/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 31, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 59 Headlines ABBVIE INC: Perrigo Antitrust Suit Over "AndroGel" Dismissed ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Class Action Claims ALIFINE DINING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Palacios Suit ALLERGAN INC: Agreement Reached to Settle "Restasis" Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Mackie Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMNAD INC: Antonio Smith Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, IMWL ANKENY COMPANY: Wins 1st Round in Alleged Fraud Class Action APPLE INC: Agrees to Pay $14.8 Million to Tier Subscribers Suit ARCHBOLD MEDICAL: Rainley Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA ARIES BLINDS: De Nobrega Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ASANA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASARCO LLC: Millwrights and Machine Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ASTRA SPACE: Faces Riley Suit Over 14% Drop in Share Price BAM PIZZA: West Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers Under FLSA BTO AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BYTEDANCE INC: Young Balks at Illegal Conduct to Content Moderators C3.AI INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline CANO HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 17 Deadine CAP CALL: Faces Lateral RICO Suit Over Collection of Unlawful Debts CBOE GLOBAL: Shareholder Suit in N.Y. Court Ongoing CBOE GLOBAL: Tomasulo Commodities Litigation Ongoing CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Class Action Deadline CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline CENTRAL COAST: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Garcia Labor Suit CONNELLY SKIS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Miller FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey CORECIVIC INC: Faces Labor Suits in CA Court CORECIVIC INC: Settles Grae Shareholder Suit for $56M CREDIT COLLECTION: Sassman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois CRONOS GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York CRONOS GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ontario Court DAVITA INC: Teodosio Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Barkley Says DOS TOROS: Deceptively Markets Pork, Chicken Products, Suit Alleges DR HORTON: Homeowners File Warranty Class Action Lawsuit DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Securities Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in NY Court DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court DYRDEK MACHINE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says EECU: Wrongfully Charged Fees to Checking Accounts, King Alleges ELLUME USA: Fails to Refund Purchasers of Recalled "COVID Tests" ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Faces Resource Suit Over Gas Wells' Operation FELDER SERVICES: Smith Suit Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA FIAT CHRYSLER: Lawsuit Deems Dodge Ram Fuel Pump a "Safety Risk" FIBERDOME PRODUCTS: Siegel Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Demotion FLETCHER GROUP: Hudzinski Seeks Overtime Pay for Robot Programmers FOUNTAIN GREETINGS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FRENSCO INC: Fails to Pay Premium OT Wages, Kocan Class Suit Says GRAB HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 16 Deadline GRAB HOLDINGS: Kuznicki Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline HEALTHHELP LLC: White Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid Overtime HONDA MOTOR: Suit Claims Defect Causes Engine Oil Contamination I.C. SYSTEM INC: Garcia FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey JUUL LABS: Faces Noxon Suit Over Mislabeled e-Cigarette Products KLARNA INC: Appeals Ruling Compelling Arbitration in Edmundson Suit LION PAVERS: Ovalle Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA LONGHORN PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franklin Suit Claims MUFG AMERICAS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Maldonado Sues Over Retail Market Conspiracy NC WORKS: Boyce Sues Over Manufacturing Staff's Unpaid Wages NDN COLLECTIVE: Lawsuit Filed in Hotel Discrimination Controversy NETGEAR INC: Settlement in Pham Shareholder Suit Gets Court's Nod NEW YORK: Marciano Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal NEWPORT GROUP: Mismanages Pension Funds, Jackson Suit Alleges NORTHWOOD INC: Nova Scotia Added as Defendant in COVID-19 Lawsuit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Misclassifies Co-Team Leaders, Pauli Suit Alleges OPUS IMMERSIVE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OVH GROUPE: Class Action Over Data Center Fire Delayed P&C PAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Condado Suit Alleges PANINI AMERICA: Fails to Display NPN Info in Cards, Wheeler Says PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Di Fusco Securities Suit PEABODY ENERGY: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit PEST ELIMINATORS: Green Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Technicians PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Chantix Drug Class Action PHH MORTGAGE: Munoz Appeals Dismissal of Anti-Kickback Suit PILOT PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Fry Alleges PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Gage Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin RBC CAPITAL MARKETS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RETSEL CORPORATION: NDN Collective Files Suit in D. South Dakota RITTERS DINER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walsh Suit Alleges ROBERT HALF: Scott Sues Over Incident Managers' Unpaid Overtime SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Franklin Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Salhotra Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial SOFI LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Student Loan Scam SOUTHERNSCAPES LLC: Steven Moore Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA TAIJI ORIENTAL: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TEAM HEALTH: Faces Louisiana Suit Over Alleged Medical Overbilling TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 2 Deadline TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 2 Deadline TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Baltimore Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme TRADER JOE'S: Underpays Crew Members, Acevedo Class Suit Alleges UNION PACIFIC: Faces Meza ADA Suit Over "Fitness-for-Duty" Program UNITEDHEALTH: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Coverage Class Suit UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Refuses to Return Ex-Drivers' Escrow Funds UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Students Reach Class-Action Settlement VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Preliminary Approval of $13M Deal VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Vinings Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop VERTIV HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit WELLS FARGO: Pope Sues Over Mortgage Refinance Discrimination [*] U.S. Law Ending Sexual Assault Forced Arbitration Signed ********* ABBVIE INC: Perrigo Antitrust Suit Over "AndroGel" Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in May 2020, Perrigo Company and related entities filed a lawsuit against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Abbott's 2011 AndroGel patent lawsuit filed against Perrigo was sham litigation. In October 2020, the Perrigo lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for New Jersey. In September 2021, the New Jersey court granted AbbVie's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Perrigo lawsuit, dismissing it with prejudice. Perrigo has appealed the dismissal. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Accutech failed to prevent an August 2021 data breach that exposed the personal and financial information of around 40,000 individuals, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Nivedita Sharma claims Accutech was responsible for the breach because it did not invest in adequate data security measures that would have prevented it. "As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Accutech's failure to implement reasonable security protections sufficient to prevent an eminently avoidable cyberattack, unauthorized actors compromised Accutech's network and accessed tens of thousands of client files containing highly sensitive," the class action lawsuit states. Sharma, who says they received a letter informing them their data had been exposed in the breach, wants to represent a nationwide class and Colorado subclass of individuals whose personally identifying information (PII) was exposed in the data breach. Accutech Disclosed Breach More Than Six Months After It Began Accutech's disclosure of the breach, meanwhile, came more than six months after "unauthorized individuals" were able to gain access to customers' PII, including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers, according to the class action lawsuit. Sharma argues the length of time it took Accutech to disclose the data breach will cause those affected to "suffer indefinitely" from the risk that their identities have already or will later be stolen. "Plaintiff and class members face the real, immediate and likely danger of identity theft and misuse of their PII, especially because their PII was specifically targeted by malevolent actors," the class action lawsuit states. Sharma claims that, in addition to being at risk of identity theft, those affected by the data breach have had the value of their PII diminished, had to pay out of pocket for identity theft prevention and lost time spent taking steps to deal with the issue, among other things. Sharma claims Accutech is guilty of unjust enrichment and intrusion upon seclusion and in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and various state consumer protection and state data breach statutes, among other things. Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with statutory, trebled and punitive or exemplary damages for themself and all class members. A similar class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month against UKG Inc. after a data breach in December 2021 exposed the personal data of millions of the company's employees. Was your PII exposed in the Accutech data breach? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Gary M. Klinger and David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Daniel O. Herrera, Nickolas J. Hagman and Olivia Lawless of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. The Accutech Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit is Sharma v. Accutech Systems Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00551, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. [GN] ALIFINE DINING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Palacios Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alifine Dining Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Miguel Urbina Palacios, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Alifine Dining Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Omsai Foods Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Tulip NYC Inc. d/b/a Nanking, Akbarali Himani, Harkesh Yadav, and John Does No. 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-06930, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, filed on December 10, 2019, alleges that the Plaintiff and other employees of Defendants are entitled to compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the amount of pay that Mr. Urbina Palacios received did not vary based on the precise number of hours that he worked in a day, week, or month, although he did receive extra pay when he worked an extra day at the South Ozone Park location. As a result, Mr. Urbina Palacios's effective rate of pay was always below the statutory federal and New York minimum wages in effect at relevant times, says the suit. On April 12, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action which the Court denied on March 10, 2022 through a Memorandum & Order signed by Judge Joan M. Azrack. The Defendants now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Urbina Palacios v. Alifine Dining Inc., Case No. 22-575, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 18, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Alifine Dining Inc., DBA Nanking; Omsai Foods Inc., DBA Nanking; Tulip NYC Inc., AKA Nanking; Harkesh Yadav; and Akbarali Himani, are represented by: Lee S. Nuwesra, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 370-8707 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net Plaintiff-Appellee Miguel Urbina Palacios, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: David Stein, Esq. STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP 1441 Broadway, Suite 6090 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 308-3444 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com ALLERGAN INC: Agreement Reached to Settle "Restasis" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that the parties involved in lawsuits pending against Allergan Inc. (AbbVie's recently acquired subsidiary) have reached an agreement in May 2021 to settle this matter that is subject to final court approval. The lawsuits generally allege that Allergan's petitioning to the U.S. Patent Office and Food and Drug Administration and other conduct by Allergan involving "Restasis" have violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of Restasis, are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the MDL Rules as "In re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 2819. In May 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter that is subject to final court approval. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. AMERICAN HONDA: Mackie Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric Mackie, Joshua Biggs, Ruth Mattison, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Case No. 0:22-cv-00736-NEB-LIB (D. Minn., March 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ -- develops and manufactures automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Stauber, Esq. Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: tstauber@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com AMNAD INC: Antonio Smith Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, IMWL -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO SMITH, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. AMNAD, INC. D/B/A A&M SUPER WASH LAUNDRY D/B/A MAYWOOD LAUNDROMAT, SPAG, INC. AND ANTHONY CRISTOFANO, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01554 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2022) is a class action complaint brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was consistently required to work more than 40 hours each week and was only paid a straight time rate for all hours worked each week. Allegedly, the Defendants illegally paid Plaintiff his wages in all cash, and as such deprived Plaintiff of contributions to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours most, if not all work weeks he worked for the Defendants and was not paid his overtime rate of pay of one and one-half his regular rate. A&M should have compensated Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in individual work weeks. Th Defendants compensated Plaintiff, and members of the Plaintiff Class, on an hourly basis but failed to pay one-and one-half times the employees' regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former laundry attendant employee of the Defendants who performed all manual labor aspects of laundromat operations and service, including welcoming customers, operating the register, washing, drying and folding clothes, and perform basic inspections of machines. SPAG owns and operates multiple laundromats, including A&M Super Wash Laundry and Maywood Laundry, along with AMNAD, Inc. A&M operates multiple coin laundromats that provide laundry services, including washing and drying clothing, folding and laundry pickup and delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 ANKENY COMPANY: Wins 1st Round in Alleged Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Clark Kauffman at iowacapitaldispatch reports that a federal judge has dismissed several of the claims made against an Ankeny company accused of defrauding consumers by overstating the amount of protein in its nutritional products. The lawsuit against Bowmar Nutrition is also being challenged on the grounds that consumers can't claim to be harmed by false product claims once they've learned those claims are misleading. A dozen individuals are suing the Ankeny-based Bowmar Nutrition seeking class-action status for their case and more than $5 million in damages. The lawsuit, initiated last October, has alleged consumer fraud, deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment on the part of the company. The plaintiffs in the case are individual consumers who live in Iowa, Texas, New Jersey, California, Florida, and other states. They allege they relied upon claims made by Bowmar about the content of its protein-fortified products, which include nutrition bars and powders. Those claims are made on product labels and on the company's website and, the plaintiffs allege, they significantly overstate the amount of protein in each product. According to the consumers, testing performed by reputable laboratories have established that some of the products manufactured by Bowmar have 10% to 67% fewer grams of protein than advertised. The consumers claim they suffered economic injury from Bowmar's "fraudulent and deceptive conduct." As initially written, the lawsuit's claims are based on the false-advertising statutes of 12 different states and on a common-law claim of unjust enrichment under the laws of all 50 states. However, some of the claims date back four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, even though the applicable statute of limitations for some of the plaintiffs is two to three years. Also, claims of unjust enrichment require individualized consideration of each plaintiff's motivations and purchasing decisions, and the courts have repeatedly held that such claims are not suitable for class-action treatment. Citing those issues, as well as jurisdictional conflicts, a federal judge last month dismissed many of the claims against Bowmar, but allowed the plaintiffs to refile their petition in an effort to pursue the same basic claims in a different manner. The new petition triggered another motion to dismiss from Bowmar's attorneys, who pointed out that the consumers claim sometime after June 2020 they became aware that Bowmar's product labels "misrepresented" their protein content. Given that argument, the company's attorneys say, the consumers can't "plausibly allege that they were deceived or injured by reason of those same labels in making the subsequent purchases." In other