not charge an amount that's not authorized by law," he noted. "While [the FDCPA] doesn't have a specific interest rate that you're allowed to charge, because we're in New Jersey, the law in New Jersey says you can only charge X amount. So if you're in excess of that, you're violating the law." The law firm listed as representing Select Portfolio Servicing in court documents had not returned a request for comment at deadline. [GN] SETTON PISTACHIO: Ali Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIA ALI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF TERRA BELLA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 23(d)(2).; and 2. appointing her counsel to serve as counsel to the classes; and 3. authorizing Notice to the Classes of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under FRCP Rule 23(d) (2). The Proposed classes are: 1. Rounding Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to the present to whom Defendant paid based on their rounded rather than actual hours worked;" 2. Labor Code section 203 Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2013 to the present who were not pay all wages owed upon separation as a result of Defendant's rounding policy;" 3. Wage Statement Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2015 to the present to whom Defendant provided wage statements that did not comply with Labor Code §226 as a result of the Defendant's rounding policy;" and 4. 17200 Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to the present to whom Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code and Wage Order violations as a result of the Defendant's rounding policy regarding payment of all wages, payment of final wages and proper wage statements." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HGoRBT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. Michael Nourmand, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC SGT ROCHA: Barfell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Thomas H L Barfell, Dylan Anthony Hrabik, Ryan Sanders, Stephen Brown, David Mclarin and John Doe, v. Sgt Rocha, Nurse Alt, Officer Wen, Zenk, Kessnik, Lloyd, Amosa, Hibma and John and Jane Does, Case No. 2:22-cv-00171-LA (E.D. Wisc), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MkUaWp at no extra charge.[CC] SHOE SHOW: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Smith Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SARAH SMITH, MICHAEL CRISCO, and JEFFREY MORROW, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. SHOE SHOW, INC.; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SHOE SHOW RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; JOHN VAN DER POEL, ROBERT TUCKER, and LISA TUCKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20CV813 (M.D.N.C.), Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses some of the claims asserted under Count I, dismiss the entirety of Count II, and decline to dismiss Count III. Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants Shoe Show, Inc., Board of Trustees of Shoe Show Retirement Savings Plan, John Van Der Poel, Robert Tucker, and Lisa Tucker (together, "Defendants"). Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs Sarah Smith, Michael Crisco, and Jeffrey Morrow (together, "Plaintiffs") responded in opposition. The Defendants filed a reply. I. Background Shoe Show, a footwear retailer with over 1,100 stores across 47 states, sponsors a tax-qualified, defined contribution retirement plan (the "Plan") for eligible current and former employees. This type of plan, commonly referred to as a 401(k), allows participants to direct their retirement savings contributions into various investment fund options offered by the Plan. The Plan is "relatively large," with over 1,500 participants and total assets over $40 million. The Plaintiffs are former Plan participants. The Defendants are Plan fiduciaries and responsible for its administration. During the relevant time period, MassMutual served as the Plan's recordkeeper and was responsible for tracking "who was in the plan, what they owned, and what money was going in and out." The Plaintiffs allege that since 2014, the Defendants have been in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., by breaching their fiduciary duties and engaging in prohibited transactions with a party in interest. Their factual foundation for these claims rests on the Defendants' (1) failure to limit MassMutual's fees, (2) failure to offer the most affordable share classes, (3) failure to offer passive funds, and (4) failure to diversify the Plan's equity funds. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 3, 2020. The Plaintiffs assert three ERISA counts: (I) breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence, monitoring, loyalty, and the obligation to act in accordance with Plan documents and instruments; (II) breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and diversification, and (III) prohibited transactions with a party in interest. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on Nov. 16, 2020, along with an accompanying Memorandum. The Plaintiffs responded in opposition, and the Defendants replied. The Plaintiffs then filed a notice of subsequently decided authority regarding the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern University, 142 S.Ct. 737 (2022). Additionally, the Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Fitzgerald Law as Class Counsel, along with an accompanying Memorandum. The Court postponed further briefing on and determination of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification "until further order of the Court." Because his Memorandum Opinion and Order will grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Judge Osteen finds that it is now appropriate for briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to proceed. He will order the parties to propose a briefing schedule in their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report to the Court. II. Analysis The Plaintiffs advance three ERISA counts: (I) breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence, monitoring, loyalty, and the obligation to act in accordance with Plan documents and instruments; (II) breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and diversification; and (III) prohibited transactions with a party in interest. All three counts are predicated on allegations that the Plan is governed by ERISA and the Defendants are Plan fiduciaries. The Defendants do not contest these threshold elements. Instead, they focus on each count's substance. As to Counts I and II, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege any fiduciary breach occurred. As to Count III, they argue that MassMutual's fee arrangement is statutorily exempted from ERISA's prohibited transaction provision. A. Count I: Prudence, Monitoring, Loyalty, and Acting in Accordance with Plan Documents and Instruments Count I alleges the Defendants violated ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties of (1) prudence, (2) monitoring, (3) loyalty, and (4) obligation to act in accordance with plan documents and instruments. These "fiduciary obligations of the trustees to the participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan are the highest known to the law." 1. Duty of Prudence In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants imprudently failed to (1) limit MassMutual's fees, (2) offer funds utilizing the most affordable share classes, and (3) offer passive funds. Courts in the circuit have found similar factual allegations sufficiently alleged ERISA imprudence claims. Judge Osteen opines that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently and plausibly alleged that MassMutual's fees were excessive compared to the services it provided; (ii) the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts that Defendants breached their duty of prudence by offering funds featuring overly expensive retail share classes; and (iii) the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to plausibly allege the Defendants' failure to offer passive funds was imprudent. 2. Duty to Monitor The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached this duty "to monitor and control investment and administrative costs on an ongoing basis" because the Defendants failed to take steps "such as hiring a consultant to conduct a benchmarking study" and "conducting a prudent and objective review of the Plan's investments." The Defendants respond that this alleged failure to monitor is contradicted by the Plan's Form 5500 filings and the Plaintiffs' own allegations, which show that the Defendants periodically changed the Plan's funds -- evincing adequate monitoring. Judge Osteen opines that the Plaintiffs' factual allegations about these changes cast them in a different light. The Plaintiffs argue that it was not until 2018 that the Defendants replaced several expensive share classes with cheaper identical classes, suggesting that the Defendants must not have been "monitoring the fee structures of the Plan until that time." Thus, for the first four years of the class period, the Defendants allegedly failed to monitor the Plan. Because when adjudicating motions to dismiss the Court makes "all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor," Judge Osteen must defer to the Plaintiffs' description of the 2018 Plan changes. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible monitoring claim. 3. Duty of Loyalty The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty by "failing to act 'solely and exclusively' for the benefit of participants by selecting and retaining investments in the Plan because they would generate more revenue for MassMutual and therefore, the Defendants would not receive an invoice for recordkeeping." They assert the Defendants' desire to relieve pressure off themselves to pay MassMutual's fees was the Defendants' motivation in selecting the Plan's higher price active funds and share classes. Judge Osteen holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any "independent facts" or "additional allegations," to support the disloyalty claim and distinguish it from the imprudence claim. Their allegations concerning the Defendants' "possible" and "potential" motives, do not rise to the level of plausibility necessary to state a disloyalty claim. Further undermining the disloyalty claim is that the Plaintiffs never allege the Defendants would have necessarily paid any increased fees that MassMutual would have demanded if the Plan transitioned to cheaper share classes or passive funds. Even if the Defendants had selected cheaper funds and as a result MassMutual demanded greater fees to make up for the lost revenue, the Complaint fails to plausibly allege that those new fees would be shouldered by the Defendants as opposed to the Plan itself. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible disloyalty claim, and the portions of Count I that attempt to assert such a claim will be dismissed. 4. Duty to Act in Accordance with Plan Documents and Instruments The Plaintiffs insist that the "Defendants violated their own plan documents" by failing to adhere to "MassMutual's investment policy." Their Complaint, after alleging that the Plan's investment options were too expensive and insufficiently diversified, recites MassMutual's investment policy and then declares -- in rather conclusory fashion -- that the "Defendants' actions did not meet this policy." Thus, the "Defendants violated the ERISA statute which requires fiduciaries to act 'in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.'" Judge Osteen determines that despite ERISA litigation's inherent information asymmetries, pursuant to Iqbal, the Court simply cannot allow this "threadbare" and "conclusory" claim to proceed. Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' failure to act in accordance with plan documents and instruments claim is especially warranted given that the Complaint itself acknowledges that the Plan document the Defendants allegedly violated, and the terms contained therein, were non-binding. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to state a plausible failure to act in accordance with plan documents and instruments claim, and the portions of Count I that attempt to assert such a claim will be dismissed. B. Count II: Diversification Count II alleges that the Defendants imprudently failed to diversify the Plan's funds. The Plaintiffs allege that the portfolio of funds the "Defendants selected provided little diversification among the equity funds." Judge Osteen holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible diversification claim. Their insistence that the Plan was undiversified, among equity funds or otherwise, is a bare allegation made implausible by uncontroverted public records. Finally, there is no legal basis for their allegation that the Defendants breached their duty to diversify by offering equity funds that were too correlated. Therefore, Count II will be dismissed because it lacks sufficient facts to state a plausible diversification claim. C. Count III: Prohibited Transactions The Plaintiffs allege that the Plan's revenue sharing with MassMutual constituted a prohibited transaction with a party in interest. The Defendants argue that the revenue sharing fees are exempted from ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions because the "Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the compensation to services providers is more than reasonable.'" Judge Osteen opines that this argument fails. As a preliminary matter, he says, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that MassMutual's fees are more than reasonable. But such allegations are not necessary for the Plaintiffs to state a prohibited transaction claim. All that is required are allegations that Defendants caused the Plan to enter a transaction with a party in interest. Judge Osteen notes that this holds true even when, as in the case, a plaintiff's allegations explicitly address the reasonableness of the amount of the allegedly prohibited transaction. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), only certain defenses -- not including the reasonable compensation exemption to an ERISA prohibited transaction claim -- can be asserted in a motion. All other defenses may only be asserted in responsive pleadings. The Court is presently adjudicating the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and thus the case has yet to progress to the responsive pleading stage. Consequently, as a matter of law, it is premature for Defendants to assert the reasonable compensation affirmative defense. Therefore, Judge Osteen finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a plausible prohibited transaction claim. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Osteen granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. He granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I. He granted the Motion to Dismiss as to the portions of Count I that assert an imprudence claim based on a failure to offer passively managed funds, a disloyalty claim, and failure to act in accordance with plan documents and instruments claim. The remainder of the claims contained in Count I -- an imprudence claim based on a failure to limit MassMutual's fees, an imprudence claim based on a failure to offer funds utilizing the most affordable share classes, and a duty to monitor claim -- are not dismissed, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as to those claims. Judge Osteen granted in full the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count II and denied in full as to Count III. Briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Fitzgerald Law as Class Counsel will proceed. The parties are instructed to propose a briefing schedule in their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report to the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuj98b8x from Leagle.com. SONY INTERACTIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Majo Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wesley Leblanc at gameinformer.com reports that Sony has asked a court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against it first filed in November of last year that alleges gender discrimination within the company. Former Sony IT security analyst, Emma Majo, sought court approval to turn her case into a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of other women who worked for the company in the past. She alleged that "Sony discriminates against female employees, including those who are female and those who identify as female, in compensation and promotion and subjects them to a work culture predominated by men," as reported by Axios last year. Now, Sony is asking a court to dismiss Majo's class-action case against it, citing a lack of facts to support the claims presented in the lawsuit, Axios reports. "Despite the sweeping breadth of her lawsuit, the allegations in which [Sony Interactive Entertainment] categorically denies, she fails to plead facts to support either her individual claims or the claims of the broad-based classes of women she seeks to represent," Sony's lawyer wrote, according to court documents. Furthermore, Sony writes in documents that Majo failed to "identify a single policy, practice, or procedure at SIE that allegedly formed the basis of any widespread intentional discrimination or had a discriminatory impact on women," and that Majo's "widespread claims of harassment are based solely on unactionable allegations of run-of-the-mill personnel activity." Sony also asks the court to recognize what it calls a conflict of interest, too. Majo's lawsuit includes an attempt to include all women who worked for SIE. Sony says this would include all of Majo's managers since 2017, which were all women. Sony's lawyer says that if those managers are included in the suit against Sony, "irreconcilable conflicts of interest" rise. Only time will tell if the court approves Sony's request to dismiss the case. [GN] SR MANGO: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Najera Class Action Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRES NAJERA, MARIO AVILA and ELPIDIO MUNGUIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SR MANGO HOUSE INC. and SHOAIBUR RAHMAN, as an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-01051 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Defendants allegedly failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the state and federal laws. The Defendants also willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records as required by the said laws. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The employees similarly situated are: "All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as packers and stockers or any other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for the Defendants, other than the executive and management positions, who have been subject to the Defendants’ common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime wages."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 STANDARD LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Standard Lithium Ltd. ("Standard Lithium" or the "Company") (NYSE American: SLI) and reminds investors of the March 28, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Standard Lithium stock or options between May 19, 2020 and November 17, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/SLI. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the LiSTR technology's extraction recovery efficiencies were overstated; (2) accordingly, the Company's final product lithium recovery percentage at the Demonstration Plant would not be as high as the Company had represented to investors; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") published a short report (the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report") alleging that Standard Lithium's claims of achieving of 90% extraction rates of battery grade lithium at its Arkansas demonstration site are not supported by previously undisclosed data filed by the Company with the state regulator, which indicated significantly lower recovery rates. On this news, Standard Lithium's common share price fell $1.86 per share, or 18.84%, to close at $8.01 per share on November 18, 2021. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Standard Lithium's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] STANDARD LITHIUM: Gross Law Firm Reminds of March 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Standard Lithium Ltd. Shareholders who purchased shares of SLI during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CLASS PERIOD: May 19, 2020 to November 17, 2021 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LiSTR Direct Lithium Extraction technology's extraction recovery efficiencies were overstated; (ii) accordingly, the Company's final product lithium recovery percentage at the Demonstration Plant would not be as high as the Company had represented to investors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of SLI during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is March 28, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 URL: http://securitiesclasslaw.com Contact Information: Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] STEWARD HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Williams' 2nd Amended Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BEVERLY WILLIAMS and AMY JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC, and MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS OF AMERICA, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D. Tex.), Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an order denying: 1. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and 2. Defendant Medical Reimbursements of America's ("MRA") Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Regarding Non-Party Hospitals for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. I. Background The civil action was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and two proposed classes (the "Unauthorized Billing Class" and the "Excess Billing Class") against the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs, the case is an individual and putative class action arising from the Defendants' scheme to deceptively collect unauthorized and illegal payments for hospital treatment resulting from motor vehicle accidents. In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege violation of Texas Finance Code 392.001 et seq. In Count II, they allege violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In Count III, the Plaintiffs assert fraud claims. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs allege mail and wire fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Organized Crime Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-1968 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (c) and (d). In a combined motion, the Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Defendants state the Court must decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the local controversy exception of the Class Actions Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Recognizing the Plaintiffs have also alleged in their SAC a federal RICO claim separate and apart from CAFA, the Defendants argue the purported RICO claim fails because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq. Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' RICO claim fails because the Plaintiffs have not made adequate allegations of predicate acts and the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any injury that resulted from any alleged RICO violations. They request the Court dismiss the RICO claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). According to the Defendants, without a plausible RICO claim, the Plaintiffs are left with only CAFA as a potential basis for jurisdiction, meaning the Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the Defendants assert the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Defendant MRA separately moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MRA requests the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' class claims asserted on behalf of patients at non-party hospitals where the Plaintiffs were never treated and never billed. According to MRA, the Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to pursue these claims. In their response, the Plaintiffs state they have Article III standing to pursue their individual claims against MRA, and neither the Plaintiff is attempting to use claims of absent class members to establish their own standing. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the cases relied upon by MRA are distinguishable. The Plaintiffs argue issues with regard to class claims should be resolved at the class certification stage. On Dec. 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a 97-page Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending the Defendants' motions to dismiss be denied. First, the Magistrate Judge found the Defendants have not met their burden to prove the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies. Therefore, the Court recommended Defendants' combined Rule 12(b)(1) motion be denied. Second, turning to the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO claim, the Magistrate Judge first found that, at this preliminary stage, the pleadings suffice to withstand Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) challenge as to the Plaintiffs' allegations of injury and proximate cause. Next, the Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs have pleaded the Defendants' alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with sufficient particularity in compliance with Rule 9(b). Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently allege continuity of racketeering activity. The Magistrate Judge recommended the Defendants' combined Rule 12(b)(6) motion be denied. Third, the Magistrate Judge considered MRA's separate Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims asserted on behalf of patients at non-party hospitals where the Plaintiffs were never treated and never billed, finding it without merit. In its objections, Steward first asserts the Magistrate Judge failed to properly scrutinize the SAC's continuity allegations. It further argues the Magistrate Judge erred in finding the SAC sufficiently pleaded the 13 predicate acts of mail or wire fraud. It urther asserts the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that Williams need not have relied on allegedly false statements when signing the releases and when depositing $500 in trust. Finally, Steward generally objects to the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions and urges the Court to "reject the R&R and the Plaintiffs' attempt to take a small set of communications regarding two patients and spin them into a RICO cause of action and instead dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO cause of action with prejudice." In response, the Plaintiffs substantively argue the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed the SAC's continuity allegations; correctly found the SAC sufficiently pleaded continuity--namely, that the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a "specific threat of repetition" concerning their business practice of seeking unauthorized payments arising from motor vehicle accidents; and correctly found the SAC sufficiently pleaded predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. According to the Plaintiffs, "Steward provides no support whatsoever for its remaining objections." In its separate objections, MRA objects to the portion of the R&R that declined to dismiss for lack of standing the Plaintiffs' class claims challenging the billing of patients at non-party hospitals where Plaintiffs admittedly were never treated or billed. MRA argues that the Court's analysis erroneously failed to apply the Fifth Circuit's controlling authority in Singh v. RadioShack Corporation, 882 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2018), which (i) held that the proper framework for addressing a disconnect between a plaintiff's individual injury and the class claims is Article III standing, not Rule 23; and (ii) dismissed certain of plaintiffs' class claims where, as in the case, the named plaintiffs lacked individual standing to assert some of the claims they sought to assert on behalf of a class. The Court notes that it is undisputed that the two named Plaintiffs were never injured by non-party hospitals' billing of their patients, whether that billing was conducted by the hospitals themselves or by MRA on their behalf. Under the controlling authority in Singh, because the Plaintiffs' lack individual standing to sue on those non-party hospital billing claims, they also lack standing to assert such claims on behalf of a class. Accordingly, those claims should be dismissed. II. Analysis 1. Motion to Dismiss A. Defendants' Combined Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Judge Schroeder holds that neither the Defendant filed objections relating to their Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject matter jurisdiction based upon the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4) raised in their combined motion to dismiss. He says, the Defendants are not entitled to de novo review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the R&R; and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Nonetheless, Judge Schroeder has reviewed the pleadings in the case, the matters presented by the parties and the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge. He thus adopts the Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of the Court and denies the Defendants' combined motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). B. Defendants' Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss First, Judge Schroeder agrees that all the allegations support the Magistrate Judge's ultimate determination that the predicate acts were sufficiently alleged. He finds all of the Plaintiffs' "allegations combined are enough to satisfy the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)." They have adequately alleged concrete financial loss by reason of criminal actions under federal law. Judge Schroeder finds that the Magistrate Judge's thorough discussion of the Predicate Acts Chart, as well as the allegations in the SAC and the counsels' arguments at the hearing, demonstrate the Magistrate Judge properly considered all of the Acts in finding sufficient particularity in compliance with Rule 9(b). Therefore, Steward's objections regarding the RICO predicate acts are overruled. Second, Judge Schroeder agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the predicate acts and their combined effect causing alleged injury to them. As urged by the Plaintiffs, although "Steward wants to interpret Plaintiff William's and her counsel' actions as evidence that Williams 'never believed' the threats, the SAC leaves no room for this interpretation, and the Magistrate Judge was correct because in finding causation and harm 'by reason of' the fraudulent conduct the Court was required to 'draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.'" Judge Schroder also finds without merit Steward's three remaining objections to the Magistrate Judge's following conclusions regarding injury: that Johnson was injured; that the Plaintiffs suffered damage to business or property; and that the Plaintiffs' damages were concrete and not speculative. These general objections are not substantively addressed in the objections and are without merit. Judge Schroeder overrules Steward's objections related to injury and causation. Third, Judge Schroeder overrules Steward's objections regarding continuity, finding the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed the SAC's allegations in finding the Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the threat of continuing activity. He finds, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the allegations in the SAC are sufficient to constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. C. Conclusion Judge Schroeder has carefully reviewed the relevant briefing, the Report and Recommendation, the objections, and the response to the objections and is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Regarding the Defendants' combined motion to dismiss, he adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. The motion is denied. 