words, the attorneys argue, consumers can't claim to be "deceived or injured because of a 'misrepresentation' of which they admit they were aware." Bowmar's lawyers also note that the consumers are seeking financial relief beyond the actual damages they may have sustained by purchasing the products. The consumers, Bowmar attorneys argue, "never explain how a claim for money damages for the entire value of the purchased products is not adequate." The court has yet to rule on Bowmar's motion to dismiss the second petition. A federal lawsuit based on similar allegations of deceptive labeling was filed against Bowmar Nutrition last year by the Consumer Products Association, a California-based nonprofit. In that lawsuit, the CPA alleged that testing it had commissioned showed various Bowmar nut spreads contained between 4.7 and 8.6 grams of protein per serving rather than the 10 grams as claimed on the label. The lawsuit was dismissed when a judge ruled the association had not been harmed by the alleged fraud since it existed largely to investigate such matters. "It seems clear CPA lacks standing here," U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan ruled. "An organization created to advance enforcement of labeling laws is not hampered in its mission because those laws are violated. Absent such violations, the organization would need a new mission." [GN] APPLE INC: Agrees to Pay $14.8 Million to Tier Subscribers Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Lovejoy at 9to5mac.com reports that an iCloud class action lawsuit has been settled out of court, with Apple agreeing to pay a total of $14.8M to US residents subscribing to one of the paid storage tiers during a specific time period. The payout was agreed upon after it was alleged that Apple breached the service terms and conditions by storing user data on non-Apple servers. Macworld reports. Apple has agreed to a $14.8 million settlement "for breach of contract regarding the iCloud Service that Apple provides to its users." The crux of the case is that Apple breached the iCloud Terms and Conditions by storing iCloud user data using third-party servers rather than its own. The settlement includes anyone who paid for a subscription to iCloud at any time from September 16, 2015, to January 31, 2016. You don't need to do anything to join the class. As long as the email you used to sign up for iCloud storage during that time is still active you should receive a notification that you are a class member. Apple denies any wrong-doing, but it has agreed to pay the sum to avoid a trial. A website for the lawsuit explains how payment will be made. If, at the time the Class Payment is distributed, you are a subscriber to any kind of monthly paid iCloud plan, and you have a U.S. mailing address associated with your plan, you will automatically receive the Class Payment to the Apple account that pays for your current monthly iCloud subscription. If, at the time the Class Payment is distributed, you are no longer a subscriber to any kind of monthly paid iCloud plan, or you do not have a U.S. mailing address associated with your plan, you will receive the Class Payment by check at the mailing address associated with your account. You don't need to take any action at this stage: those eligible for a payout will receive an email with details. As always with class action lawsuits, don't expect the payment to be anything significant. The lawyers take their cut off the top, and then the balance is distributed between, typically, millions of people. In this case, the awards will be pro-rata to your storage tier - in other words, those subscribed to the 1TB tier will receive more than those on the 50GB or 200GB tiers. [GN] ARCHBOLD MEDICAL: Rainley Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANDRICKA RAINLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCHBOLD MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-00030-HL (M.D. Ga., March 21, 2022) is a collective action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all current and former hourly employees, who were subject to an automatic meal break pay deduction, and who worked for Archbold, anywhere in the United States, at any time from March 21, 2019 through the final disposition of this matter, to recover compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff contends that although she and the Putative Class Members have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, theyhave not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period, Archbold knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, the Plaintiff adds. Specifically, Archbold's regular practice including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period (and sometimes one hour) from Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock" through their respective meal-period breaks, the suit added. Ms. Rainley was employed by Archbold during the relevant time period. She was employed by Archbold in Thomasville, Georgia from December of 2020 until March of 2021. Archbold is an integrated health care network, comprised of seven hospitals which provide healthcare services to its patients throughout the State of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200, Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Facsimile: (470) 639-6866 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com ARIES BLINDS: De Nobrega Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO DE NOBREGA, and other similarly situated individuals v. ARIES BLINDS INC and MANUEL BLANCO, Case No. 1:22-cv-20834-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants allegedly misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. The Plaintiff had a set schedule and worked between 50-60 hours per week for approximately 4 years for the Defendants. The Defendants paid Plaintiff approximately $16 per hour in straight wages, but never paid the Plaintiff any overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants assisting with the manufacturing of blinds and installing blinds from July 13, 2017, through September 16, 2021. Aries Blinds specializes in custom blinds, shades and shutters.[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 ASANA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asana, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Asana, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02414 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Asana -- http://asana.com/-- is a web and mobile work management platform designed to help teams organize, track, and manage their work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ASARCO LLC: Millwrights and Machine Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cross-Defendant Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 1607 filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Arnold Contreras; Tony M. Meza; Charles M. Estrada; and Celestino W. Flores, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASARCO LLC; and ASARCO, LLC Union Employee Benefits Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03495-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this action was brought against the Defendants for breaching their obligations to the Plaintiffs and to Class Members by unilaterally reducing retiree health care benefits and taking the position that the Defendants can terminate coverage for the Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On October 18, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court granted on February 22, 2022 through an order signed by Senior Judge Susan R. Bolton. Cross-Defendant Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 1607 seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Contreras, et al. v. ASARCO LLC, et al., Case No. 22-15406, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 1607 Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 18, 2022; -- Transcript is due on May 16, 2022; -- Appellant Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 1607 opening brief is due on June 24, 2022; -- Appellees ASARCO LLC and ASARCO Retiree Medical Plan answering brief is due on July 25, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Cross-Defendant-Appellant MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINE ERECTORS LOCAL 1607, successor in interest Local 1914 Millwright, is represented by: Desmond C. Lee, Esq. SHANLEY, APC 533 S Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706 Telephone: (213) 488-4100 - and - Daniel M. Shanley, Esq. SHANLEY, APC 533 S Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706 Telephone: (213) 488-4100 Defendants-Appellees ASARCO LLC and ASARCO RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN are represented by: David Lubben, Esq. DAVIS & CAMPBELL, LLC 401 Main Street, Suite 1600 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 673-1681 E-mail: dglubben@dcamplaw.com ASTRA SPACE: Faces Riley Suit Over 14% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE E. RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASTRA SPACE INC. f/k/a HOLICITY INC.; CHRIS C. KEMP; KELYN BRANNON; and STEVEN EDNIE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01591 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 23, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between February 2, 2021 and December 29, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed the reports and statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission that were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Astra cannot launch "anywhere"; (2) Astra significantly overstated its addressable market; (3) Astra overstated the effectiveness of its designs and reliability; (4) Astra significantly overstated its plans for diversification and its broadband constellation plan; and (5) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 29, 2021, during market hours, market researcher Kerrisdale Capital released a report entitled "Astra Space, Inc (ASTR): Headed for Dis-Astra" (the "Report") which alleged myriad issues with the Company. On this news, Astra's shares fell $1.10 per share, or approximately 14%, to close at $6.61 per share on December 29, 2021, on unusually heavy trading damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Astra Space, Inc. is a spacetech company. The Company focuses on delivering a new generation of space services that is enabled by new constellations of small satellites in low earth orbit and aims to solve this problem with mass-produced dedicated orbital launch system, consisting of small launch vehicles and mobile ground infrastructure. Astra Space serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com BAM PIZZA: West Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH WEST, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. BAM PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC.; BRIAN BAILEY; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; and JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00209 (D.N.M., March 21, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the delivery drivers who have worked at the Defendants' Domino's stores. The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA and NMMWA by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' Domino's stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for expenses, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of herself and similarly situated current and former delivery drivers in New Mexico, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations of the NMMWA, and for unjust enrichment. The Defendants own multiple Domino's stores located in New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado. The Defendants own, operate, and control other entities and/or corporations that also comprise part of the Defendants' Domino's stores, and qualify as "employers" of Plaintiff and the delivery drivers at the Defendants' Domino's stores as that term is defined by the FLSA. Mr. Bailey is the owner of Bam! Pizza Management, Inc. and the Defendants' Domino's stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Moody, Esq. MOODY & STANFORD, P.C. 4169 Montgomery Blvd., NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Telephone: (505) 944-0033 Facsimile: (505) 944-0034 E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: 513-202-0710 Facsimile: 614-340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com BTO AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BTO America Limited. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BTO America Limited, Case No. 1:22-cv-02419 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BTO America Limited is located in Santa Fe Springs, California and is part of the Household Appliance Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BYTEDANCE INC: Young Balks at Illegal Conduct to Content Moderators ------------------------------------------------------------------- REECE YOUNG and ASHLEY VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the Defendants for negligence, negligent exercise of retained control, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law, demanding a trial by jury on all claims for which a jury is permitted. TikTok is a social media application that allows users to create and share short videos. TikTok is owned by Bytedance. The Plaintiffs are former content moderators for TikTok who seek remedies as a result of Defendants' failure to comport with applicable standards of care in the conduct of their business, specifically in regard to the increased risks of psychological trauma and trauma-related disorders resulting from exposure to graphic and objectionable content on ByteDance's TikTok application ("App"). The Defendants have allegedly failed to provide a safe workplace for the thousands of contractors who are the gatekeepers between the unfiltered, disgusting and offensive content uploaded to the App and the hundreds of millions of people who use the App every day. Each day, App users upload millions of videos, recently reported to be as many as 90 million a day. Many of these uploads include graphic and objectionable content including child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide, and murder. In the second quarter of 2021 alone, TikTok removed over 8.1 million videos that violated its rules. TikTok relies on people like Plaintiffs to work as content moderators, viewing videos and removing those that violate Defendants' terms of use. Content moderators have the job of trying to prevent posts containing graphic violence or other objectionable content from reaching TikTok's customers. Plaintiff Ashley Velez worked as a content moderator for TikTok. She was hired by Telus International ("Telus"), which provides content moderators for TikTok, a popular app owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is an important client of Telus. Plaintiff Young worked as a content moderator for TikTok. She was hired by Atrium Staffing Services Ltd. ("Atrium") to perform content moderation for TikTok. Although Plaintiffs ostensibly worked for different companies, they performed the same tasks, in the same way, using applications provided by Defendants. They had to meet quotas set by the Defendants, were monitored by the Defendants, and were subject to discipline by Defendants. While working at the direction of ByteDance, Plaintiffs and other content moderators witnessed many acts of extreme and graphic violence as described above. As just a few examples, Plaintiff Young saw a thirteen-year-old child being executed by cartel members, bestiality, and other distressing images. The Plaintiff Velez saw bestiality and necrophilia, violence against children, and other distressing imagery. Content moderators like Plaintiffs spend 12-hour days reviewing and moderating such videos to prevent disturbing content from reaching TikTok's users. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs bring this action to compensate content moderators that were exposed to graphic and objectionable content on behalf of TikTok; to ensure that Defendants provide content moderators with tools, systems, and mandatory ongoing mental health support to mitigate the harm reviewing graphic and objectionable content can cause; and to provide mental health screening and treatment to the thousands of current and former content moderators affected by Defendants' unlawful practices, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Abraham A. Maggard, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com amaggard@saverilawfirm.com C3.AI INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 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 C3.ai, Inc. ("C3"). The action charges C3 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 C3's materially misleading statements to the public, C3's 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 https://bit.ly/3tShLX4 TO SUBMIT YOUR C3 LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/ai-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ai LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: MAY 3, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: DECEMBER 9, 2020 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com C3'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT C3 is an artificial intelligence software company that offers software-as-a-service applications for enterprises in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. On February 16, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC ("Spruce Point Capital") published a short-seller report on C3. In the report, Spruce Point Capital revealed that it found "multiple instances of claims made by C3 that appear to be exaggerated, or don't reconcile with our research findings." Specifically, the report indicates, among other things, that given shifty customer definition disclosures, there is a high probability that C3 is overstating its paying and active customer Inflated Technology Value. Additionally, Spruce Point Capital found that C3's implied market share of just 0.12% supports either market size inflation or its irrelevance in the industry sales cycle. Following this news, C3's stock price fell $1.01 per share, or 3.93%, to close at $24.70 per share on February 16, 2022. WHAT CAN I DO? C3 investors may, no later than May 3, 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 C3 investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. CLICK https://bit.ly/3qOlfYY TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE 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 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.[GN] CANO HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 17 Deadine -------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cano Health, Inc. ("Cano" or the "Company") f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp. ("Jaws") (NYSE: CANO; CANO.WS; JWS; JWS.U; JWS WS) and certain of its officers on behalf of purchasers of Cano securities between May 18, 2020 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cano. 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 regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cano overstated its due diligence efforts and expertise with respect to acquiring target businesses; (2) accordingly, Cano performed inadequate due diligence into whether the Company, post-Business Combination, could properly account for the timing of revenue recognition as prescribed by ASC 606, particularly with respect to Medicare risk adjustments; (3) as a result, the Company misstated its capitated revenue, direct patient expense, accounts receivable, net of unpaid service provider costs, and accounts payable and accrued expenses; (4) accordingly, the Company was at an increased risk of failing to timely file one or more of its periodic financial reports; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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/cano 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 Cano you have until May 17, 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. [GN] CAP CALL: Faces Lateral RICO Suit Over Collection of Unlawful Debts ------------------------------------------------------------------- LATERAL RECOVERY LLC, BENCHMARK BUILDERS, INC., FTE NETWORKS, INC., JUS-COM LLC and FOCUS WIRELESS, LLC v. CAP CALL LLC, YES FUNDING SERVICES, LLC, and EVAN MARMOTT, Case No. 1:22-cv-02314 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) is a class action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act involving two related merchant cash advance ("MCA") companies that were controlled and manipulated by Defendant Evan Marmott ("Marmott") to carry out a scheme to collect upon unlawful debts and otherwise fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in funds from FTE. According to the complaint, in a span of four months, Marmott's companies, Defendants Cap Call and Yes Funding, entered into five so-called "Merchant Agreements" with FTE pursuant to which they purportedly paid lump sums to purchase "all" of FTE's future receipts at a discount and FTE agree to repay the face value of its receipts through daily payments. While couched as the purchase of future receipts, the agreements' terms, conditions and the Defendants' actions demonstrate that despite the form of their agreements, no sale of receipts ever took place and the agreements with FTE were merely a disguise to evade applicable usury laws. In reality, the FTE agreements were loans that charged interest rates that exceeded not less than 400%, and in some instances exceeded 1500%, rates that are far greater than twice the maximum 25% permitted under New York Penal Law. Along the way, Defendants also engaged in other predatory and fraudulent conduct that allowed them to fraudulently extract even more monies from FTE. Among other things, Defendants charged FTE hundreds of thousands of dollars in so-called "Underwriting & ACH Fees" to cover the costs of due diligence that they never performed and ACH operations they were fully automated and cost a mere fraction of the fees charged to FTE, says the suit. While these accusations may be alarming, it is not the first time the Defendants have been accused of such predatory tactics. On September 10, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana, held that the form of agreement utilized by Marmott and Cap Call are loans as a matter of law and thus subject to state usury laws. See Cap Call, LLC v. Foster (In re Shoot the Moon, LLC), 70 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 187, 2021 WL 4144933 (Bankr. D. Mont. Sept. 10, 2010). Cap Call and Marmott are now collaterally estopped from contesting that their form agreements are anything but loans subject to state usury laws, the suit added. FTE Networks was the sole owner of Benchmark and the sole owner and managing member of Jus-Com and Focus Wireless. Benchmark was a corporation duly organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. Jus-Com was a limited liability company duly organized under the laws of Indiana with its principal place of business in Naples, Florida. Lateral was a limited liability company duly organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Evan Marmott is the principal owner of Cap Call and an adult resident and citizen of New York residing at 2644 211th St. Bayside, New York. Cap Call and Yes Funding are part of MCA industry and they are also part of a RICO enterprise ("Enterprise") controlled and operated by Marmott. As Bloomberg News has reported, the MCA industry is "essentially payday lending for businesses," and "interest rates can exceed 500 percent a year, or 50 to 100 times higher than a bank's." The MCA industry is a breeding ground for "brokers convicted of stock scams, insider trading, embezzlement, gambling, and dealing ecstasy." As one of these brokers admitted, the "industry is absolutely crazy. The National Consumer Law Center also recognized that these lending practices are predatory because they are underwritten based on the ability to collect, rather than the ability of the borrower to repay without going out of business. National Consumer Law Center.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shane R. Heskin, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 7 Times Square, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10036-6524 Telephone: (215) 864-6329 E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com CBOE GLOBAL: Shareholder Suit in N.Y. Court Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- CBOE Global Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is facing allegation of fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats Global Markets, Inc., and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange or a US-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York held oral arguments on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the defendants have immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016. On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the defendants' motion for re-hearing. The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15, 2018 and the defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018. On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17, 2019, the defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July 16, 2019. Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019. Targeted discovery regarding class certification and legal preclusion concluded on April 26, 2021. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Briefing on these dispositive motions concluded in December 2021. Oral argument regarding the joint Motion for Lack of Article III Standing and defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of one of plaintiffs' experts is scheduled for March 11, 2022. CBOE Global Markets, Inc., is a leading provider of market infrastructure and tradable products, delivers cutting-edge trading, clearing and investment solutions to market participants around the world. CBOE GLOBAL: Tomasulo Commodities Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- CBOE Global Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is facing an ongoing consolidated securities/commodities suit with regards to its trading platform. A putative class action complaint captioned "Tomasulo v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., et al." Case No. 18-cv-02025 (March 20, 2018, N.D. Ill.) alleged that the company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating Volatility Index Exchange Traded Options and Futures Products (VIX) and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims against the company and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The claims asserted against the company consist of a Securities Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On November 19, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their response on January 7, 2019. The company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the company. The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the company filed its second motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the company's second motion to dismiss and all counts against the company were dismissed with prejudice. On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal. On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both orders granting the company's motions to dismiss entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020. On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the company filed its opposition brief with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association filed an amici curiae brief in support of the company on the Bad Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit. Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020 and the parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit. CBOE Global Markets, Inc., is a leading provider of market infrastructure and tradable products, delivers cutting-edge trading, clearing and investment solutions to market participants around the world. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Class Action Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CELH). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Celsius securities between August 12, 2021 and March 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker ( jimb@johnsonfistel.com ) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser: https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/CelsiusHoldingsInc2 There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had improperly recorded expenses for non-cash share-based compensation for the second and third quarters of 2021; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements for those periods would be restated, including to report a net loss for the third quarter of 2021; (3) that there was a material weakness in Celsius's internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the abrupt decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Celsius 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 any potential future recovery of the Celsius class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminders purchasers of the securities of Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CELH) between August 12, 2021 and March 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 16, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Celsius 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 Celsius class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4162 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 May 16, 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) Celsius had improperly recorded expenses for non-cash share-based compensation for second and third quarters of 2021; (2) as a result, Celsius's financial statements for those periods would be restated, including to report a net loss for the third quarter of 2021; (3) there was a material weakness in Celsius's internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Celsius'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 Celsius class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4162 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. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] CENTRAL COAST: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Garcia Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Central Coast Restaurants, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER GARCIA, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL COAST RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02370-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The putative class action avers violations of California laws concerning meal periods and rest breaks by Defendants Central Coast Restaurants, Inc. ("CCR") and Yadav Enterprises, Inc. in their operation of franchise Jack in the Box restaurants in Northern California. Proposed class representative and Lead Plaintiff Jennifer Garcia, who worked at a CCR-owned Jack in the Box restaurant in Salinas, California in 2015 and 2016, moves for class certification. She proposes two subclasses: one for employees who experienced meal period violations, and one for employees who experienced rest break violations. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Seeborg held that issues concerning putative class members being bound by arbitration agreements do not render Garcia an inadequate or atypical class representative, as she may advance arguments against the validity of the arbitration clauses on a class-wide basis. In contrast, although the Plaintiff has established commonality under Rule 23(a) and predominance under Rule 23(b) as to the proposed meal period subclass, she has not established commonality or predominance as to the rest break subclass. The motion for class certification will therefore be granted as to the meal period subclass and be denied as to the rest break subclass, ruled the Court. The Defendants now seek a review of Judge Seeborg's ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Garcia v. Central Coast Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 21, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners CENTRAL COAST RESTAURANTS, INC. and YADAV ENTERPRISES, INC. are represented by: Dennis Chi-Yu Huie, Esq. Sharon Ongerth Rossi, Esq. Emily Angela Wieser, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 311 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2695 Telephone: (415) 956-2828 E-mail: dhuie@rjo.com Plaintiff-Respondent JENNIFER GARCIA, an individual, individually and acting on behalf of class of similarly situated employees, is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector Martinez, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 CONNELLY SKIS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connelly Skis, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connelly Skis, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02424-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Connelly Skis, LLC -- https://www.connellyskis.com/ -- manufactures sporting and athletic goods. The Company offers products such as bindings, sup, kneeboards, tubes, vests, gloves, bags, and other apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Miller FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Latonya Miller, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1 TO 10, Case No. EXS-L-865-22, was removed from the Superior Court Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01386-KM-ESK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one of America's leading collections agencies, in business since 1950.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Phone: (908) 237-1660 Fax: (908) 237-1663 Email: aeasley@sessions-law.biz CORECIVIC INC: Faces Labor Suits in CA Court -------------------------------------------- Corecivic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that is facing several labor suits because of its Otay Mesa Detention Center. On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the Corecivic's Otay Mesa Detention Center (OMDC) in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) standards and it prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees at all CoreCivic ICE detention facilities. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees at the company's ICE detention facilities in California. The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. On March 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted CoreCivic's petition to appeal the class certification ruling. Since this case was filed, four similar lawsuits have been filed. A Maryland case was dismissed on September 27, 2019, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Two suits filed in Georgia and Texas do not allege minimum wage violations. A second California suit concerning the Otay Mesa facility is stayed pending class proceedings in the first. Corecivic is a diversified government solutions company offering corrections and detention management, a network of residential reentry centers to help address America's recidivism crisis, and government real estate solutions. CORECIVIC INC: Settles Grae Shareholder Suit for $56M ------------------------------------------------------ Corecivic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that on April 16, 2021, it reached an agreement in principle to settle a purported securities class action lawsuit that was filed on August 23, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned "Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al." The monetary terms of the settlement included a payment of $56.0 million in return for a dismissal of the case with prejudice and a full release of all claims against all defendants. The settlement agreement, which was approved by the District Court on November 8, 2021, contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the defendants. Corecivic is a diversified government solutions company offering corrections and detention management, a network of residential reentry centers to help address America's recidivism crisis, and government real estate solutions. CREDIT COLLECTION: Sassman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection Partners, Inc. The case is styled as Clinton Sassman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01090-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., March 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Collection Partners (CCP) -- https://creditcollectionpartners.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in Taylorville, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq. Marwan Daher, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com CRONOS GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Q/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is facing two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Cronos and its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman) and Chief Financial Officer in March 11 and 12, 2020 by two alleged shareholders of the company. The court has consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were incorrect based on its disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors' review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into medicinal chemicals and botanical products. CRONOS GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ontario Court ----------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Q/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is sued by an alleged shareholder in June 3, 2020 who filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim names the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), Chief Financial Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and current and former members of the Board of Directors as defendants and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of the company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the company's subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim does not quantify a damage request. On June 28, 2021, the Ontario Court dismissed motions brought by the plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class action. The plaintiff appealed the court's dismissal of the motions, except with respect to the former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, who agreed not to seek costs from plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions. Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into medicinal chemicals and botanical products. DAVITA INC: Teodosio Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- LOURDES M. TEODOSIO; AMBER BROCK; GAROON J. GIBBS-RACHO; and DAMON A. PARKS, SR.,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DAVITA, INC.; and THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DAVITA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00712 (D. Col., Mar. 23, 2022) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administration costs. The Defendants did not adhere to fiduciary best practices to control Plan costs when looking at certain aspects of the Plan's administration such as monitoring investment management fees for the Plan's investments, resulting in several funds during the Class Period being more expensive than comparable funds found in similarly sized plans (conservatively, plans having over 1 billion dollars in assets), says the suit. The Defendants' alleged failure to obtain reasonably-priced and properly performing investments from 2016 to 2020 is circumstantial evidence of their imprudent process to review and control the Plan's costs and is indicative of Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, relating to their overall decision-making, which resulted in the payment of excessive recordkeeping and administration fees that wasted the assets of the Plan and the assets of participants because of unnecessary costs. DAVITA INC. provides a variety of health care services. The Company provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure. DaVita serves patients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com gabriellek@capozziadler.com DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Barkley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SIDRA BARKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00062-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Barkley was employed by the Defendant as area manager. Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLC provides janitorial and cleaning services. The Company offers windows cleaning, pallet removal, power washing, restocking, trash pick up, parking lot clean-up, light bulb replacement, painting, landscaping, and rack dusting services. Diversified Maintenance Systems serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com DOS TOROS: Deceptively Markets Pork, Chicken Products, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN PRESCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DOS TOROS LLC, DOS TOROS HOLDINGS LLC, DT PARENTCO, LLC, and FOUNDERS TABLE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02425 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages against the Defendants, regarding the deceptive marketing of pork and chicken products as "naturally" and "humanely" raised despite the unnatural and inhumane practices utilized in raising the pigs and chickens used in the Products. Dos Toros is a restaurant chain headquartered in New York, New York. Founded in 2009, the chain now includes more than 20 locations spread across the New York and Chicago metro areas and serves a menu consisting primarily of burritos, tacos, and beverages. Dos Toros sells food products containing pork and chicken. During the Class Period, on in-store signage in Dos Toros locations, Dos Toros allegedly advertised these Products as being "naturally" and "humanely" raised. Contrary to those advertisements, Dos Toros sells Products that include pork and chicken from suppliers that raise animals in unnatural and inhumane industrial facilities where animals have no access to the outdoors for their entire lives. Reasonable consumers do not perceive these methods as "natural" or "humane," the suit says. By allegedly deceiving consumers about the source of its Products, Dos Toros is able to sell a greater volume of the Products, to charge higher prices for the Products, and to take market share away from competing restaurants, thereby increasing its own sales and profits. Because Dos Toros's marketing of the Products has tended to mislead and has been materially deceptive about the true nature, quality, source, and traceability of the Products, Plaintiff Prescott brings this deceptive advertising case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and seeks equitable and monetary relief, added the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. Jay Shooster, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 Facsimile: (718) 228-8522 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com jshooster@richmanlawpolicy.com DR HORTON: Homeowners File Warranty Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Kourtney Williams, writing for KADN, reports that a Youngsville family says they feel like they're prisoners in their own home. Carissa Harrison says "We started filing warranty claim after warranty claim but nothing they did changed the fact there was still high humidity and condensation. It never fixed the problem, it was just band-aid after band-aid." Back in 2018 Carissa Harrison and her husband Brad built what they thought would be their dream home. Brad says the conditions of the D.R. Horton home are deplorable. "It makes me feel like complete crap because for one with my job I'm never there and it leaves my wife having to deal with this not to mention a house that's just falling down all around us I mean it's horrible" says Brad. While the company did come out and made repairs, Carissa says it wasn't enough. Another D.R. Horton homeowner ,a few doors down ,say's he has mold, discolored floors and his roof is ruined. Harrison reached out to Leslie Gulliksen, D.R. Horton's City Manager of Louisiana West Division, and was told via phone call : "The code that we have to build to we build to the federal mandate code and were regulated by federal law we build to that code that code was not designed for very humid markets and the man who wrote that law even says that it's not designed for very humid markets". That phone call is now a key piece of evidence in a potential class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a long list of homeowners who found themselves in the same situation after purchasing a D.R. Horton home. One Lafayette resident, Nureka Ross, was able to get out of her contract while the home was still in the process of being built. Nureka says, "When I made the video I saw them applying shingles directly on plywood and that is when I became concerned." She took to social media to express to her family and friends the nightmare she was experiencing with building a home with no intent for it to go viral. The post now has 11.6K shares. One of the 10 attorneys on the class action lawsuit told News15 the purpose of this litigation is to ensure the hard working middle class families of Louisiana receive justice for not receiving the product they were promised when they purchased the home. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that the court approved a settlement of a multi-district litigation on October 6, 2021 and it became effective on November 5, 2021. Between late 2015 and early 2016, certain individuals who allegedly registered and competed in daily sports fantasy contests on Draftkings' website and their family members, filed numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) against the company in courts across the United States. In February 2016, these actions were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 2, 2016, the consolidated group of plaintiffs filed their First Amended Master Class Action Complaint, superseding their original class action complaint, which superseded their individual complaints. The plaintiffs assert 27 claims arising under both state and federal law against the defendants. The plaintiffs' claims generally fall into four categories: (1) that its online daily fantasy sports contests constitute illegal gambling, (2) the site promulgated false or misleading advertisements that emphasized the ease of play and likelihood of winning, (3) the company induced consumers to lose money through a deceptive bonus program and (4) Draftkings allowed its employees to participate in competitors' fantasy sports contests using non-public information, which gave such employees an unfair advantage over other contestants. The plaintiffs seek money damages, equitable relief, and disgorgement of gains against the company. On November 16, 2016, the DFS defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration against all named plaintiffs except one plaintiff asserting claims against the DFS defendants as a concerned citizen of the State of Florida. On November 27, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration with respect to all named plaintiffs other than a small set of plaintiffs who are family members of individuals who have DraftKings accounts and who assert claims under various state laws regarding gambling. On March 9, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On May 11, 2020, the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss the claims and on May 13, 2020, the defendants filed their opposition to a motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action Complaint. On March 5, 2020, one named plaintiff with respect to whom the motion to compel was granted filed a renewed motion to remand his case to state court. On May 29, 2020, the company filed an opposition to that motion. On March 3, 2021, DraftKings filed in Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, which the court granted on June 15, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the court entered judgment and an order approving a settlement and dismissing the claims with prejudice brought by all plaintiffs. This settlement agreement became effective on November 5, 2021. Draftkings is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company. DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in NY Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on July 2, 2021, the first of two substantially similar federal securities law putative class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers. The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings stock between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the company's business and prospects, based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech (Global) Limited, which the company acquired in April 2020. On November 12, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions under the caption "In re DraftKings Securities Litigation" and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 11, 2022. The deadline for defendants to respond to the consolidated amended complaint is on or before February 22, 2022. Draftkings is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company. DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court ------------------------------------------------------ Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on October 21, 2021, the first of four substantially similar putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada by alleged shareholders of the company. The actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the company against certain current and former officers and/or members of the Board of Directors of the company. Two actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and two actions were filed in Nevada State District Court in Clark County. The actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the company for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech (Global) Limited, which the company acquired in April 2020. The two federal court actions also contend that certain individuals are liable to the company for any adverse judgment in the federal securities class actions described above under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, costs and attorney's fees. Draftkings is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company. DYRDEK MACHINE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAMON JAQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYRDEK MACHINE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02345 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to -- and independently usable by -- Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software. The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or services offered on the website during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint. In March 2022, Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact business on the Defendant's website, Shop.dyrdekmachine.com. The main reason Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers a wide variety of products and merchandise for entrepreneurs. The Defendant and its website violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), as the website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired, handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals as defined under 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1)-(2) -- and the regulations implementing the ADA. The Defendant is an online retail company that owns and operates a website offering products that Defendant delivers to New York and across the country. The Defendant offers its website so that the general public can transact business on it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com EECU: Wrongfully Charged Fees to Checking Accounts, King Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda King, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EECU, Case No. 017-332694-22 (Tex. Cir., Tarrant Cty., March 22, 2022) alleges that the Defendant's wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the Class Members fees related to their checking accounts. This class action seeks compensatory damages due to Defendant's policy and practice to maximize the fees it imposes on members. Plaintiff Rhonda King is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas, County of Tarrant, and had a checking account with EECU at all times relevant to the class action allegations. EECU is and has been a federally chartered credit union with its headquarters located in Fort Worth, Texas. The Defendant has assets of approximately $3 billion and 16 offices in the Fort Worth area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jim M. Perdue, Jr., Esq. Michael R. Clinton, Esq. PERDUE & KIDD 777 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 450 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 520-2500 Facsimile: (713) 520-2525 E-mail: jperduejr@perdueandkidd.com mclinton@perdueandkidd.com eservice@perdueandkidd.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1804 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com ELLUME USA: Fails to Refund Purchasers of Recalled "COVID Tests" ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN KERSCHEN and WALLACE LOVEJOY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ELLUME USA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00704-RDB (D. Md. March 22, 2022) arises from Ellume's failure and refusal to refund purchasers of recalled Ellume COVID Tests, despite Ellume recalling certain production lots because they were inaccurate, unsafe, and ineffective. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class are purchasers of Ellume's Rapid Antigen At-Home COVID-19 Test Kits (Ellume COVID Tests) that Ellume voluntarily recalled in two separate lots due to the potential for providing false positive test results, on October 1, 2021 and November 10, 2021, respectively. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers sought reliable methods to test for COVID-19 in the convenience and safety of their own homes, rather than scheduling an appointment at a clinic or medical facility. To meet this demand, Ellume, a biotech company and manufacturer of diagnostic tests, developed an at-home rapid COVID-19 test it claimed would produce quick and accurate results from the convenience of the purchaser's home or while travelling. The Ellume COVID Tests were designed to produce a test result within fifteen minutes by detecting proteins from the SARS-CoV-2 virus collected from a nasal sample. Ellume COVID Tests are available over the counter to any individual above two years of age. Ellume touts the reliability of its tests. "The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test demonstrated 96% accuracy in clinical studies. Our test is the only OTC antigen home test to: Give you accurate results in a single test, in 15 minutes (all other OTC antigen tests require a second test 24-36 hours later)." False positive COVID-19 test results can lead to an individual receiving unnecessary treatment from health care providers, such as antiviral treatment, convalescent plasma, or monoclonal antibody treatment, which can result in side effects. False positive test results also threaten individuals with unnecessary isolation, including monitoring households or close contacts for symptoms, limiting contact with family or friends, and missing school or work, or may lead to an individual being sequestered with individuals who are actually COVID-19 positive, leading to exposure and further spread of the disease. Additionally, false positives may lead to a delayed diagnosis or treatment for the actual cause of an individual's illness, which could be a serious life-threatening disease that is not COVID-19, or lead individuals to avoid vaccination because they believe they already contracted the virus, even if they have not. On October 1, 2021, Ellume issued a voluntary recall of approximately 427,994 Ellume COVID Tests and explained that it had done so because certain lots were found to produce higher than acceptable false positive results due to a manufacturing issue, says the suit. The alleged recall did not end there: on or about November 10, 2021, Ellume identified additional defective lots of its Ellume COVID tests and issued a second voluntary recall of additional production lots, placing the total number of recalled Ellume COVID Tests at approximately 2,212,335 units. The Food and Drug Administration identified the Ellume recall as a "Class I recall," the most severe type of recall, because use of the Ellume COVID Tests risked "serious adverse health consequences or death." The Plaintiffs and members of the Class did not know, and had no reason to know at the time they purchased their Ellume COVID Tests, that the tests produced higher than acceptable false positive results that would result in a Class I recall of over two-million Ellume COVID Tests. Ellume's actions and inactions injured consumers by causing them to pay for inaccurate, unsafe, ineffective, and worthless Ellume COVID Tests, and allowing it to retain the profits it derived from the sale of recalled products would unjustly enrich Ellume at the expense of the Class. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, including restitution, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. In 2021, Defendant opened a "state-of-the-art" diagnostic manufacturing facility in Frederick, Maryland, at which it employs the bulk of its North American workforce. The Defendant's key officers and directors also operate from its Maryland facilities. For example, both Dr. Jeff Boyle, the company's first U.S. President responsible for overseeing all domestic business operations, and Dan Mallon the company's Vice President of Business Development and Alliance Management, carry out their responsibilities from Ellume's Maryland headquarters. The Ellume COVID Home Test Kits are an over-the-counter antigen test that detect proteins from the SARS-CoV-2 virus taken from a nasal sample in individuals two years or older. The Ellume COVID Tests are available without prescription and for use by individuals with or without COVID-19 symptoms. The Ellume COVID Tests use an analyzer that connects with a smartphone app to demonstrate to consumers how to perform the test and understand the results.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 539-1269 E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Lori G. Kier, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com lgk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com asweatman@caffertyclobes.com ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Faces Resource Suit Over Gas Wells' Operation ----------------------------------------------------------------- RESOURCE STRATEGIES, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated; ATIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated; and BRIGUNA, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. ESCAMBIA OPERATING CO., LLC; ESCAMBIA ASSET CO., LLC; BLUE DIAMOND ENERGY, INC.; and THOMAS L. SWAREK, Case No. 1:22-cv-00126-TFM-N (S.D. Ala., March 22, 2022) involves the operation of several oil and gas wells in the Big Escambia Creek, Fanny Church, Flomaton, North Fanny Church, South Burnt Corn Creek, and West Appleton Fields (the "Subject Wells"), as established by the Alabama Oil and Gas Board and located in Escambia County, Alabama. According to the complaint, if a Working Interest Owner fails to take its share of production in-kind, then Escambia Operating has the right to sell such share of production on reasonable terms. Escambia Operating is then required to distribute the sales proceeds, less applicable severance taxes, to each of the Working Interest Owners, Royalty Interest Owners or Overriding Royalty Interest Owners whose production was sold, or Escambia Operating may distribute the proceeds to the Working Interest Owners for further royalty distribution. The C&O Agreement requires that Escambia Operating conduct operations in a good and workmanlike manner and keep each Working Interest Owner fully informed as to all matters of importance concerning operations, keep plant property and equipment free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and pay all relevant taxes related thereto, make all severance tax filings and pay severance taxes on production that it markets, and to not incur litigation expenses and settlement payments unless authorized by the Working Interest Owners. The interests of all Working Interest Owners in the Subject Wells and in the BEC Plant are subject to the Well JOAs and the C&O Agreement. All Royalty Interest Owners and Overriding Royalty Interest Owners are intended beneficiaries of the Well JOAs and C&O Agreement, says the suit. Production from the Subject Wells is piped to the Big Escambia Creek Plant (the "BEC Plant"), where it is then processed into marketable products such as oil, gas condensate, residue gas (methane), pentane, butane, propane and sulfur. Most oil and gas well arrangements, including the subject arrangement, are comprised of the following parties: (1) Mineral owners, who lease their minerals in exchange for cash consideration and the right to receive future royalty payments from the minerals produced. These mineral owners sometimes assign their right to receive royalties (i.e. "Royalty Interests") to other parties. The mineral owners and any assignees of their Royalty Interests are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Royalty Interest Owners." Plaintiff ATIC is a Royalty Interest Owner in the Subject Wells. (2) Leasehold owners, who lease the minerals from the mineral owners. These leasehold interests are often split into fractional, undivided interests and assigned to other parties desiring to develop the mineral interests. The owners of these leasehold interests, commonly known as "Working Interests," actively pay the costs necessary to develop the mineral interests and own all production and revenues therefrom, less taxes and royalties due to the Royalty Interest Owners. The owners of these Working Interests are hereinafter referred to as "Working Interest Owners". Plaintiff Resource Strategies is a Working Interest Owner in the Subject Wells and BEC Plant. The Defendant Escambia Asset is also a Working Interest Owner in the Subject Wells and BEC Plant. (3) Sometimes, as in the current case, a Working Interest Owner will assign its right to receive revenues, free of the obligation of costs, to other parties. These assigned revenue interests are commonly known and referred to herein as "Overriding Royalty Interests" and the assignees thereof as "Overriding Royalty Interest Owners." Plaintiff Briguna is an Overriding Royalty Interest Owner in the Subject Wells. (4) an "Operator," who is contracted by the Working Interest Owners to actually perform the drilling, development and administration of the well on behalf of the "joint account" (i.e. on behalf of the Working Interest Owners).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Dean, Esq. Duane A. Graham, Esq. Benjamin Y. Ford, Esq. ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP Post Office Box 290 Mobile, AL 36601-0290 Telephone: (251) 405-1300 Facsimile: (251) 432-6843 E-mail: ead@ajlaw.com dag@ajlaw.com byf@ajlaw.com FELDER SERVICES: Smith Suit Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ THERESA SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FELDER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00120 (S.D. Ala., March 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a proper overtime compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week while employed by the Defendant. Other bonusing employees worked over 40 hours in at least some weeks while employed by the Defendant. During weeks in which Plaintiff and other bonusing employees worked over 40 hours, the Defendant allegedly paid an improper overtime rate because the Defendant determined the regular rate of pay solely based on employees' hourly rate, without including the value of the nondiscretionary bonuses that Defendant provided to the Plaintiff and other bonusing employees. The Plaintiff proposes the following collective under the FLSA: "All hourly-paid employees who earned a bonus in connection with work performed in any week in which they worked more than 40 hours within the past three years." Established in 2006, Felder Services is a privately-owned company that specializes in providing housekeeping and laundry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Lawsuit Deems Dodge Ram Fuel Pump a "Safety Risk" ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2021 Ram CP4 Lawsuit A Ram diesel truck class-action lawsuit filed in October 2021 alleges Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) of knowingly selling Ram vehicles with defective fuel pumps that can cause engine failure. Affected vehicles include the following: 2018 - 2020 RAM 2500 2018 - 2020 RAM 3500 2018 - 2020 RAM 4500 2018 - 2020 RAM 5500 Heavy-duty Ram trucks equipped with the Cummins 6.7 diesel engines are at the center of numerous issues affecting these heavy-duty trucks. Filed by three plaintiffs who own a 2018 Ram 2500, 2019 Ram 3500, and a 2019 Ram 2500, the complaint also sued Cummins, the company that manufactures the 6.7L Turbo diesel engine. These same CP4 fuel injection pumps were the subject of a 2019 class action lawsuit involving GM's heavy-duty Duramax trucks. Allegedly, the CP4 high-pressure fuel pumps have imperfections that can cause metal pieces to grind against each other, producing metal shavings that can destroy the engine. This has resulted in stalling and even total engine failure, which poses a serious safety risk. For many owners, issues with their Ram vehicles happened as early as the first mile or after the fuel tank was filled with diesel fuel for the first time. The 2021 class action suit alleges that CP4 fuel pumps cannot be used with U.S. diesel fuel and that both Ram and Fiat Chrysler have been aware of the problem for over ten years. It is unacceptable that a vehicle advertised as a "diesel fuel truck" cannot handle diesel fuel. To make matters worse, it does not look like there will be an adequate solution to these concerns any time soon. According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Fiat Chrysler told dealers that a remedy for these problems is "not currently available." A recent Safety Recall Notice by the automaker does not specify when Ram truck owners will have their vehicles fixed. NHTSA Ram Engine Defect Investigation Earlier in October, NHTSA launched an investigation into over 600,000 Ram trucks with Bosch-supplied CP4 fuel pumps. Ram models that are being reviewed include model year 2019-2020 Ram 2500 and 3500 pickups, and Ram 3500, 4500, and 5500 heavy-duty chassis cabs. The American government states that 22 formal complaints have been filed regarding issues with the CP4 fuel pumps specifically. According to field reports, NHTSA found that some fuel pumps failed at speeds of just 25 miles per hour. Although no deaths or injuries have been reported, in a report to NHTSA last November, one driver says his truck suddenly shut down on the highway, causing an accident behind him. He was left stranded with a newborn child in cold weather. Another complaint from March says that one Ram truck driver saw smoke filling the cab as he pulled out of his garage. Flames were coming from the fuel injection pump area. Ram truck owners not only have to worry about stalling and engine failure, but they must also consider that their cars could potentially burst into flames. 2021 Ram Diesel Truck Engine Failure Recall Just one month after NHTSA announced its investigation, Ram announced a recall of over 200,000 of its heavy-duty pickup trucks equipped with the problematic 6.7L engine. This recall states that the issue is that the high-pressure fuel pump may fail prematurely and allow debris to enter the fuel system, causing stalling and engine failure. Ram's fix for the faulty engine is to install a new fuel pump on affected vehicles and update their software. Vehicles included in the recall are nearly the same as those mentioned in both the class action suit and the NHTSA investigation. The recall covers 2019-2020 Ram 2500, 3500 pickup trucks, as well as Ram 3500, 4500, and 5500 cab chassis vehicles with turbodiesel engines. The trouble for Ram truck models does not end there. In late October 2021, NHTSA Campaign Number 21V163000 states that several Ram heavy-duty trucks are at risk of fire due to an electrical fault. This recall affects over 130,000 vehicles with 6.7L Cummins diesel engines. Last March, Ram recalled a smaller number of trucks for a similar issue. They advised that owners complete their free recall repairs, that they do not park their trucks inside garages, near structures, or close to other cars. Many Ram drivers have struggled to get replacement parts at their dealerships. As such, thousands of Ram heavy-duty trucks have yet to be fixed. What is a Fuel Pump? The fuel pump sends fuel from the gas tank into the engine. This component also sets the necessary pressure and volume for fuel injection and removes contaminants from the fuel system. Most modern cars with internal combustion engines have fuel pumps, which typically last at least 100,000 miles. Repairs to this vehicle component require an overhaul of the truck's entire fuel system, which can cost anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000. CP4 fuel pumps typically fail at around the 100,000-mile mark. Unfortunately, several Ram truck owners are reporting engine failure or stalling at far lower mileages. Some say they began experiencing engine issues after just filling their car's gas tank once. The October 2021 suit says that these Ram vehicles are too fragile to handle American diesel fuel as this fuel type is not "sufficiently lubricious" for the CP4 fuel pump. As a result, the cam and pumping cylinders in the CP4 fuel pump begin to dry out and wear against each other to produce the small metal shavings that can kill the vehicle's engine. Allegedly, unbeknownst to Ram truck owners, the fuel pump is neither compatible with American fuel standards nor able to withstand the specifications for U.S. diesel fuel in terms of water content or lubrication. The class action suit argues that damage to the engine and fuel system begins with just the first tank of diesel fuel. Expertise in Ram Lemon Law Unfortunately, Ram heavy-duty pickup trucks aren't the only vehicles equipped with the defective CP4 fuel pump. Other auto manufacturers such as Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, GMC, and Jeep sell diesel vehicles built with CP4 pumps. If you have experienced stalling, engine failure, or other powertrain problems, it is possible that your vehicle could be a lemon. There are a few things you should do if you believe you own or lease a lemon: -- Take in your vehicle for warranty repair work -- Document as much information as possible on repair visits -- Consult with a lemon law attorney Be sure to document the names of people who worked on your vehicle, the nature of your vehicle's issues, and any other important information. Extensive documentation can help you tremendously should you pursue a lemon law claim. If you have been experiencing issues with your vehicle and have taken it in repeatedly for repair work under warranty, you may have a lemon. Unsure? We can help. The best thing you can do next is talk to a Lemon Law Expert regarding your case. Under the California lemon law, you could qualify to receive a replacement, refund, or cash compensation for your vehicle. Call 877-921-3923 or send a message to speak directly with a lemon law attorney to see if you have a claim worth pursuing. Your case evaluation is free, confidential, and will take just minutes of your time. Fiat Chrysler has admitted that they do not have a remedy for all the issues associated with the CP4 fuel pump. This, however, does not mean that you do not have any solutions. Give us a call or email. [GN] FIBERDOME PRODUCTS: Siegel Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Demotion ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURA SIEGEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIBERDOME PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant Case No. 3:22-cv-00153 (W.D. Wis., March 22, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief. The Defendant allegedly operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff further brings claims and causes of action against Defendant in her individual capacity under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 for purposes of obtaining relief for back pay and/or lost wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's unlawful demotion and termination of her because of her FMLA leave use. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working at Defendant's Lake Mills, Wisconsin location in approximately the year 1990. On March 8, 2022, and upon Plaintiff's return to work at Defendant from continuous FMLA leave because of her right hip replacement surgery and subsequent recovery, Defendant demoted Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that her employment at Defendant would be terminated within three months because of her previous and anticipated FMLA leave use. Fiberdome Products, LLC is a Wisconsin-based fiberglass tooling, fabrication, and manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com FLETCHER GROUP: Hudzinski Seeks Overtime Pay for Robot Programmers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Hudzinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fletcher Group Automation, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01498 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2022) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working for Defendant paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff contends that he was misclassified as an independent contractor by Defendant. He was paid an hourly rate and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek while performing his job duties for Fletcher. However, he was never paid time and one-half his hourly rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek while he worked for Fletcher, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff worked for Fletcher from February 14, 2014, to October 24, 2021 as a robot programmer performing job duties including adjusting move points in a robot program, testing the tooling by building parts, and conducting preventative measures. Fletcher provides electrical design/engineering, plc design, value engineering, project management, robotic integration & engineering, and software/database development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net FOUNTAIN GREETINGS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fountain Greetings LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fountain Greetings LLC d/b/a Infinityroses.com, Case No. 2:22-cv-01615 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fountain Greetings LLC doing business as Infinityroses.com -- https://www.infinityroses.com/ -- offers real roses that last over a year, expertly arranged in a modern box, and personalized with a handwritten card.