2. MRA's Separate Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Judge Schroeder now considers MRA's objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions regarding its separate Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. According to MRA, although the R&R discussed the holding of Singh, it did not address, analyze or distinguish Singh as compared to the Plaintiffs' allegations. As such, MRA maintains that the recommendation that the motion be denied should be rejected because the R&R did not apply controlling Fifth Circuit authority. Judge Schroeder disagrees. As pointed out by the Plaintiffs in their response, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Singh and MRA's other cited cases are distinguishable. He agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no dispute the Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring their own claims. He says, the (2) Plaintiffs seek to represent class members who have suffered essentially the same injury as the Plaintiffs; and (3) Rule 23 is the "better framework for analyzing differences between the named Plaintiffs and the absent class members." Accordingly, Judge Schroeder overrules MRA's objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusion of the Court. III. Conclusion Judge Schroeder has carefully reviewed the relevant briefing, the Report and Recommendation, the objections and the response to the objections, and is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. He adopted the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. He denied the pending 12(b)(1) motion without prejudice, to be re-urged after additional discovery with respect to the requirements of Rule 23. For these reasons, Judge Schroeder denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Defendant MRA's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Regarding Non-Party Hospitals for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jfvsndb from Leagle.com. SUNPOWER CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Investor protection firm Kaskela Law LLC on Feb. 21 disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) ("SunPower" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased SunPower's securities between August 3, 2021 and January 20, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On January 20, 2022, SunPower announced that it had "identified a cracking issue that developed over time in certain factory-installed connectors" and that the Company "expects approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022" to replace the faulty connectors. On this news, shares of SunPower's common stock fell $3.22, or nearly 17% in value, to close at $15.80 per share on January 21, 2022. Current SunPower stockholders are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (484) 229 - 0750, or by email at abell@kaskelalaw.com, for additional information about their legal rights and options. Additional information may also be found at https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/sunpower-corporation/. Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. CONTACT: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 (484) 229 - 0750 (888) 715 - 1740 www.kaskelalaw.com [GN] SUNPOWER CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPower Corporation ("SunPower") (NASDAQ: SPWR). The action charges SunPower with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of SunPower's materially misleading statements to the public, SunPower investors have suffered significant losses. Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing. Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of shareholders we represent. CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR SUNPOWER LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/spwr-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=tal&utm_content=sunpower LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 18, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: AUGUST 3, 2021 through JANUARY 20, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com SUNPOWER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT SunPower provides solar energy solutions, including sales to its third-party dealer network and resellers, storage solutions, cash and loan sales, and long-term leases directly to end customers, and sells turn-key engineering, procurement, and construction services, as well as energy under power purchase agreements. On January 21, 2022, SunPower issued a press release revealing that the company had "identified a cracking issue that developed over time in certain factory-installed connectors within third-party commercial equipment supplied to SunPower." As a result, SunPower reported that it "expects approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022" to replace the faulty connectors. Following this news, SunPower's stock fell $3.22, or 16.9%, to close at $15.80 on January 21, 2022. WHAT CAN I DO? SunPower investors may, no later than April 18, 2022 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages SunPower investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. Contacts Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] SUNPOWER CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 20 disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) securities between August 3, 2021 and January 20, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until April 18, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Jaszczyszyn v. SunPower Corporation, No. 22-cv-00956 (N.D. Cal.). Commenced on February 16, 2022, the SunPower class action lawsuit charges SunPower and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the SunPower class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the SunPower class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 18, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: SunPower is a solar energy company that provides hardware, software, and financing options for customers. The SunPower class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) certain connectors used by SunPower suffered from cracking issues; (ii) as a result, SunPower was reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the faulty connectors; (iii) consequently, SunPower's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (iv) thus, defendants' positive statements about SunPower's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 20, 2022, SunPower announced that it had "identified a cracking issue that developed over time in certain factory-installed connectors." SunPower "expects approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022" to replace the faulty connectors. On this news, SunPower's share price fell nearly 17%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased SunPower securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the SunPower class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Kuznicki Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of SunPower Corporation (NasdaqGS: SPWR), if they purchased the Company's securities between August 3, 2021 and January 20, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until April 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-spwr/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled L.A., by and through her Guardian MAURICE ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 2022-LA-0000009, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01019 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent misrepresentation and violations of the New York General Business Law and the New York General Obligation Law by engaging in deceptive and misleading marketing and selling of loot boxes and other in-game items for its online videogame series. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Luzadder, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 857-7070 Facsimile: (312) 857-7095 E-mail: mluzadder@kelleydrye.com - and – Michael C. Lynch, Esq. James B. Saylor, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 Facsimile: (212) 808-7897 E-mail: mlynch@kelleydrye.com jsaylor@kelleydrye.com - and – Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com TAMAR LICH: Court Freezes Freedom Convoy Cash Crypto Donations -------------------------------------------------------------- Annabel Oromoni, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has frozen millions of dollars in assets belonging to freedom convoy organizers in a class action lawsuit issued by residents of Ottawa. Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod signed a Mareva injunction on Feb. 17 freezing assets linked to bank accounts, fundraisers and crypto holdings including Bitcoin, Cardano, Ethereum, Litecoin and Monero in over 120 wallets raised for the freedom convoy protest. Convoy organizers in the order are prohibited from selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning or encumbering any of the listed assets, Justice MacLeod wrote. Ottawa residents filed a class action against the freedom convoy protestors seeking up to $20 million from the funds raised in global donations. If the lawsuit is successful, the Mareva injunction secures assets for the courts to reward residents with some of the protest money raised by organizers, Lenczner Slaght partner Monique Jilesen says. "The Mareva order freezes the donor monies of the leaders and ensures those assets are available to pay for damages to compensate the class action if successful at trial." The plaintiffs in the class action express that the freedom convoy protests are harmful to them and cause a public and private nuisance, Jilesen says. Lenczner Slaght acted for Champ & Associates, the law firm representing Ottawa residents in the proposed lawsuit and brought a motion against five people and one non-profit with proof that they were leaders of the freedom convoy protests. The test in a Mareva injunction is to establish a strong case and that the defendants will dissipate the assets, and Jilesen says part of the evidence was that the convoy organizers sought to disburse their holdings out of the court's reach and to individual protesters. "We have to be back in 10 days to justify it again before the court." Under the injunction, defendants must provide 24 hours notice to the residents of Ottawa specifying the funds they require from the frozen assets for living expenses and legal representation and can have access after obtaining written consent. The defendants must respond to the order in a week and provide the residents of Ottawa with a sworn statement describing the nature, value and locations of their financial assets, and any individual who fails to comply may be held in contempt of the court and imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized, Justice MacLeod wrote. Paul Champ, the lawyer representing the residents of Ottawa, told the Globe and Mail that the Mareva order is the first successful one of its kind targeting cryptocurrency transactions. The publication also reported that Keith Wilson, counsel for one of the convoy protestors, learned of the injunction through media reports and has not been served the order or any related court documents. The Mareva order follows the Canadian government's sanction of 34 crypto wallets in a separate effort to seize protestors' funds. On February 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time since the law was passed in 1988, declaring the freedom convoy protests illegal. He gave institutions and authorities additional powers without a court order and legal retribution to seize funds and respond to border blockades by large trucks and demonstrators that have disrupted people's lives and businesses over the last three weeks, particularly in Ottawa. Deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland also announced that the RCMP and Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) is investigating cryptocurrency donations supporting the freedom convoy protest and encouraging financial institutions to stop transacting with personal and corporate accounts of identified protest organizers. "The government is issuing an order with immediate effect under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations." Ottawa police started a shutdown to end the convoy, arresting over 100 protestors, including several key organizers, Tamar Lich, Chris Barber and Patrick King, who are defendants in the injunction. [GN] TAMARA LICH: Freedom Covy Protest Ended Following Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Eamon Barrett, writing for Fortune, reports that on Feb. 20, the streets surrounding the Canadian parliament in Ottawa were free of protesters and trucks for the first time since January after police cleared out the last of the so-called Freedom Convoy truckers who occupied the nation's capital to oppose the country's COVID-era restrictions. During a three-day operation, Ottawa police deployed pepper spray and stun grenades to disperse crowds, towed away over 70 vehicles, and arrested 191 people, bringing a total of 389 charges against 103 of them. Three of the protest's key organizers were arrested and charged with "mischief," and two of them are now out on bail. The clearing of the capital came days after the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) ordered a freeze on 206 bank and corporate accounts managing millions in funds related to the protests. The RCMP also flagged 253 Bitcoin addresses and forbid local crypto exchanges from facilitating transactions with the accounts. While quiet has returned to Ottawa streets after three weeks of horn blaring by truck-driving protesters, the fallout of the nearly month-long saga will likely take longer to address. In the capital city, police and barricades have replaced protesters and trucks and, across the country, politicians and citizens are confronting the divide in civil society left in the wake of the departing demonstrators. What were truckers protesting? The brigade of truck-driving protesters from across Canada first converged in Ottawa on Jan. 28, occupying various streets around the nation's capital. The protest began in opposition to the government's introduction of a mandate requiring all cross-border truck drivers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, roughly 90% of Canadian truck drivers were already vaccinated, but a minority of truckers objected to the new requirement for drivers hauling goods between Canada and the U.S. As the protesters and their convoy spread across Canada, the focus of the demonstration expanded to oppose all pandemic-era mandates, such as mask requirements and COVID vaccine passport check-ins. With its purview widened to more common grievances, the Freedom Convoy gained support from Canadians outside the trucking industry who were tired of COVID-era restrictions. By early February, a GoFundMe account set up by one of the protest organizers, Tamara Lich, had raised $8 million in donations. Reports revealed that