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com FRENSCO INC: Fails to Pay Premium OT Wages, Kocan Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHAN KOCAN v. FRENSCO, INC. and DANIEL PHUA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01548 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff says that he was a non-exempt hourly paid employee. His regular rate of pay was $25 per hour. Throughout his employment with Defendant, he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from December 2017 to March 23, 2020. The Defendants are engaged in the wholesale sale of building materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com GRAB HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 16 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 Grab Holdings Limited. The action charges Grab 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 Grab's materially misleading statements to the public, Grab's 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 https://bit.ly/3DnVR1j TO SUBMIT YOUR GRAB LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/grab-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=grab LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:MAY 16, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: NOVEMBER 12, 2021 THROUGH MARCH 3, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com GRAB'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Grab develops delivery management, mobility, financial services, and enterprise software solutions. In particular, Grab operates a "super app" that functions as Southeast Asia's largest ride-hailing and delivery service, similar to Uber. On March 3, 2022, Grab disclosed that its fourth quarter revenues had declined 44% from the previous quarter and reported a $1.1 billion loss for the quarter. During a conference call held in connection with the results, Anthony Tan, Grab's Chief Executive Officer, attributed the poor financial results to "invest[ing] heavily" in driver incentives. During the conference call, Peter Oey, Grab's Chief Financial Officer, stated that it would take one or two quarters "to get that equilibrium between drivers and riders, between supply and demand." He also stated that "for the first quarter, we expect to see deliveries GMV of $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion, mobility GMV of $760 million to $800 million, and financial services TPV of $3.1 billion to $3.2 billion." Following this news, Grab's stock price fell $2.04, or 37.3%, to close at $3.28 per share on March 3, 2022. WHAT CAN I DO? Grab investors may, no later than May 16, 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 Grab 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. [GN] GRAB HOLDINGS: Kuznicki Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Grab Holdings Limited (NasdaqGS: GRAB) (NasdaqGS: GRABW), if they purchased the Company's securities between November 12, 2021 and March 3, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until May 16, 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-grab/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/, 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] HEALTHHELP LLC: White Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- GERMARIO WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHHELP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00925 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas common law. According to the complaint, HealthHelp's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. Plaintiff White was employed as a customer service representative in Houston, Texas from approximately March 2019 until January of 2020. HealthHelp operates call centers throughout the United States providing various services to health benefit plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com HONDA MOTOR: Suit Claims Defect Causes Engine Oil Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that proposed class action filed claims the Earth Dreams 1.5L direct injection engine found in certain 2019-2021 Honda CR-V and Civic vehicles and 2018-2021 Accord vehicles is plagued by a defect that causes the engine oil to become contaminated with gasoline. The 129-page lawsuit explains that diluted oil can cause a host of problems for a car, including premature wear and tear on the engine and its components, higher maintenance costs, engine stalling and "other dangerous situations" that present a significant safety hazard for drivers and others on the road. As the case tells it, engine oil that's contaminated with gasoline loses its viscosity and can no longer perform its principal function-namely, lubricating the many moving parts of the engine. "This can result in contact between metal surfaces within the engine, leading to rapid wear of internal bearings, the rotating assembly and other internal parts that rely on lubrication to function correctly," the complaint explains. According to the suit, defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Motor Company, Ltd. have "long been aware" of the apparent engine oil defect yet have failed to warn buyers and lessees and properly repair the affected vehicles at no cost to drivers. The case contends that consumers who purchased the affected CR-V, Civic and Accord vehicles would not have bought or leased the cars - or would have paid "substantially less" for them - had they known about the alleged engine oil defect. The Earth Dreams engine The suit explains that Honda's latest-generation "Earth Dream" technology was designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce environmental impact by implementing features such as variable timing control, direct injection technology, the Atkinson cycle and "extensive friction reduction measures." Essentially, the lawsuit relays that the gasoline direct injection process used by the Earth Dreams engine-which involves injecting fuel at a high pressure directly into the engine's combustion chamber instead of through the intake manifold-causes some of the fuel in the combustion chamber to remain unburned. Unburned gasoline and air are then pulled down into the engine's crankcase, where the fuel can "significantly contaminate" the engine oil in the oil pan, the case says. Per the suit, this event is known as "blow-by" and can cause a car's engine oil to lose its lubricity and viscosity, which in turn can damage the engine bearings, valve train, fuel injectors and cylinder walls. Though a positive crankshaft ventilation (PCV) system was invented to help reduce the risk of crankcase contamination, the PVC system in the affected CR-V, Civic and Accord vehicles is "simply inadequate" to prevent contamination of the engine oil, the lawsuit alleges. According to the case, an increased oil level or oil that smells like gasoline are signs that a car's oil has been diluted. Honda's response to the alleged engine oil defect The lawsuit claims Honda has known about the apparent engine oil defect for years due to customer complaints and pre-sale testing yet has effectively done nothing to address the issue. According to the case, Honda in early 2018 attempted to recall 350,000 CR-Vs and Civics sold in China following reports of high engine oil levels and strong gasoline odors, but the automaker's recall plan was reportedly rejected by a Chinese watchdog agency, who said the proposals were "not enough." Then, in June 2019, Honda extended the factory warranty on over one million 2017-2018 CR-Vs and 2016-2018 Civics in the U.S. due to reports of gasoline contaminating the engine oil. Consumer Reports noted that the complaints "raised concerns about the durability of the 1.5-liter turbo engine and about the vehicles potentially stalling, especially in cold weather." The warranty extension provided owners with an extra year of coverage for certain powertrain components with no mileage limitations, according to the suit. As the case tells it, Honda has nevertheless refused to acknowledge the apparent defect to drivers and lessees of the affected CR-Vs, Civics and Accords, or warned them that they could experience "catastrophic engine failure" while driving and be exposed to an increased risk of injury. Moreover, when owners and lessees attempt to have their cars repaired, Honda either refuses to repair them, insisting that the vehicles are operating properly or, in the event that the apparent defect manifests while the car is still under warranty, admonishes drivers "for not driving the [affected vehicles] for longer distances," the lawsuit says. In some cases, Honda instructs owners and lessees to continue driving their vehicles and "simply change the engine oil more frequently," according to the complaint. The case notes, however, that cars whose oil has been diluted will also require replacement of damaged spark plugs and possibly fuel injectors, not to mention repairs to the camshaft, rocker-arm assembly or the engine itself. Per the suit, drivers of the affected CR-V, Civic and Accord vehicles may experience an unexpected increase in maintenance costs, and the frequent disposal of contaminated engine oil also has a greater impact on the environment, the complaint adds. Who does the lawsuit look to cover? The proposed class action looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who is a current or former owner or lessee of a 2019-2021 Honda CR-V, 2019-2021 Honda Civic or 2018-2021 Honda Accord equipped with an Earth Dreams 1.5L direct injection engine. How do I know if my car has a 1.5-liter engine? The case explains that for the 2019 Honda CR-V, the EX, EX-L and Touring trim levels came standard with the 1.5L Earth Dreams engine, but the LX trim came standard with a 2.4L Earth Dreams engine. For the 2020-2021 model years, the EX, EX-L, Touring and LX trim levels all came standard with the 1.5L Earth Dreams engine. For the 2019-2021 Honda Civic, the EX, EX-L, Touring and Sport Touring trim levels came standard with a 1.5L Earth Dreams engine, while the LX and Sport trims came standard with the 2.0L Earth Dreams engine. For the 2018-2021 Honda Accord, the LX 1.5T, Sport 1.5T, EX 1.5T and EX-L 1.5T trim levels came standard with the 1.5L Earth Dreams engine, while the Sport 2.0T, EX-L 2.0T and Touring 2.0T trims came standard with the 2.0L Earth Dreams engine. How do I join the lawsuit? There's usually nothing you need to do to join or be considered part of a proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. If the case moves forward and settles, those affected, called class members, should receive notice of the settlement with instructions on how to claim their share. In the meantime, one of the best things you can do is to stay informed. Check back here for updates, but keep in mind that it can often take months or even years for a lawsuit to be resolved. You can also get class action news sent straight to your inbox by signing up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter here. [GN] I.C. SYSTEM INC: Garcia FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rafael Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., John Does 1-50, ABC Corp. 1-50, Case No. MID L 004656 21, was removed from the Superior Court of Middlesex County, NJ, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 23, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01644 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy John Zacharias, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C. 15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (856) 779-6103 Email: jjzacharias@mdwcg.com JUUL LABS: Faces Noxon Suit Over Mislabeled e-Cigarette Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOXON SCHOOL DISTRICT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01838 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2022) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act over the sale and marketing of JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants worked together to implement their shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to: (1) create an highly addictive product that users would not associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay regulation of e-cigarettes. The Defendants engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. The Defendants also adopted a "Make the Switch" campaign to mislead the public into thinking that JLI products were benign smoking cessation devices, even though JUUL was never designed to break addictions. These marketing efforts have been resounding successes—when JUUL products were climbing in sales, most youth—and their parents—believed that e-cigarettes did not contain nicotine at all, says the suit. JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures and markets e-cigarettes. The company offers a temperature regulation system to heat nicotine-based liquid to an ideal level, which is designed to avoid burning. Its products include device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in different flavors. The company retails its products online, through its e-commerce platform. JUUL Labs, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is based in San Francisco, California. [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 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KLARNA INC: Appeals Ruling Compelling Arbitration in Edmundson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Klarna, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Najah Edmundson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Klarna, Inc, Case No. 3:21-cv-00758-KAD, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The lawsuit, filed on June 2, 2021, is brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated Klarna customers who have been allegedly deceived into using Klarna's buy now, pay later service by the company's misrepresentations and omissions, in marketing materials, regarding the true operation and risks of the service. These risks include the real and repeated risk of multiple insufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") or overdraft fees imposed by users' banks as a result of automated Klarna transfers from consumers' checking accounts. Klarna's services thus cause unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to incur significant overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank accounts. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known of the true operation and risks of the Klarna service, they would not used the Klarna service, says the suit. On August 16, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings which the Court denied on February 15, 2022, through an Order signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala. The Defendant now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., Case No. 22-557, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 17, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Klarna, Inc. is represented by: Kendall Turner, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 E-mail: kendallturner@omm.com Plaintiff-Appellee Najah Edmundson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC 750 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com LION PAVERS: Ovalle Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis F. Ovalle and other similarly situated individuals v. Lion Pavers Construction LLC, and Jose Bandeira, individually, Case No. 8:22-cv-00692 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after September 2020, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff had duties as a construction laborer. Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and he worked a minimum of 40 hours weekly. The Defendant Pavers is a construction company specializing in commercial and residential paving projects. The Defendant Lion Pavers is also a supplier of paving materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LONGHORN PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franklin Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN PIZZA, INC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00676-K (N.D. Tex., Mar. 23, 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 Franklin was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. Longhorn Pizza, Inc. operates as a fast food restaurant. The Restaurant offers pizza, salads, pasta, sandwiches, desserts, appetizers, and soft drinks. Longhorn Pizza serves customers in the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 MUFG AMERICAS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-02377 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) -- https://www.mufgamericas.com/ -- is one of the world's leading financial groups. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Maldonado Sues Over Retail Market Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Maldonado, Dean Santos, Lesia Dunn, Kimberly Ann Marckmann, and Louis Hibbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02289 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022) sues over conspiracy to dominate the retail market for online sales of NFL Licensed Products. The Defendants' conspiracy allegedly consists of at least four related components: -- First, the Defendants colluded to boycott competing retailers who sold NFL Licensed Products through third-party online marketplaces ("TPOMs") like the Amazon Marketplace. -- Second, te Defendants conspired to fill the void by entering exclusive dealing arrangements that denied their competitors access to manufacturers and suppliers -- Third, having solidified their dominant position in the online retail market for NFL Licensed Products, the Defendants, rather than compete with one another, entered anticompetitive licensing agreements to further reduce competition. -- Fourth, the Defendants conspired to further undermine other retailers' ability to compete in the online market for NFL Licensed Products by forbidding those retailers from using NFL-related keywords to advertise or even describe their product offerings. The Plaintiffs and the proposed class of direct online purchasers of NFL Licensed Products paid more than they otherwise would have for their purchases, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs seek to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for injunctive relief, pursuant to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The National Football League ("NFL") is big business -- in 2020 alone, the 32 teams that make up the NFL made approximately $12.2 billion collectively, a low figure compared to recent years due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on ticket sales. The NFL derives this revenue from various sources, including ticket sales, media deals, concessions, and importantly for this case, merchandise sales. Each of the 32 Teams sells merchandise emblazoned with their team's intellectual property, such as their names and logos ("NFL Licensed Products"). For example, the Dallas Cowboys have the blue star, and the Las Vegas Raiders have the helmeted pirate. In a competitive market, each Team would compete to sell NFL Licensed Products to the greatest number of fans -- not only to realize profit but as a self-serving marketing tool; fans wearing NFL License Products are walking billboards. Instead, all the Teams pool their intellectual property with the National Football League Properties, Inc. ("NFLP"), a subsidiary of the NFL that is responsible for collectively licensing the Teams' and the NFL's intellectual property. The NFLP accordingly operates as a walking horizontal conspiracy among competitors formed for the very purpose of organizing group-wide agreements between Teams that otherwise would compete among themselves to license their trademarks to competing manufacturers and retailers. One such manufacturing and retailer is Fanatics, LLC, the successor entity to Fanatics, Inc. This "full-scale global digital sports platform" began in earnest in 2011, when Michael Rubin -- Fanatics' CEO -- decided to focus his efforts on sports e-commerce business, says the suit. In 2017, the NFL purchased a three percent stake in Fanatics for $95 million. 