Silicon Valley billionaire Tom Siebel was one of the group's leading benefactors, donating $90,000 to the Freedom Convoy movement that had also gained support from Tesla CEO Elon Musk and U.S. Republicans. But in Ottawa unruly protesters -- many of whom blared truck horns throughout the day, occupied residential streets, and threw loud parties -- sparked counter-protests. With disruption costing the city upward of $800,000 per day in policing expenses and snarling U.S. cross-border trade worth $350 million a day, the government stepped in to shut the protests down. Crypto funds frozen For protesters, the first bad omen for their movement hit on Feb. 5 when GoFundMe suspended Lich's fundraising account after receiving police reports of protest violence and other unlawful activity. "This fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term 8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment) and has been removed from the platform," GoFundMe said, adding that it would return the $8 million raised back to donors. Undeterred by the loss of millions, protest organizers simply switched fundraising tactics. Shortly after GoFundMe shut down the group's main account, four protest supporters, calling themselves HonkHonkHodl, launched a new funding page on crypto fundraising site, Tallycoin. Within days, the HonkHonkHodl account -- which some say has ties to alt-right groups -- raised over $500,000 in Bitcoin. But even cryptocurrency, hyped for its ability to evade censorship and capital freezes, wasn't safe from Canada's courts. Canada's federal police ordered all crypto exchanges regulated by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) -- that's most of them -- to halt transactions associated with 34 crypto wallets associated with protesters and funds of $900,000. Then, a group of Ottawa residents set a new precedent in Canadian law and won a class-action lawsuit to invoke a Mareva injunction and freeze 146 cryptocurrency wallets associated with the protesters. Canadian courts have never issued a Mareva injunction -- which freezes a defendant's assets -- against cryptocurrency before. Trudeau's emergency powers Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the Freedom Convoy campaign its final death blow and invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history, empowering police to move against protesters. "We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue," Trudeau said as he invoked the Emergencies Act, which granted police greater leeway to impose fines, imprison protesters, and tow vehicles blocking roads. Trudeau invoked the act a day after police cleared protesters from the Ambassador Bridge that connects Ontario to Detroit, Mich., and carries 23% of cross-border trade between the U.S. and Canada. Protesters had blocked the bridge for days, holding up $360 million of daily trade and drawing attention from the White House. "At the borders in different places in the country, the blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. Critical supply chains have been disrupted. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families," Trudeau said. The Emergencies Act also compelled financial institution to comply with police orders to freeze funds associated with "designated persons" -- in this case, protesters. With funds hobbled, public sentiment turning against them, and the threat of arrest and financial sanctions looming, the protest movement began to lose momentum. Protesters who had occupied U.S.-Canada border crossings began to go home, fearing authorities might seize their assets. In Canada's capital, protesters continued to hold out. On Wednesday, Ottawa police distributed fliers to protesters telling them to leave or face arrest. Some protesters threw the notices in the trash and started a chorus of blaring truck horns, announcing their refusal to leave. On Feb. 17, police arrested three of the Freedom Convoy's most prominent leaders -- Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and Pat King. The next day, police began clearing out protesters still occupying the city. Police move in On Feb. 18, hundreds of police moved in on protest camps in Ottawa city center and began forcing demonstrators to disperse. Over 100 protesters were arrested as some left and others resisted. When police returned to continue the operation the following day, they dressed in riot gear. On Feb. 19, police made another 47 arrests, using pepper spray to disperse crowds. Although police initially said no protesters had been hurt, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit -- the police watchdog -- said Sunday it is investigating the case of a woman who was trampled by a mounted police officer's horse on Feb. 18. By Feb. 20, the majority of protesters and their vehicles had been cleared from Parliament Hill -- the area surrounding Canada's parliament building, which had become a central hub for the Freedom Convoy movement. In place of heavy trucks that once blocked the streets, police have set up concrete barricades and high metal fences to keep protesters from returning. "We're not done with this operation yet," interim Ottawa Police Chief Steve Bell told journalists on Feb. 20, adding that police will track down protesters who had been filmed breaking the law, and determine "how we maintain a presence and make sure that nobody returns to occupy our streets again." Bell's predecessor Peter Sloly resigned last Wednesday under criticism from Ottawa residents for not resolving the protests. Clearing the aftermath With the protests cleared and the main leaders arrested, debate has turned to whether Trudeau was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act. Canada's lawmakers debated that issue in parliament, deciding whether to ratify the Act. Opinion is divided largely along party lines, with Trudeau's leading Liberal party supporting the prime minister's action and members of the opposing Conservative party denouncing the decree as the "latest and greatest example of attacks on our freedom." A decision whether to ratify the act was due on Monday, Feb. 21. If parliament votes down the act, the special powers would be revoked. If the act passes, the powers would remain in effect for 30 days. Although police cleared protesters from Ottawa, the tensions that sparked the movement in the first place remain, and there are concerns that protests may flare up again even though they lack public support. Polling from the Angus Reid Institute (ARI), a non-profit research group, found that 72% of respondents agreed protesters should "go home, they have made their point." ARI also found that 44% of Canadians are now more likely to support mandates for mask wearing and cross-border vaccine checks because of the protests. Only 21% were more likely to oppose the mandates while the remainder were unmoved either way. "In the weeks since they inserted themselves directly into the conversation about restrictions, the protesters have seen the pendulum swing against their point of view," ARI says, noting that 54% of Canadians wanted COVID restrictions to end when polled in December. Even if this is the end of the protests -- Canadian provinces are gradually easing COVID restrictions anyway -- the cleanup is just getting underway. Officials have only just started to bring charges against protest leaders, process the millions of dollars in seized funds, and investigate the police operation itself. In the words of Bell, "This investigation will go on for months to come." [GN] TASKUS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against TaskUs, Inc. ("TaskUs" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TASK) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Company securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges, particularly with its most important customer Facebook; (2) the Content Security market was smaller than Defendants represented and Defendants' representations were based on outdated market data; (3) the Company improperly recognized revenue from certain key contracts; (4) Defendants overstated the size of the Company's workforce as well as employee retention rates, and understated attrition rates; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of TaskUs should contact the Firm prior to the April 25, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] TESLA INC: Class Action Over Yellow Touchscreen Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Tesla yellow touchscreen lawsuit has been dismissed after owners claimed in the class action that Tesla sold them defective vehicles with touchscreen borders that turn yellow. The Tesla touchscreen class action lawsuit includes all 2016-2020 Tesla models with 17-inch touchscreens made by Innolux Corporation. The lawsuit also alleges Tesla owners report having problems receiving the warranties when purchasing the vehicles. According to the class action, Tesla sold about 1.2 million of the vehicles equipped with touchscreens that can each cost $2,500 to replace if yellow borders appear around the edges. The Tesla touchscreen lawsuit was filed by North Carolina plaintiff and business owner Chad Sasso who picked up his Tesla in December 2016. The plaintiff says he didn't receive a copy of the warranty but he was told he could get a copy of the warranty upon request or by downloading it from his online Tesla user account. Then in June 2018, the Tesla touchscreen developed a yellow border around the edge of the screen. The plaintiff took the vehicle to Tesla and the touchscreen was replaced under warranty. But the plaintiff alleges six months later the edge of the touchscreen turned yellow. Tesla allegedly couldn't repair the touchscreen because of equipment problems, but the plaintiff says the problem wouldn't occur in the first place if the touchscreen met industry standards. According to the class action lawsuit, the touchscreens cannot cope with the temperatures of sunlight exposure when the vehicles are parked outside. In addition to the yellow Tesla touchscreen, the plaintiff claims his online account included a warranty that was "constantly changing," making the warranty different each time it was changed. Tesla Yellow Touchscreen Lawsuit Dismissed In its motion to dismiss, Tesla argues Sasso hasn't "suffered an injury in fact" because he doesn't own the vehicle. The plaintiff allegedly sued as the agent for his company, Challenge Printing, and Tesla argues the company fails to adequately state a breach of implied warranty claim because a car's ordinary purpose is to provide transportation and the yellow touchscreen did not render the car unfit for ordinary use. The plaintiff does not plausibly allege the yellow band around the touchscreen made the Tesla unsafe or unreliable, and the judge says the yellow border doesn't cause a problem when driving the vehicle. "Instead, the allegations are bare assertions that do not plausibly allege that the yellow band made the car unsafe, unreliable, or inoperable." -- Judge James C. Dever, III Regarding breach of express warranty claims, Tesla alleges the plaintiff doesn't plausibly allege the touchscreen defect existed at the time of sale and the plaintiff doesn't show misrepresentations made by Tesla employees. According to the Tesla yellow touchscreen lawsuit, Sasso got the car from Tesla on December 15, 2016, and the yellow band appeared June 15, 2018, about a year and a half later. The judge says this shows the problem didn't exist when the vehicle was sold. According to the judge, "buying a product that works at the time of purchase but will likely fail over a year later is not the same as buying a product that is already defective at the time of sale. Even assuming the touchscreen's failure to meet industry standards may indicate a latent defect, that indication does not suffice on its own." Tesla Warranty As for the Tesla warranty issue, the plaintiff argues Tesla clearly said it would make a copy of the warranty available when the vehicle was picked up, but in December 2016 when the vehicle was picked up the plaintiff didn't receive the warranty. The plaintiff alleges when he went to his online account in February 2020, the warranty wasn't for 2016 but instead was a warranty which post-dated the purchase of the Tesla. But the judge ruled the plaintiff fails to state a claim because not getting a copy of the warranty doesn't mean a touchscreen defect existed when the Tesla was purchased. "Putting aside whether Tesla allegedly changed the terms of the warranty, plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Sasso went online in 2016 to get a copy of the warranty or that the correct warranty was not available to Sasso online when Challenge Printing purchased the car." -- Judge Dever The Tesla yellow touchscreen lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina: Sasso, et al., v. Tesla, Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Williams & Ray, PLLC. [GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Settlement Hearing Set on June 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IN RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 3:17-cv-00558 (SRU) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: Purchasers and acquirers in domestic transactions of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares, Teva 7.00% mandatory convertible preferred shares, and/or certain Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance") U.S.-dollar-denominated senior notes during the period from February 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TEVA SECURITIES (DEFINED BELOW) FROM FEBRUARY 6, 2014 THROUGH MAY 10, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION (THE "LITIGATION"). THIS SUMMARY NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 2, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Court"), Brien McMahon Federal Building, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation, as set forth in the Stipulation dated January 18, 2022, consisting of Four Hundred and Twenty Million U.S. dollars ($420,000,000) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class Members; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Net Settlement Fund (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the applications by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether Class Representatives should receive awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amount; and (5) whether the proposed Judgment should be entered. The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of all persons and entities (with certain exclusions) who purchased or acquired Teva Securities from February 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive. The "Teva Securities" are: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares ("ADS") (ISIN No. US8816242098; CUSIP 881624209), Teva 7% mandatory convertible preferred shares ("Preferred Shares") (ISIN No. IL0062905489; CUSIP M8769Q 136), and the following Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance") U.S.-dollar-denominated senior notes: 1.400% Senior Notes due July 20, 2018 (ISIN US88167AAA97; CUSIP 88167A AA9); 1.700% Senior Notes due July 19, 2019 (ISIN US88167AAB70; CUSIP 88167A AB7); 2.200% Senior Notes due July 21, 2021 (ISIN US88167AAC53; CUSIP 88167A AC5); 2.800% Senior Notes due July 21, 2023 (ISIN US88167AAD37; CUSIP 88167A AD3); 3.150% Senior Notes due October 1, 2026 (ISIN US88167AAE10; CUSIP 88167A AE1); and 4.100% Senior Notes due October 1, 2046 (ISIN US88167AAF84; CUSIP 88167A AF8) (collectively, the "Notes"). A detailed description of the Litigation, including important information about your rights and options, is in the detailed Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Long-Form Notice"), available at www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., In re Teva Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 3565, Portland, OR 97208-3565, Telephone: (855) 675-3124, or 1-503-520-4435 outside the U.S. and Canada. To be eligible for a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically submitted or postmarked by no later than May 17, 2022. To obtain a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, visit www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or contact the Claims Administrator at the address above. Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form by May 17, 2022 will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment from the settlement. To be excluded from the settlement, you must submit a written request for exclusion, in accordance with all of the instructions in the Long-Form Notice, electronically submitted or postmarked no later than May 2, 2022. If you request exclusion, you will not receive any payment from the settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will not share in the proceeds of the settlement, but you will be bound by the settlement and shall have fully released all of the Released Claims against the Released Defendants. Direct Action Plaintiffs are those plaintiffs who retained counsel and filed with the Court one of the lawsuits listed in Appendix B to the Long-Form Notice. The foregoing deadlines do not apply to the Direct Action Plaintiffs. Direct Action Plaintiffs who wish to participate in the settlement must take certain steps, specified in the Long-Form Notice, no later than May 2, 2022. To object to any aspect of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or Class Representatives' request for awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4), you must submit a written objection in accordance with all of the instructions in the Long-Form Notice that is received or filed, not simply postmarked, on or before May 12, 2022. If you object, but also want to be eligible for a payment, you must submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release Form. Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice, may be made by emailing Class Counsel at TevaSettlement@bfalaw.com or contacting: Joseph A. Fonti Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (888) 879-9418 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS LITIGATION OR THIS NOTICE. Dated: February 21, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut URL// www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN] TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VICTOR GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00182, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 25, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01177-JSC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wages statements, and failure to reimburse employees for required expenses. TForce Freight, Inc. is an American less than truckload freight carrier based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Berry, Esq. J.P. Schreiber, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com - and – Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: daniel.rojas@morganlewis.com TUFIN SOFTWARE: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-5646-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. I. Background The lawsuit arises from the April 2019 initial public offering ("IPO") by Defendant Tufin. Lead Plaintiff Henry alleges that the registration statement Tufin filed in connection with that IPO included materially misleading misstatements related to, among other things, the length of its sales cycle and as well as its training practices. Because of those alleged misstatements, the Plaintiff brought the putative class action alleging that the Defendant, as well as various of its directors and officers, violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act. Tufin develops and sells cybersecurity software designed to help its customers guard against cyber-crime. To prevent cyber-crime, companies generally use multiple third-party tools and products, such as firewalls. Companies rely on in-house employees to manage manually the numerous policies governing those third-party tools and products. According to the Plaintiff, such manual policy management "increases the risk of human error and cybersecurity vulnerabilities and delays the pace of application releases." Tufin's software consists of a "suite of five interrelated instances of software" that is intended to "unify and automate" its customers' policies governing the third-party cybersecurity-related products and tools. The Defendant represents that this software -- the "Tufin Orchestration Suite" -- is an "effective, comprehensive way for its customers to manage their additional firewalls, endpoint security, identity and access management, and other solutions." On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff Matthew Ellison filed a putative class action complaint against Tufin, Reuven Harrison, Ohad Finkelstein, Edouard Cukierman, Yair Shamir, Ronni Zehavi, Yuval Shachar (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and various underwriters alleging violations of Sections 11, 15 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. U.S.C. Section 77k; 12(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. Section 12(a)(2)), Section 77o. On Oct. 19, 2021, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the Plaintiff's case with Michaelson v. Tufin Software Technologies, Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-6290. Lead Plaintiff Henry filed an amended complaint in the consolidated case on Feb. 4, 2021 (the "Complaint" or "Amended Complaint"), alleging one cause of action against Tufin and the Individual Defendants for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, and one cause of action against the Individual Defendants for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act. Tufin and the Individual Defendants moved to dismiss on May 20, 2021. The Plaintiff filed his opposition on July 19, 2021. Tufin and the Individual Defendants filed their reply on Aug. 25, 2021. II. Discussion A. Plaintiff's Section 11 Claims 1. Plaintiff Does Not Sufficiently Allege that the Statements that Tufin's Sales Force was "Highly Trained" and that Defendant Devoted "Significant" Resources to Training and Customer Education Are False Judge Woods opines that the Plaintiff does not adequately plead a Section 11 claim based on statements related to the Defendant's training practices and customer education. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the statement is, in fact, false. They do not allege that no training occurred, and the meaning of the term "highly" is indeterminate and too general to provide meaningful information regarding the substance, quality, or quantity of Tufin's training practices. Thus, without any facts supporting a conclusion that Tufin's sales force was not, in fact, "highly trained," the Plaintiff has not alleged that statement was false so as to mislead a reasonable investor. For similar reasons, Judge Woods says the Plaintiff fails to plead that the statements regarding the resources dedicated to training and customer education are false. The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants expended no time or resources into training or customer education; indeed, he expressly alleges that Tufin did expend resources on training. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that statements regarding the resources dedicated to training and customer education were false. 2. Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges that Defendants' Statements Regarding the Length of Tufin's Sales Cycle Are False and Materially Misleading Judge Woods holds that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads that the Defendants' statements that Tufin's "sales cycle usually lasts several months from proof of concept to purchase order, and is often longer for larger transactions," and that "our sales cycle usually last several months from proof of concept to purchase order from our customers," are false and materially misleading. He says, while statements that are "too general to cause a reasonable investor to rely upon them" are not misleading, "more definite statements about a company's business practices may invoke reasonable reliance by investors." Moreover, "the law is well settled that so called 'half truths' -- literally true statements that create a materially misleading impression -- will support claims for securities fraud." The disclosure that Tufin's sales process "is long and unpredictable" similarly fails to sufficiently counteract the Plaintiff's statement that the sales cycle "usually" lasts several months -- indeed, the terms "long" and "unpredictable" do not denote a specific amount of time. The Defendants have not provided any compelling reason to suggest that a reasonable investor would interpret that statement to mean that the sales cycle in fact took one or two years. Accordingly, the Defendants' statements that Tufin's sales cycle "is long and unpredictable" and "often" took longer than several months are not sufficient to defeat the Plaintiff's Section 11 claim, which focuses on the assertion that the sales cycle was usually shorter. 3. Plaintiff's Confidential Witness Allegations Are Not "Deficient" Judge Woods holds that the Defendants do not prevail in arguing that the confidential witness allegations supporting the Plaintiff's arguments are "deficient" because those CWs were "low-level employees" and, as such, could not "speak for Tufin as a whole." The Plaintiff adequately pleads a Section 11 claim based on the statement that its sales cycles was "usually several months." The CWs worked at Tufin during that operative period. CW1 worked at Tufin both before and after the IPO. And while CW1 began his career at Tufin around the same time that the company went public and CW2 left the company prior to the IPO, their testimony corroborates CW1's testimony: that the lengthy sales cycle was present both before and after the IPO does not suggest that the lengthy sales cycle was isolated to a certain time period. 4. Defendant's Statements Regarding the Hiring and Retention of its Sales Personnel Is Not Sufficient Grounds to Support a Section 11 Claim The Plaintiff theorizes that the Defendant's inability to attract and retain qualified personnel had already occurred at the time the registration statement was declared effective, such that the Defendant's suggestion that that risk may arise in the future would mislead a reasonable investor. The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that those disclosures are protected under the bespeaks caution doctrine. Judge Woods opines that the Defendants have the better argument. The challenged statements are inherently forward looking and are not precluded from the protection of the bespeaks caution doctrine as non-forward looking statements. Without any allegations that the risks disclosed in the Registration Statement had, in fact, occurred prior to the effective date of the Registration Statement, the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that Defendant's statements regarding Tufin's "inability to attract or retain qualified personnel" was misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section 11 claims based on those statements are dismissed. 5. Plaintiff Does Not Plead Section 11 Liability Based on Defendant's Statements Regarding "Accurate Forecasting" The Plaintiff similarly fails to allege sufficient grounds for a Section 11 claim based on the Defendants' statement that, "we may not be able to accurately predict or forecast the timing of sales, which could cause our results to vary significantly from our expectations and the expectations of market analysts." The Plaintiff claims that, at the time the Registration Statement was declared effective, Tufin "could not 'accurately predict or forecast the timing of its sales," such that the statement is not protected as a forward-looking statement by the bespeaks caution doctrine. That argument is unpersuasive, Judge Woods holds. First, the Registration Statement expressly states, "large individual sales have, in some cases, occurred at quarters subsequent to those we anticipated or have not occurred at all," and also that, as a result of companies waiting to make spending decisions until the fourth quarter of the year "the timing of individual sales can be difficult to predict." The Defendant expressly disclosed that inaccurate sales forecasting had already occurred; that inaccurate forecasts may also occur in the future is not inconsistent with forecasts having also occurred in the past. More plainly, it is simply implausible that a reasonable investor would understand the statement that Defendant may be "unable to accurately forecast" its sales in the future to mean that all of its then-current forecasts were always accurate—forecasts, by their nature, lack 100% accuracy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not state a Section 11 claim based on the statement regarding purported risk of inaccurate future forecasts. 6. Plaintiff Adequately Pleads a Section 15 Violation Because the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a Section 11 violation, he similarly pleads a violation of Section 15. Judge Woods finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a primary violation of Section 11. The Defendants do not contest -- at present -- that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the Individual Defendants are control persons under Section 15. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a violation of Section 15. B. Leave to Amend Although the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once, Judge Woods grants the Plaintiff leave to replead the dismissed claims. He says, while leave may be denied "for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party," those circumstances do not apply in the case with respect to the majority of the dismissed claims. Any amended Complaint must be filed no later than March 31, 2022. III. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is ordered to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 61. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/379vy3dw from Leagle.com. UNITED PARCEL: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Diaz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ OSCAR DIAZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a 211(C), 215(A), 216(B), 255(A)); 29 Delaware Corporation; UNITED C.F.R. Section 516 ET SEQ. PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 1:22-at-00127 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2022) is a class action for wage and labor violations arising out of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages for all time worked, including overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses and derivative wage statement claims. According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified as exempt its current and/or former salaried Part–Time Operations Supervisors/Part–Time Local Sort Supervisors, and as a result failed to pay them wages for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 1198, the applicable Industrial Wage Order, and Fair Labor Standards Act; and failed to timely and accurate wage statements; and, are in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiff seeks to represent and prosecute claims against Defendants in class and collective action proceedings on behalf of all those similarly situated who are or were residents of the State of California. The Defendants provide packaging and shipping services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com VOLVO CARS: Jenner Wins Leave to File Second Amended Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THERESA JENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-6152 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the First Amended Class Action Complaint and granted the Plaintiff leave to file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff Jenner's motion to amend her First Amended Class Action Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's motion and the Plaintiff replied. The action concerns an allegedly defective component of the Defendant's satellite radio system, used in its vehicles since at least 2008, which purportedly caused the vehicles' battery to unexpectedly fail. The Plaintiff initiated the action on Aug. 12, 2015, and filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 8, 2016. The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She opposed the motion, and the Defendant replied. Thereafter, on April 19, 2018, the Court held oral argument, and appointed a mediator to facilitate settlement discussions. The parties subsequently informed the Court, on Aug. 22, 2019, that mediation was unsuccessful. While the parties engaged in settlement discussions, the Court initially stayed discovery, and thereafter, discovery was reopened. By order dated July 14, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file her motion for a proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint by July 30, 2021. The Plaintiff then submitted her motion to amend on July 30, 2021. The Defendant opposed the motion on Aug. 9, 2021, and the Plaintiff replied on Aug. 31, 2021. After receiving the Plaintiff's motion to amend, the Court terminated the Defendant's motion to dismiss), pending the disposition of the Plaintiff's motion to amend, at which time the Defendant could either reinstate its motion or file a renewed one. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her First Amended Class Action Complaint to reflect facts uncovered during initial document discovery and depositions, which she argues relate directly to her fraud claims against the Defendant -- specifically, that the Defendant knew of the defective satellite radio component before the Plaintiff purchased her vehicle. In opposition, the Defendant contends that leave should be denied. It first argues that amendment is futile because, even if the pleadings included the amended allegations, the Plaintiff cannot sustain a fraud claim. Second, the Defendant argues that an amendment would be unduly prejudicial, as the Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend and any amendment will require the Defendant to complete additional briefing. Judge Cecchi opines that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment adds particularized facts regarding when the Defendant learned of the alleged defect and its response to the issue. Specifically, the Plaintiff proposes to allege that Defendant became aware of the malfunction in its satellite radio system as early as September 2008 through an internal company report, approximately six months before the Plaintiff purchased her vehicle, and that it took the Defendant until 2012 to develop a software upgrade to fix the problem. Moreover, the proposed amended complaint alleges that once Defendant found a solution, it chose not to distribute the upgrade to purchasers, or otherwise notify them that their vehicles needed service to avoid the unexpected battery drain caused by the defective satellite radio component. The Defendant argues that an amendment to the pleadings would be futile because these new allegations do not plausibly assert that Defendant knew of the Plaintiff's problem "with certainty" as the Defendant contends is required to sustain the Plaintiff's fraud claim. However, the Plaintiff's proposed amended allegations regarding when the Defendant became aware of the defect, what the Defendant did to fix the defect, and how the Defendant chose to alert consumers that their satellite radios needed repair all relate to the knowledge element of a fraud claim. As a result, Judge Cecchi opines that the amendment does not appear to be legally insufficient on its face, and thus amendment is not futile. Judge Cecchi next considers whether the Plaintiff prejudiced the Defendant by unduly delaying the filing of the instant motion and whether amendment would otherwise prejudice the Defendant by requiring it to engage in additional briefing. Delay alone is an insufficient ground to deny an amendment, unless the delay unduly prejudices the nonmoving party. In addition to prejudice associated with delay, the non-moving party may also be unduly prejudiced if amendment would create significant hardship. Regarding undue delay, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's deadline for filing an amended complaint, as established in the original scheduling order, expired over three years ago. It further contends that, when the Plaintiff eventually raised her intention to file a second amended complaint in June 2020, she waited almost a year before bringing her motion. However, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend the complaint by July 30, 2021 in an updated scheduling order filed on July 14, 2021, and the Plaintiff filed her motion within the new deadline set in that order. Because the Plaintiff complied with the updated scheduling order, and the Defendant has not demonstrated that the Plaintiff unduly delayed between first announcing her intentions to amend and bringing her motion, Judge Cecchi finds that no undue delay. The Defendant also argues that amendment would be unduly prejudicial because it would "force the Defendant to expend the cost and time of briefing a new motion." This contention is unavailing according to Judge Cecchi. The Plaintiff's proposed amendment does not focus on new theories of liability or claims against Defendant. the Instead, it alleges new facts that support the Plaintiff's existing fraud claims and addresses possible pleading deficiencies identified by Defendant in its motion to dismiss and the Court at oral argument. Further, to the extent the Defendant argues that it will incur costs because the amendment will impact discovery, both parties have been engaged in active ongoing discovery. The Defendant has not identified evidence to show that allowing the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint would impact this process to the Defendant's detriment. Accordingly, while the amended complaint may cause defendant to modify its motion to dismiss, Judge Cecchi opines that this type of prejudice is not cognizable under Rule 15, as it does not "impair the Defendant's ability present its case." Accordingly, Judge Cecchi granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the First Amended Class Action Complaint and granted the Plaintiff leave to file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2d8yby4m from Leagle.com. ZOOM VIDEO: California Pares Claims in Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- jdsupra.com reports that on February 16, 2022, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a videoconferencing company and certain of its executives. In re Zoom Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-02353-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning the level of encryption on its primary videoconferencing product. The Court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation as to the CEO's challenged statements regarding encryption, but it dismissed claims as to certain other alleged misstatements, and all claims against one executive, for failure to sufficiently allege scienter, while granting leave to amend. The Court first held that plaintiff adequately alleged that the company misrepresented that its primary videoconferencing product offered "end-to-end encryption," which plaintiff claimed was inaccurate because the company retained the ability to centrally decrypt and access the communications of its end users. Slip op. at 4. The Court rejected the company's argument that "end-to-end encryption" can have different meanings, emphasizing that defendants' statements as alleged in the complaint showed otherwise. Id. at 4-5. In particular, the Court pointed to an alleged statement by the company's CEO apologizing for "incorrectly suggesting" that its product offered "end-to-end encryption" and recognizing that there was a "discrepancy between the commonly accepted definition . . . . and how we were using it." Id. at 5. Regarding scienter, the Court determined that plaintiff adequately alleged scienter with respect to the company's CEO, and thus with respect to the company. Id. at 5-6. The Court rejected defendants' argument that the CEO's apology for the company's prior "incorrect" use of the term failed to show that he had the same understanding at the time he made the allegedly false statement one year prior. Id. at 5-6. The Court emphasized that, given the CEO's technical background-including an advanced engineering degree, founding a prior videoconferencing platform, and being named on several encryption-related patents-there was "no factual basis" to believe that the CEO's understanding of the term in question changed in a relevant way between the time he made the statement and the time he issued the apology. Id. at 6. The Court also held that loss causation was sufficiently alleged based on alleged corrective disclosures. Id. at 6. The Court noted that stock price declines when a news article allegedly revealed the truth about the company's encryption technology and again following the CEO's apology gave the Court "some assurance that the theory has a basis in fact." Id. at 6-7. The Court rejected defendants' argument that the truth of the company's encryption technology had already been previously reported, determining that this was a factual argument that could not be resolved on the pleadings. Id. 7. However, the Court dismissed plaintiff's additional allegations of alleged misstatements, noting that plaintiff admitted that the CEO did not make those statements, and further holding that there were no allegations showing that the individuals responsible for the statements acted with scienter or that the statements were "so important and so dramatically false" that scienter should be imputed to the company. Id. at 7-8. The Court also dismissed all claims against the company's CFO, noting that plaintiff had merely alleged that the CFO "signed or authorized" SEC filings, "had the power to authorize or approve" public statements, and spoke on earnings calls and at investor conferences, which the Court held amounted to "little more than a generic job description" that "comes nowhere close" to sufficiently alleging scienter. Id. at 3. Finally, having held that plaintiff could pursue a Section 10(b) claim against the CEO as the maker of the one statement found actionable, the Court noted that it was "duplicative and nonsensical" to impose secondary control person liability against the CEO for that same statement, and dismissed the Section 20(a) claim against the CEO on that basis.[GN] [*] "Freedom Convoy" Protest Suit Will Likely Seek $300M Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- citynews.ca reports that Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ who is leading the legal team representing downtown residents in a class-action lawsuit against self-proclaimed "Freedom Convoy" demonstrators joined The Rob Snow Show, February 24 to discuss the latest developments. Everybody who was involved in Ottawa's convoy protest that has been named in Paul Champ's $306 million lawsuit as defendants can all be put on the hook for the entire amount of the lawsuit. And that amount could actually increase as Champ says it's actually a low ball number based on assessments from an economist - so that number may actually increase over time. That's what Champ told The Rob Snow Show February 24, adding that now some residents have even sought medical attention not only for psychological treatment, but for hearing loss - some of which has turned out to be permanent. Paul Champ lawsuit 101 Champ represents three groups of people in the joint and several liability lawsuit. The first is the residents of downtown Ottawa, which is represented by Zexi Li. The second are two businesses: Happy Goat Coffee Co. and Union Local 613. The final group are employees who work at businesses who were forced to shut down due to the protest, and lost out on wages. "I think our numbers are probably low," Champ said. "We based that on an initial assessment by an economist of the businesses losses per day of the business of downtown Ottawa of about $10 million and then an estimate of $3 million to $4 million in wage losses and then approximately $2 million to $3 million in pain and suffering for the people in downtown Ottawa. But on the pain and suffering, I think that's probably going to go up." Some residents, he said, have been diagnosed with tinnitus - a permanent ringing in their ears, because of those "ear-splitting" air horns and train horns that were gong on in Ottawa for over three weeks. Champ said his team knew of the health impacts early on when he and Zexi Li filed the injunction to get the truckers to stop honking their horns. The evidence As of now, Champ says he has 400 licence plates collected, thanks to residents who took the initiative to collect them. "I kind of called this case a grassroots class action off the top because we had dozens of very brave residents who were willing to help us at the onset and going downtown and videotaping trucks blowing their horns and then bringing their cameras over to capture their licence plates," Champ explained. In the last two weeks, Champ says he hired a private investigator to track down those licence plates, however, he's also farming social media for photos posted from organizers and people who attended the occupation. He's also capturing everything he can find and using it as a way to "connect the dots" of the planning, organizing and coordination process of the demonstrator's plan. "What people don't get is the evidence we have now is that the whole plan of the organizers right from the beginning before they got to Ottawa was to encircle downtown and cause discomfort and inconvenience they brought on the people of downtown, so that the people of downtown would be so upset that they would apply pressure on the the government to capitulate to their demands," he explained. "The evidence we have now is effectively that the people of downtown were held as hostages for these convoy occupiers." Because the lawsuit is classified as a joint and several liability lawsuit, it means every person who is named in the lawsuit can be held liable for the entire amount of money listed. This means all truckers are at serious risk of financial consequences for themselves, their livelihoods and even their trucks, Champ explained. And those who donated after February 4 are also on the hook. Champ says that date was chosen because from that time forward, it was apparent the convoy had other motives. It was that day when GoFundMe also shutdown the convoy's fundraising platform through its website because it said it had evidence money was going towards illegal behaviour, Champ said. So anyone who donated to the GiveSendGo platform knew they were supporting something that wanted to bring harm to the people of Ottawa, Champ alleges. "It's an unfortunate situation because I think a lot of those individual truckers got hoodwinked or manipulated into coming and participated into this thing and not really knowing fully the consequences." Coming up next Champ will continue his motion of a freezing order before the courts. This, he says, will freeze the bank accounts of organizers and donors to the occupation - including bitcoin and crypto currency exchanges. He is now waiting on reports from banks and crypto exchanges, which he says probably holds around $3 million but are now frozen. He'll be back to continue that action. Champ said he is open to talking to truckers who - upon further reflection - feel remorse for what they've done, and who have retained independent counsel and reach out. As Champ said, he is open to settling with truckers earlier. "Not that they can get out of it but I just advise them, find us before we find you." [GN] [*] Australian Labor Party Talks About Class Action Reforms ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pelly at afr.com reports that Labor has promised an about-face on class actions reform after the next election, with shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus saying it will only act "in the best interests of plaintiffs". Mr. Dreyfus said the Morrison government had taken a "hostile" approach to claims run by litigation funders and that would change under an Albanese government. The shadow attorney-general's comments were made in an interview with The Australian Financial Review in which he laid out Labor's legal agenda, which includes the establishment of a commonwealth integrity commission and press freedom laws. Mr Dreyfus also said Labor would bring back a judicial appointments commission and would not rule out interviewing candidates for courts or tribunals himself. This drew a warning from the Australian Bar Association that Mr Dreyfus would need to "exercise caution and restraint". Along with religious freedom, class actions has been one of the more hotly contested legal issues during this parliamentary term. Labor has strongly opposed government legislation that would set a 70 per cent floor for class action payouts, which funders and plaintiff law firms say would make some cases uneconomic to run. The Coalition also sought to make it harder for litigation funders to bring cases by restricting common fund orders, which allow them to represent a group instead of have to "book build", or sign up plaintiffs one by one. 'Immense Hostility' The bill followed changes during the pandemic that made directors only liable for continuous disclosure law breaches if they acted with "knowledge, recklessness or negligence" and raised the bar for a successful claim. Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said recently the government would not be pursuing the bill in the remaining days of the current parliament, but would try again if re-elected. "This government has demonstrated immense hostility to the very idea of class actions," Mr Dreyfus said. "It has shown a preparedness to entertain potentially massive changes in the class action system designed to make class actions harder to bring, and to interrupt the funding arrangements for class actions. "Class actions are a vital path to justice for Australians who are trying to uphold their rights against wealthy defendants with vastly greater resources." Mr Dreyfus would not be drawn on whether Labor would allow plaintiff law firms to charge contingency fees, as has been the case in Victoria since 2020 after a lobbying campaign led by Maurice Blackburn, a frequent donor to the Labor Party. He said the class action regime, like all laws, should be "continually looked at to ensure it is working in the best way possible". "But we won't be making changes to class action law unless we are satisfied that it is in the best interests of plaintiffs seeking justice. "Bear in mind that the Federal Court has the power, which it has used often, to supervise the fees that are received by the law firms who act for plaintiffs in these class actions. It's those powers that ensure fees continue to be reasonable." 'Consult Widely' Mr Dreyfus said Labor would have a judicial appointments commission to advise on contenders for all federal court and tribunals, apart from the High Court. "We will put an end to the black box system of appointments where there is a complete lack of transparency." He said it was "a logistic impossibility for the Attorney-General to conduct all the interviews". "But, of course, it's open to an Attorney-General to interview people that are being considered for appointment. And I wouldn't want to close off that possibility." Mr Dreyfus said he would "consult widely" on High Court appointments, with two vacancies in the next term, including a replacement for Chief Justice Susan Kiefel. "Unlike all the other federal courts, the Judiciary Act requires that there be consultation by the federal government, state governments about their suggestions for appointment to the High Court before any appointment is made." He was asked directly whether that might include candidates. "I say again, it's open for any attorney-general to interview anyone that she or he wants to interview. It's entirely appropriate that they be able to do so. "My proposal would be very much not merely to comply with the Judiciary Act requirements or consultation with the states, but to consult very widely with the profession. "Everybody has got knowledge of potential candidates for appointment to the High Court of Australia because it is the highest court in the land, and it's very, very important that we get appointments to that court as right as we can." The president of the Australian Bar Association, Matt Collins, QC, said Mr Dreyfus would have to tread warily. "The ABA has long advocated for wide consultation on potential judicial appointments," he said. Michaelia Cash is refusing to outline the constitutional heads of power under which she plans to make sweeping reforms to the class action industry. "The profession will often be aware of suitable candidates who may not have been considered or of the qualities of candidates that may not be visible to serving judges. "Caution and restraint would need to be exercised in any interviewing process to avoid the perceived politicisation of appointments. "Confidence in the administration of justice depends on judges being, and being seen to be, independent and able to dispense justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will." [GN] [*] COVID-19 Tuition Refund Class Action Lawsuits Examined ---------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the COVID-19 pandemic caused worldwide disruption, causing many industries to shut down or reduce their services in order to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus. Colleges and universities were affected, and many halted in-person classes and other campus services. In response, many university students have sought prorated COVID-19 tuition refunds because they did not receive the value of the educational experience for which they paid. When their schools have refused to issue refunds, some students have opted to take legal action to get the refunds they believe they are entitled to receive. The following includes a brief summary of how some of these COVID-19 tuition refund class action lawsuits are faring. South Florida COVID-19 Tuition Fees On Feb. 14, a Florida federal judge sent a proposed University of South Florida COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit back to state court after dismissing the student plaintiff's sole federal claim. U.S. District Judge Charlene E. Honeywell dismissed plaintiff Felipe Rivadeneira's Fifth Amendment claim, finding that he did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the fees he paid. Rivadeneira argued that he had a protected property right to the funds he paid USF to enjoy on-campus amenities. He filed the COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed Class of USF students seeking prorated refunds for tuition and other fees for the spring 2020 semester. The judge remanded the case to Hillsborough County court, which is where the proposed USF class action lawsuit was originally filed. Nova Southeastern University Tuition Fees On Feb. 16, Nova Southeastern University was dealt a blow when a Florida federal judge denied its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit seeking tuition refunds for transitioning to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this case, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II determined that a Florida law protecting colleges from pandemic related lawsuits did not apply because the proposed Nova class action lawsuit was filed nearly one year before the law took effect. Syracuse University Class Action Lawsuits Syracuse University is facing four COVID-19 class action lawsuits by students seeking refunds after their classes were moved online due to pandemic-related shutdowns. They claim that they lost the benefit of the on-campus education for which they paid. Although the university allegedly allowed students to apply for reimbursements for housing and meal plan payments, Syracuse refused to refund tuition or fees. Rutgers University COVID-19 Refund Class Action Settlement At least one COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit has resulted in a settlement. On Jan. 28, 2021, a judge granted final approval to a $5 million Rutgers University tuition fees settlement. Expected payments were estimated to be $50 to $70 per person. Under the terms of the Rutgers settlement, eligible Class Members would automatically receive a payment and did not need to file a claim. NYU Fee Repayment Class Action Lawsuit New York University was able to escape claims in a COVID-19 tuition refund class action lawsuit, but a judge held that the graduate student plaintiff's claims regarding school fees for campus amenities could proceed. The judge agreed with NYU's assertion that plaintiff Nelcy Mabel Garcia De Leon failed to show that NYU breached a contract regarding the tuition claims. However, the judge determined that De Leon could still pursue breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims for fees related to campus facilities, student activities, health services, and other amenities that were unavailable during the COVID-19 related disruptions. American University & George Washington University Cases May Be Revived Tuition refund class action lawsuits against American University and George Washington University were dismissed by a federal court last year, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals may decide to revive them. The plaintiffs in those cases allege that online courses are worth less than in-person classes and that they were deprived of the in-person learning experience they paid for. [GN] [*] D&O Class Actions Still Major Concern for Companies, Insurers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wood, writing for Insurance Business Australia, reports that class actions in the directors and officers (D&O) space are still a major concern for companies and insurers. Some brokerage firms in Australia hope that recent changes to continuous disclosure laws will help encourage companies to fight more D&O related class action battles in court, rather than settle. However, Martin Jones (pictured), Australia client executive for Xceedance argues that early settlement is usually the better option across the gamut of claims, not just for shareholder class action claims. He said claims costs are still escalating and insurers must develop new strategies that better facilitate early settlement. "Extensive use of external law firms," he said, can contribute, together with other factors, to "major claims inflation." However, after years of increasing numbers of class actions and extreme premium increases, things are finally looking better in the D&O insurance space. "2017 and 2018 were probably two of the peak years in terms of the volume of securities class actions in Australia. In both of those years there were 24 class actions," Henry Clark, head of professional and executive risks for Honan Insurance, told Insurance Business recently. 2019 was almost as bad but the last two years has seen a big drop. There were only six in 2021, said Clark. Brokerages say the changes to the continuous disclosure laws may have helped pull this number down, but it's still too early to tell. "We need to see consecutive years of a slowing down of class actions," said Clark. "Also, with the changes to the legislation requiring a higher threshold to be able to bring a class action, we hope that will then encourage defendants, like ASX companies, to defend matters." Craig Claughton, head of financial and professional services for Marsh, the global brokerage firm, agrees. "As new class actions come in, what I'm encouraging our clients and directors to do is to actually go ahead and defend them," said Claughton during an interview with IB late last year. Claughton co-authored a submission to the Australia Law Reform Commission's Inquiry into class actions and litigation funders. The submission used empirical data to support the changes that were ultimately made to the continuous disclosure laws. However, Jones said going to court may not be the best option for companies faced with any claims litigation. "Settlement is almost always a cheaper option than litigation, particularly when you consider high legal defence costs," he said. Jones said plaintiffs and defendants don't want to see drawn-out legal processes which have been exacerbated by COVID-19-related issues and the impact on judicial delays. He recommended focusing on data to close claims faster. "Insurers need to examine the characteristics of a claim and deploy new strategies to close quickly before it becomes a runaway claim," he said. Jones said insurers should change their current litigation models to facilitate this. "Insurers need to give their claims departments, or TPAs, the tools, knowledge and training to work towards early claims settlements. This results in greater decision-making by the claims department on how best to manage the claim," he said. "Xceedance uses its data analytics capabilities and state-of-the-art claims systems to support experienced claims teams as they implement strategies to mitigate claims inflation. This is already yielding results for clients in their claims departments or TPA operations," he said. "It's important to avoid unnecessary litigation costs – spending $2 in legal fees to save $1 of the claim settlement is illogical," added Jones. Across the insurance industry, Jones said, insurers are facing escalating claims costs and are under pressure to develop strategies to counter the trend. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a key driver of claims inflation, said Jones, causing delays in the health and justice sectors, as well as major disruption to supply chains. The surge in new construction and renovation projects, he said, has created material shortages that have resulted in a dramatic rise in construction prices with a knock-on impact to claims costs. Social inflation has played a role too, said Jones. Litigation awards in the court system have "set the bar high" and fuelled claimants' expectations about what payouts they are entitled to. Funded litigation has also become prevalent, he said, impacting class actions' frequency and the size of damages awards. Clark told IB that the average securities class action costs around $48 million, even though the majority are settled out of court. [GN] [*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Trends ------------------------------------------------------------- Mia Farber, Esq., David R. Golder, Esq., and Eric R. Magnus, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that since January 2020, the number of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class actions targeting the alleged mismanagement of 401(k) and 403(b) defined contribution employer-sponsored retirement plans has exploded. During that time, more than 150 of these class actions have been filed nationwide. These suits generally contend that plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries have breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by authorizing the plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees and/or by selecting plan investments that charged excessive investment management fees or that underperformed. The complaints in these "fee litigation" cases seek tens of millions of dollars in damages. In 2021, motions to dismiss were granted in about a dozen cases, but courts have denied such motions in many others. Supreme Court remands fee case In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a Seventh Circuit case involving the proper standards for motions to dismiss such claims. Specifically, the Justices considered whether allegations that a defined contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that "substantially exceeded" fees for alternative available investment products or services (including recordkeeping) are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing the claims, which arguably were premised on the same substantive allegations that the Third and Eighth Circuits had deemed sufficient to survive. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, vacated the Seventh Circuit decision in this closely watched case. The Court concluded that the Seventh Circuit erred by failing to apply the Court's guidance in Tibble v. Edison International, a 2015 decision, that plan fiduciaries have a duty to monitor all plan investments and to remove imprudent ones. The appeal queues up a hotly litigated issue in recent fee litigation: can defined contribution plan participants challenge the prudence and loyalty of retaining a plan investment option they never invested in? The Supreme Court did not decide whether plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a violation of the duty of prudence. Instead, the Court remanded to the Seventh Circuit to reevaluate plaintiffs' allegations consistent with Tibble and existing pleading standards. The Court further explained that "the appropriate inquiry" into whether investment options and fees are prudent "will necessarily be context specific." As such, the Court recognized that "the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult tradeoffs, and courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise." Class certification issues in fee litigation In May, the Third Circuit agreed to review a district court's decision to certify a 60,000+ person class in a fee class action. The appeal queues up a hotly litigated issue in recent fee litigation: can defined contribution plan participants challenge the prudence and loyalty of retaining a plan investment option they never invested in? The defendants argued that plaintiffs could not have been harmed by excessive fees or underperformance of the funds in which they did not invest; therefore, they lack Article III standing to pursue claims relating to those funds. The defendants relied on a 2020 Supreme Court holding that participants in a defined benefit retirement plan lacked standing to pursue a fiduciary breach claim relating to the management of the plan because they had no "concrete stake" in the lawsuit, as winning or losing the suit would not alter their monthly retirement benefit. The defendants had raised a similar challenge to oppose class certification, arguing that plaintiffs' claim failed to meet typicality standards under Rule 23 because the named plaintiffs suffered no injury with respect to the performance or fees of the investment options in which they did not invest. The district court disagreed, finding that plaintiffs' claims "primarily involve allegedly imprudent decision-making processes as to the Plan as a whole" and challenge "uniform conduct across the Plan." The defendants sought immediate review of the class certification decision, which the Third Circuit granted. On appeal, defendants argued that plaintiffs' claims challenging the 7 funds they selected are not typical of absent class members' claims challenging the 30 funds plaintiffs did not select. Defendants also argued that plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to challenge the 30 unselected options. The case has been calendared for oral argument in February 2022. [GN] [*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss M&A Class Action Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory A. Markel, Esq., Vincent A. Sama, Esq., Daphne Morduchowitz, Esq., Andrew R. Escobar, Esq., and Matthew Catalano, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that Seyfarth has conducted a thorough analysis of the litigation filed in 2021 arising out of mergers and acquisitions for the year.1 While there is, as reported elsewhere, a marked decrease in class action filings arising from M&A deals in 2021,2 federal M&A litigation has not gone away. Rather, a handful of plaintiffs' firms have continued to file M&A challenges but have brought the suits on behalf of individual-investors rather than on a class-wide basis. These plaintiffs' firms have continued the pattern identified in 2020 of quickly voluntarily dismissing the case often following relatively immaterial supplemental disclosures used to justify attorneys' fees. As compared to 2020, where the bulk of such litigation was brought by a single plaintiffs' firm,3 2021 saw a number of plaintiffs' firms enter the fray, with any given M&A deal spurring separate actions by multiple plaintiffs' firms. As in 2020, the majority of the cases filed appear to be intended to generate mootness fees for plaintiffs' counsel. As we noted last year, we expect this abusive litigation trend to continue unless there is wider recognition of the problem followed by reform. Background As laid out in more detail in Seyfarth's 2021 article entitled Abusive M&A Litigation Highlights Need for Securities Reform,4 prior to the Delaware Court of Chancery's 2016 decision in In re Trulia Stockholder Litigation5 M&A challenges were routinely brought in Delaware state court and resolved in early settlements with "corrective disclosures" that appeared to offer little, if any, meaningful benefit to investors.6 After the Delaware Chancery Court warned that such meritless settlements would no longer be tolerated, plaintiffs' firms changed tactics, instead filing cases in federal court with the sole intent of obtaining attorneys' fees—known as mootness fees—in exchange for voluntary dismissals and non-material supplemental disclosures.7 This arrangement allows plaintiffs' counsel to bypass court approval and the potential analysis of the settlement by courts under Trulia because settlements before class certification or settlements of individual actions typically do not require court approval. The arrangement also typically avoids public scrutiny because mootness fees are generally immaterial to the paying company and are often not widely disclosed. M&A Challenges in 2021 Overall, approximately 508 transactions faced class action challenges in 2021, which, while a marked decline from the 122 identified by Seyfarth in 2020, remains a substantial number.9 These complaints, which are largely cookie-cutter, allege that defendants omitted certain details regarding financial projections and deal background that purportedly render proxy or registration statements misleading. Generally, they hardly differ in substance from the disclosure suits criticized by the Delaware Court of Chancery in its 2016 Trulia decision.10 Notably, approximately 45 of the 50 cases (or approximately 90% of them) were voluntarily dismissed within months of their filings, comparable to the 95% of M&A class actions subject to voluntary dismissal in 2020. Furthermore, as in 2020, many of these voluntary dismissals followed the issuance of supplemental disclosures that do not appear to reveal any significant new information. The dismissals and related settlements, which occur before class certification, rarely get reviewed by a court for fairness to the proposed class of shareholders and appear to be without material benefit to the class. The quick timing of the voluntary dismissals and lack of discernable value to the shareholders strongly suggest that these cases are being filed for the benefit of plaintiff's counsel, rather than the shareholders they represent. However, an analysis of M&A class actions tells only part of the story. As in 2020, an array of plaintiffs' firms in 2021 brought a substantial number of non-class "individual plaintiff" claims challenging various M&A transactions. Indeed, our review of these non-class action filings indicates that approximately 210 M&A transactions were hit with the filing of individual complaints.11 While these numbers represent a decrease from the approximately 450 non-class action federal challenges to M&A deals identified by Seyfarth in 2020,12 they show that M&A litigation and threats of litigation have not disappeared. As with the class action complaints, a large number (approximately 75%) of the individual complaints brought were voluntarily dismissed, many very soon after the complaint was filed. Furthermore, like the class action suits, many of these dismissals follow the filing of what appear to be superficial supplemental disclosures and most likely involve confidential mootness fees paid to plaintiffs' counsel. Finally, while un-trackable, anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of M&A deals in 2021 were challenged by demand letters without lawsuits being filed and were also resolved with minor and immaterial additions to the disclosures (and likely mootness fees) without litigation. This analysis strongly suggests that frivolous and abusive M&A litigation has not gone away. There is a clear need for legislative reform in this area to prevent what amounts to a burdensome deal tax imposed on companies which likely is in part passed on as a cost to consumers. Another likely effect of this deal tax is that it results in increases in D&O insurance premiums. Conclusion The continued large-scale filing of M&A litigation in 2021 highlights that the public policy issues underlying the Trulia court's criticism of disclosure only settlements remain a concern with respect to the current mootness fee settlements. Like the settlements criticized in Trulia, the federal court mootness fee settlements provide no benefit to the company shareholders and serve as a deal tax on almost every M&A transaction involving a public company. Even more egregiously, the federal court mootness fee settlements, unlike those at issue in Trulia, seldom involve court review. These actions, which are being filed on behalf of purported classes of shareholders have been shifting to individual plaintiffs, who have taken up the cudgels in collecting a deal tax. Because there is little incentive for an individual defendant to risk litigating these suits, we expect these various forms of a deal tax to continue unless the issue is remediated by court action or through congressional reform of securities laws. Footnotes 1. For Seyfarth's analysis of 2020's M&A litigation trends, see Abusive M&A Litigation Highlights Need for Securities Reform (Law360, March 4, 2021), https://www.law360.com/articles/1361125/abusive-m-a-litigation-highlights-need-for-securities-reform. 2.See, e.g., Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings 2021 Year in Review at 1 https://www.cornerstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Securities-Class-Action-Filings-2021-Year-in-Review.pdf (finding 82% reduction in M&A class action filings from 2020 to 2021); NERA Economic Consulting, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2021 Full-Year Review, https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2022/PUB_2021_Full-Year_Trends_012022.pdf (finding 85% decrease in merger-objection filings from 2020 to 2021). Seyfarth's analysis differs from these other reports even in the class action space as, as Seyfarth's analysis includes litigation arising from M&As where other claims, such as 10b-5 allegations, are made and; unlike other reports, is not considering M&A litigation relating to SPACs in a different category. 3. Supra, n. 2. 4. Id. 5. In re Trulia Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 129 A.3d 884 (Del. Ch. 2016). 6. See supra n. 2. 7. Id. 8. Seyfarth's analysis differs from other reports tracking M&A class actions such as those noted in note 2, supra, because we have included class action litigation arising from M&A transactions even where other claims, such as 10b-5 allegations, are also made and we are also considering M&A litigation relating to SPACs, both of which fell into different categories in other analyses. As such, we have identified a higher number of M&A class actions than reported elsewhere. 9. Notably, Rigrodsky, which had brought 76% of class action deal challenges in 2020, appears to have largely abandoned its strategy of bringing putative class actions (turning its focus to complaints by individual plaintiffs). 10. Trulia, 129 A.3d at 884. 11. This figure reflects that the same M&A transaction generated anywhere from one to ten near-identical complaints brought by different firms. 12. See supra n. 2.[GN] [*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Reached $3B in 2021 ---------------------------------------------------------------- financefeeds.com reports that class action securities litigation settlements increased by 50% in 2021, according to a report by Broadridge Financial Solutions, which added that total settlements reached more than $3 billion. Significant trends in the class action world, which are already continuing into 2022, include a rise in SPAC and cryptocurrency-related securities litigations, a substantial reduction in M&A class action filings, and an increased focus on ESG investors using securities class and collective actions as a tool for enforcing shareholder values. Number Of Settlements Rise By A Dramatic 50% Steve Cirami, Broadridge Class Actions leader, said: "Last year we watched the number of settlements rise by a dramatic 50% as cases continue to be increasingly complex and global. The landscape continues to change dramatically, with more countries enacting class action laws. At the same time, we are now seeing more settlements involving unique and complex financial instruments, commodities and new asset classes, such as cryptocurrencies." Broadridge noted that the Block.one settlement was one of the first cryptocurrency-related securities class action settlements. Other changes worth of note is the growth in opt-in jurisdictions and the rise in collective investor actions; increased participation in opt-in litigation; and broker-dealers' shift in service. Broadridge's team of dedicated class action experts include attorneys, client advocates, class action auditors, data analysts, research professionals and client service representatives, all of whom on average have 15-20 years of class action experience. Over 850 organizations rely on Broadridge's global class action services because of its worldwide reach, industry expertise and world-class standards. DIPTI KACHRU LEADS MARKETING EFFORTS AT BROADRIDGE In late 2021, Broadridge appointed Dipti Kachru as Global Chief Marketing Officer, based in New York and reporting to President Chris Perry. The Global CMO will be responsible for brand and digital strategy, product positioning, lead generation, and thought leadership, all aspects of Broadridge's global marketing organization. Dipti Kachru was hired to drive measurable growth, build Broadridge's global brand reputation, expand client relationships, and support the organization's revenue growth ambitions. Kachru joins Broadridge from J.P. Morgan where she most recently served as Chief Marketing Officer for the Wealth Management division. She is credited for launching the J.P. Morgan Wealth Management brand and building an industry-leading client acquisition engine that delivered significant business growth. Past senior consumer and wholesale marketing roles include firms such as JPMorgan Chase and Oppenheimer Funds (now Invesco) after an advertising career for Pepsi, American Express, and Microsoft. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***