3 This meant that as Fanatics' value increased, so too did the NFL's investment. The Plaintiffs purchased NFL Licensed Products directly from Defendants during the Relevant Time Period. NFL is an association of 32 professional football teams in the United States. Each of the NFL member teams, headquartered in various cities across the country, is separately owned and operated, acts in its own economic self-interest, and competes in many respects with the others. The Defendants include National Football League Properties, Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC, Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buccaneers Team LLC, Buffalo Bills LLC, Carolina Panthers, LLC, The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Chargers Football Company, LLC, Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., Detroit Lions Inc., Football Northwest LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings, L.P., Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Las Vegas Raiders Football LLC, Miami Dolphins Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football LLC, New England Patriots LLC, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants Inc., New York Jets Football Club, Inc., PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos Football Club, The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers Sports Inc., The Rams Football Company LLC, San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC, Tennessee Football, Inc., Washington Football, Inc., and Fanatics, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Ban, Esq. Michael A. Toomey, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Eleven Times Square 640 8th Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Facsimile: (212) 688-0783 E-mail: wban@barrack.com mtoomey@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com - and - Warren T. Burns BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Spencer Cox, Esq. Patrick Murphree, Esq. 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 577-3977 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest scox@burnscharest pmurphree@burnscharest.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com - and - Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN, LLP 15615 Alton Parkway, Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 676-0031 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: andrew@bnsklaw.com NC WORKS: Boyce Sues Over Manufacturing Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL R. BOYCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NC WORKS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00146-MWM (S.D. Ohio, March 22, 2022) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant in its manufacturing plant to run machines that produce the various materials that the Defendant manufactures, namely non-woven material for automotive interiors, on an as-needed basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Brian R. Noethlich, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DE ROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com NDN COLLECTIVE: Lawsuit Filed in Hotel Discrimination Controversy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Nelson at kotatv.com reports that activist group NDN Collective officially filed a class action lawsuit against the owners of a Rapid City hotel and sports bar for allegedly discriminating against Native Americans. The group, along with former U.S. Attorney Brenden Johnson filed the suit during a demonstration. Johnson spoke about the suit at the Rapid City demonstration. "To be clear, we don't file this complaint to send a message. We file this complaint because we want justice." The allegations made in the suit go into detail about what they call the discrimination displayed by the owner of the hotel and bar in a since now deleted post on social media said Native Americans would no longer be allowed on the property. The suit also alleges that the hotel had armed guards in the lobby to intimidate potential Indigenous patrons. NDN representative Sunny Red Bear says she attempted to check in to the hotel, but was denied, with the hotel claiming that it had a policy of not renting to local individuals. The suit alleges that this was a pretext to discriminate against Red Bear, and describe a situation where they say other NDN members were attempting to check in, and were angrily confronted by Nicholas Uhre, manager of the hotel and bar. The suit says the rhetoric and behavior of the Uhre's are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. [GN] NETGEAR INC: Settlement in Pham Shareholder Suit Gets Court's Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Netgear, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that the federal court in Northern District of California issued an approval order for the settlement of case captioned "John Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al." On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and February 8, 2019, the company was sued in four separate securities class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al. In total, six putative class action complaints were filed in California state court in Santa Clara County. The company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits. The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On January 22, 2019, the Company and Arlo et al. were sued in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Based on similar facts as those in the state court actions, the federal case alleged that the Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought remedies thereunder. On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019. The state court action remained stayed pending the outcome of the federal action. On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19, 2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend. On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary approval for classwide settlement. On March 11, 2021, the federal court in Northern District of California issued the approval order for the settlement, thereby concluding the federal matter. Three individuals who filed suit in state court requested exclusion from the settlement. On June 4, 2021, the three individuals– Pham, Perros, and Patel– renewed their state class action case in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara with an amended Complaint. In response, the Company, Arlo and other co-defendants have jointly filed a motion to dismiss and a demurrer to the state court action on June 21, 2021 and July 7, 2021, respectively. On September 17, 2021, the Court granted Arlo and the Company’s motion to dismiss the case from state court. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The parties have agreed to an extension of plaintiffs' opening brief to June 30, 2022. Netgear is into innovative, high-performance and premium networking products that connect people, power businesses and service providers and advance the way people live. NEW YORK: Marciano Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Anthony Marciano filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY MARCIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BILL DE BLASIO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, in his official capacity; DAVE A. CHOCKSHI, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, in his official capacity; DERMOT SHEA, POLICE COMMISSIONER, in his official capacity; THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF HEALTH; and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 21-cv-10752, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to the Southern District of New York on December 15, 2021. Plaintiff Anthony Marciano, a detective with the New York City Police Department, commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, from which it was subsequently removed, challenging the October 20, 2021 order of the Commissioner of the City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as facially invalid under state law and as violating his federal constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process. Listed as Defendants in this action were Bill de Blasio, in his (former) official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Dave A. Chokshi, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene, Dermot Shea, in his (former) official capacity as Police Commissioner, the New York City Board of Health, and the City of New York. On March 8, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and terminating Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. A Clerk's Judgment was also entered on March 15, 2022, confirming Court's Memorandum Order wherein Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice was granted. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Marciano v. De Blasio, Case No. 22-570, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Marciano, individually and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, is represented by: Patricia Finn, Esq. PATRICIA A. FINN, ESQ. 58 East Route 59 Nanuet, NY 10954 Telephone: (845) 398-0521 E-mail: patriciafinnattorney@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees Bill De Blasio, Mayor of the City of New York, in his official capacity; Dave A. Chockshi, Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene, in his official capacity; Dermot Shea, Police Commissioner, in his official capacity; City of New York; and New York City Board of Health are represented by: Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2400 NEWPORT GROUP: Mismanages Pension Funds, Jackson Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- REVEREND CHARLES R. JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEWPORT GROUP, INC.; SYMETRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REVEREND DR. JEROME V. HARRIS, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AMEC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., dba AMEC DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1-10, AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn., March 22, 2022) arises out of the Defendants' breach of their obligations to Plaintiffs and other wrongful conduct in managing the pension fund administered by AMEC Retirement Services. The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of a class of AMEC ministers and other employees who, collectively, have lost millions of dollars due to the Defendants' misconduct and mismanagement of the Fund. The Plaintiff and the members of the class are ministers and other employees of AMEC who have lost retirement funds that were invested in the Fund. The Defendants mandated that the ministers invest a portion of their salary into the Fund, a Fund which Defendants promised was conservative and would preserve their principal. The Defendants also offered the opportunity to invest additional amounts into the Fund as consideration for and recognition of Plaintiffs' hard work and dedication as AMEC employees and/or ministers to AMEC's church members. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to fairly, diligently and properly oversee and audit the Fund. The Defendants' alleged failure to do so led to the loss of tens of millions of dollars of retirement funds Plaintiffs earned from their countless hours in service to AMEC's church members and to the AMEC organization as a whole. The Defendants' breach of this sacred trust has caused heartbreaking and devastating stress and hardship to Plaintiffs who spent years ministering to AMEC's flock. Plaintiff Reverend Charles R. Jackson is a resident of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Rev. Jackson served as an AMEC minister from 1997 until his retirement in September 2021. On September 29, 2021, and shortly after his retirement, Reverend Jackson mailed a written request to release his funds held by the Fund, followed by multiple phone calls, and the Fund ultimately denied his request. Newport is a leading independent retirement services provider and trusted partner in delivering comprehensive financial wellness solutions and expertise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com - and - Richard W. Schulte, Esq. Stephen D. Behnke, Esq. 865 South Dixie Drive Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com sbehnke@legaldayton.com - and - Joseph A. Osborne, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 271 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 293-2600; Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: josborne@realtoughlawyers.com NORTHWOOD INC: Nova Scotia Added as Defendant in COVID-19 Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that the province of Nova Scotia has been formally added as a defendant in a proposed class-action lawsuit against Northwood, a long-term care home in Halifax where 53 residents died during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave. The lawsuit that was filed in June 2020 alleges Northwood's practices and policies caused COVID-19 to spread through the facility, causing the death of residents and damages to their surviving relatives. Amendments filed in court on March 14 by Wagners Law Firm claim the province's repeated budget cuts and freezes in the long-term care sector left residents at risk to the spread of infectious disease. The proposed class action also alleges that the province was negligent in its regulation and oversight at Northwood, including its disregard for licensing issues and health and safety violations. "The province took decisive action in Nova Scotia's hospitals, while choosing not to take or mandate these similar precautions in long-term care facilities to prevent and limit the fatal outbreak," a news release from Wagners stated. "The province's choices and inaction led to the deaths of many vulnerable citizens entrusted to their care and oversight." Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner said if it proceeds, the lawsuit would shed some light on what unfolded at Northwood in the early days of the pandemic. "Class members still don't have answers about the chaotic outbreak, acknowledgements that actionable steps will be taken to prevent such a tragedy in the future, or even an apology," he said in a statement. "These remedies are, to some, just as important as compensation for the loss of their loved ones sought by the action." The proposed lawsuit has not yet been certified. [GN] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Misclassifies Co-Team Leaders, Pauli Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES PAULI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) challenges Ollie's practices and policies of misclassifying the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated Co-Team Leaders as "exempt" employees, and not paying them overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Ollie's ensures that its Co-Team Leaders spend nearly all of their time performing the same tasks as the hourly workers, such as unloading trucks, deboxing merchandise, stocking shelves, operating cash registers, helping customers, cleaning the merchandise floor, cleaning windows, cleaning the bathrooms, trash removal, pallet removal, breaking down boxes and placing in compactor, shoveling snow and spreading salt. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated Co-Team Leaders spend a very small amount of their time performing managerial type duties. Accordingly, the Co-Team Leaders are misclassified "as exempt" employees and should receive hourly pay including overtime, says the suit. Mr. Pauli is a resident of New York State who has been employed by Ollie's as a Co-Team Leader in its Cicero, New York store from August 2013 to the present. The Defendant allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked and failed to pay him appropriate overtime. Ollie's is a national discount retainer chain that misclassifies Co-Team Leaders as exempt employees, even though their jobs are virtually identical to non-exempt employees, to circumvent the FLSA and the NYLL and avoid paying the Co-Team Leaders overtime. Ollie's markets itself as a discount retail store chain. Ollie's' retail strategy focuses on closeouts, overstocks, package changes, manufacturer refurbished goods, and irregulars. Ollie's also works very closely with financial institutions selling the assets of liquidated companies to convert them into cash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - James Emmet Murphy, Esq. Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com OPUS IMMERSIVE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opus Immersive, Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Opus Immersive, Inc. doing business as: Opus, Case No. 1:22-cv-02375 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OPUS -- https://feelopus.com/ -- is an Austin-based, tech-enabled mental wellness brand on a mission to radically increase humanity's emotional intelligence by providing tools that transform how people feel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com OVH GROUPE: Class Action Over Data Center Fire Delayed ------------------------------------------------------ Peter Judge, writing for Data Center Dynamics, reports that a class action by businesses that suffered in the fire which destroyed OVHcloud's SBG2 data center in 2021 has been delayed to allow more customers to join. Ziegler Associes had planned to send a letter at the end of February, setting out demands for compensation to OVHcloud customers whose businesses lost out in the fire, but is keeping the action open until mid-April, as more customers have come on board. Meanwhile, OVHcloud has added to the services it offers, launching a private cloud service based on Nutanix and object storage based on NetApp. Still no answers More than a year on, OVHcloud has yet to formally explain the cause of the fire. A firefighters' report released this month mentions failings including the lack of a power cut-off switch, but OVHcloud says it won't formally respond till it has clearance from its insurers and government agencies. Ziegler Associes argues that OVHcloud was negligent in ways alluded to in this report, and has not offered sufficient compensation. So far Ziegler reports 130 companies have signed up for its class-action suit, but said in a communication to DCD, that its formal letter to OVHcloud has been delayed because "more and more companies" are signing up, and Ziegler is assessing a specific demand for each one. The class action letter is currently expected in mid-April. Meanwhile normal business continues with two more services launched by the cloud provider. A hosted private cloud service based on the Nutanix cloud platform is designed to allow customers to quickly migrate between private data centers and the cloud setting up a hybrid cloud architecture. Earlier this month it also launched an enterprise file storage service powered by NetApp. The Nutanix based service is pre-installed and gives customers dedicated hardware in the OVHcloud infrastructure "in a matter of hours", so they can scale for seasonal demands, or set up a backup in the cloud. Nutanix customers can tie their OVHcloud services to the Nutanix Cloud Platform. The Nutanix service runs on Nutanix' hyperconverged infrastructure software. The NetApp-based enterprise file storage service is intended to provide a high availability storage service for customers running in the cloud, or else using NetApp on-premises. It is based on NetApp's Ontap file system technology, and is fully managed by OVHcloud. [GN] P&C PAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Condado Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE CONDADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P&C PAGELS, INC. d/b/a P&C BAGELS; PAUL ABATANGELO; and LINDA ABANTANGELO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01589 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 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 Condado was employed by the Defendants as cashier. P&C PAGELS, INC. d/b/a P&C BAGELS is a bagel shop and deli. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 505-2001 PANINI AMERICA: Fails to Display NPN Info in Cards, Wheeler Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belinda Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panini America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00763 (D.D.C., March 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendant fails to display the NPN information in a clear and conspicuous manner to non-purchasers across the range of cards it sells. NPN instructions are required to be equally prominent to other methods of entry and cannot place a non-purchaser at a disadvantage relative to a purchaser. For example, this Flux 2020-2021 Inaugural Edition box emphasizes the inclusion of redemption cards through statements such as "3 Cards Per Pack," "6 Packs Per Box," and "Blaster Exclusive Mojo Prizms! Per Box, On Average". The same representations and omissions are present across the varieties of cards sold by the Defendant, the suit says. The Defendant allegedly makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product and contest which are unlawful, false or misleading. Consumers erroneously believe their only way to enter the contest and have an equal chance at winning is through purchasing the Product. The result is consumers purchase more of the Products, at higher prices, than they otherwise would have, to have a greater chance at obtaining the valuable redemption cards. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully market and describe the components, attributes, and features of a product and contest, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives, the suit added. 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 $15 per box and $5 per pack, 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. The Product's packaging highlights the redemption cards to induce purchasing. Redemption cards tout their special nature, rarity, value, and the possibility that the item will be autographed by the athlete or entertainer. The value of a redemption card can range from $1.00 to $50,000.00. Redemption cards are promoted across all types of cards Defendant sells, including basketball and football cards. Panini manufactures, labels, markets, and sells trading cards promising that some packs contain valuable items under the Panini brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM, LLC. 1400 S. Charles St. Baltimore MD 21230 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons Ste 102 Pittsburgh PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com - and - 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 PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Di Fusco Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that on February 10, 2021, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Di Fusco v. Glenn Kellow, et al." Case No. 1:21-cv-00183-UNA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the directors and current and former officers of the Company, as defendants. The company was named as a nominal defendant but asserts a claim for alleged misstatements in a proxy statement under Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In late March 2021, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to consolidate and stay both derivative actions for judicial efficiency and cost until the court rules on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. PEABODY ENERGY: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on March 7, 2022, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York 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 coal mining company and certain of its executives. In re Peabody Energy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-8024 (PKC), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 50. Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning its safety practices, a fire that took place at one of its mines, and its ability to subsequently reopen that mine and resume operations. The Court held that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with respect to the mine fire but dismissed the remaining challenged statements as non-actionable puffery, protected forward-looking statements, or statements of opinion. The Court first assessed the timeliness of certain claims that challenged statements concerning the company's commitment to safety. Defendants argued that the claims were untimely because they were filed more than two years after the company disclosed the mine fire; this meant, according to defendants, that the claims were not brought within two years of when plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged misstatement, as required by the Exchange Act's statute of limitations. Slip op. at 21. The Court, however, rejected defendants' arguments that the disclosure of the fire would have made it obvious to a reasonably diligent investor that other statements regarding the company's safety practices were false. Id. at 22. With respect to statements the company had made prior to the fire concerning its commitment to safety, the Court explained these statements were non-actionable puffery or otherwise were not adequately alleged to be false. The Court first explained that statements touting the importance of safety -- such as "safety is the most important" and that the company "maintains constant vigilance toward safety" -- were puffery as they were simply too "general and self-congratulatory" to have been relied upon by a reasonable investor. Id. at 25–26. With respect to statements touting the company's safety record -- such as that the company "achieved record safety this past year" and that at "the operational level, our global safety performance continues to surpass industry averages" -- the Court concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the statements were false when made. Id. at 28. While plaintiff alleged that the company was on notice of certain safety issues at the mine, the Court noted that the company had also disclosed the risk of mine fires and the possibility that fire could disrupt operations, such that the challenged statements were not misleading in context. Id. at 29. The Court then addressed statements the company made following the fire concerning its ability to resume mining operations. The Court concluded that all these statements were non-actionable, forward-looking statements or non-actionable statements of opinion. For example, when the company announced the mine was on fire, it noted that it "did not expect any production from [the mine] in the fourth quarter of 2018," and that "[i]t is too early to assess the full financial impact to future periods as a result of the ongoing issue." Id. at 31. The Court explained that plaintiff failed to allege that the first forward-looking statement was false, and that the second statement was accompanied by cautionary language that it was "too early to assess" the situation in full. Id. In addition, the Court explained that a challenged statement that the company's efforts to extinguish the fire had "yielded visible results" was a non-actionable opinion statement and plaintiff failed to allege that it was misleading when considered in the context of the ongoing response to a major fire. Id. at 32. With respect to scienter, the Court held that plaintiff raised a "cogent and compelling inference" of scienter, on a theory of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, as to the statements failing to promptly disclose the mine fire. Id. at 43. The Court emphasized that the company had assembled a task force that included the CEO and CFO to assess the situation at the mine, and that the task force was in place at the time that smoke was observed coming from the main fan shaft of the mine. Id. The Court determined that plaintiff adequately alleged that the CEO and CFO knew either on the day the fire started or shortly thereafter that the mine was on fire, and yet allowed statements to be issued to the public that omitted any references to "smoke" or "fire." Id. at 44. Lastly, the Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's control person claims against the company's CEO and CFO, emphasizing their role on the company's task force at the time of the mine fire and their involvement in coordinating the company's public response to the fire. Id. at 44–45. [GN] PEST ELIMINATORS: Green Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Technicians --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER GREEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PEST ELIMINATORS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and BURNS, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-00181-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., March 21, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated pest control technicians but allegedly failed to pay them the appropriate overtime pay under the FLSA. The Defendants have a company-wide policy whereby they require their non-exempt pest control technicians to work more than 40 week, but do not compensate their pest control technicians at a rate that is one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for most, if not all, of the hours that they work over 40 each week, the lawsuit says. The Defendants operate as a pest control company and provide services to their customers in southwest and central Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3039 E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Chantix Drug Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Medtruth reports that a federal judge in New York has tossed a class-action lawsuit against Pfizer, ruling that the company did not have to disclose that its smoking cessation drug, Chantix, was contaminated with a carcinogenic substance, Reuters reported. U.S. District Judge Denise Cote stated that there was no proof that Chantix's product labels were misleading, nor that the presence of the cancer-causing compound made the drug unfit to help users quit smoking. Chantix was approved in 2006. On Sept. 16, 2021, Pfizer voluntarily recalled all lots of Chantix 0.5 mg and 1 mg tablets because of higher than acceptable levels of nitrosamine, a compound that has been associated with a risk of cancer in humans when consumed over a lengthy period of time. Pfizer began recalling Chantix in July 2021 before extending the recall nationwide by September. Judge Cote said that because Pfizer offered full rebates for unused Chantix, the lawsuit sought damages only for tablets that the plaintiffs consumed. Two plaintiffs representing the class claimed they never would have purchased Chantix had they known about the contamination. The plaintiffs also claimed that the presence of nitrosamine made the drug worthless in their efforts to cease smoking. The complaint accused Pfizer of misrepresenting the safety of the drug to consumers by failing to properly test Chantix for the "carcinogenic impurity" despite warnings from regulators. The complaint also alleges that Pfizer had known about Chantix nitrosamine contamination for many years but failed to warn consumers or alert public health authorities. Responding to the federal judge's decision to throw out the class action, Pfizer said in a statement, "We continue to stand behind the safety and efficacy of Chantix, which has helped millions of Americans quit cigarette smoking." In 2020, sales of Chantix nearly reached $1 billion. Last year, due to the recall, Chantix profits dropped 57%. The drug had been prescribed to over 13 million people in the 15 years Pfizer manufactured and marketed it. [GN] PHH MORTGAGE: Munoz Appeals Dismissal of Anti-Kickback Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Efrain Munoz, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege in the certified class action that the Defendants violated the anti-kickback provisions of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by requiring mortgage insurers to which PHH had referred private mortgage insurance ("PMI") business to enter into captive reinsurance agreements with Atrium, a reinsurer owned by PHH. According to the Plaintiffs, this requirement allowed the Defendants to extract kickbacks from those mortgage insurers for the PMI business that PHH had referred to them. The Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who "obtained residential mortgage loans originated and/or acquired by PHH and/or its affiliates on or after June 2, 2007 through December 31, 2009, and, in connection therewith, purchased private mortgage insurance and whose loans were included within PHH's captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements." The case has been pending since 2008, and the question of Article III standing has been addressed twice by the Court. First, on Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting their argument that the Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege that they were overcharged for PMI premiums and concluding instead that overcharging is not required for standing under Section 8 of RESPA. Second, on Aug. 18, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, concluding again that overcharging is not required for standing under Section 8 of RESPA and also that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated their standing to proceed with their RESPA claim because their allegation "that they were not provided a meaningful choice as to whether they wished to participate in a captive reinsurance program constitutes an allegation that they suffered a concrete, particularized harm -- one explicitly identified by Congress." The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's February 3, 2022 Order and Judgment, dismissing the case in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs, and January 31, 2022 order, denying Plaintiffs' motion to modify pretrial order. The appellate case is captioned as Efrain Munoz, et al. v. PHH Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-15407, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants John C. Hoffman, Leona Lovette, Daniel M. Maga II, Stephanie Melani and Efrain Munoz Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 25, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 18, 2022; -- Transcript is due on May 16, 2022; -- Appellants John C. Hoffman, Leona Lovette, Daniel M. Maga II, Stephanie Melani and Efrain Munoz opening brief is due on June 23, 2022; -- Appellees Atrium Insurance Corporation, PHH Corporation, PHH Home Loans, LLC and PHH Mortgage Corporation answering brief is due on July 25, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EFRAIN MUNOZ, LEONA LOVETTE, STEPHANIE MELANI, JOHN C. HOFFMAN, and DANIEL M. MAGA II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steven E. Bledsoe, Esq. Stephen Gerard Larson, Esq. Paul Anthony Rigali, Esq. LARSON, LLP 555 S Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 436-4866 - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Lisa M. Port, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Terence Ziegler, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com Defendants-Appellees PHH CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation; PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, FKA Cendant Mortgage; PHH HOME LOANS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and ATRIUM INSURANCE CORPORATION, a New York corporation, are represented by: Valerie Haggans, Esq. Anne E. Railton, Esq. Richard Strassberg, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 813-8800 - and - Sabrina Rose-Smith, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 PILOT PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Fry Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA FRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00465-SL (N.D., Ohio, Mar. 23, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Fry was employed by Defendant as production employee. Pilot Plastics, Inc. line of business includes the manufacturing of plastics products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Gage Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Universal Insurance Company. The case is styled as Terrance Gage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00364-PP (E.D. Wis., March 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Progressive Universal Insurance Company -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The Company provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com RBC CAPITAL MARKETS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBC Capital Markets, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02379 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RBC Capital Markets -- https://www.rbccm.com/ -- is a global investment bank providing services in banking, finance and capital markets to corporations, institutional investors, asset managers and governments globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal RETSEL CORPORATION: NDN Collective Files Suit in D. South Dakota ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retsel Corporation, et al. The case is styled as NDN Collective, Sunny Red Bear, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retsel Corporation, doing business as: Grand Gateway Hotel doing business as: Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino, Connie Uhre, Nicholas Uhre, Case No. 5:22-cv-05027-RAL (D.S.D., March 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Retsel Corp. -- https://www.retselusa.com/ -- was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes providing miscellaneous personal services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brendan V. Johnson, Esq. Timothy W. Billion, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 140 North Phillips Avenue, Suite 307 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Phone: (605) 335-1300 Fax: (605) 740-7199 Email: bjohnson@robinskaplan.com tbillion@robinskaplan.com RITTERS DINER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walsh Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINA WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITTERS DINER, INC. and ORESTIS J. VELISARIS, both jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00484-PLD (W.D. Pa., March 22, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract, quasi-contract, unjust enrichment and for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Payment and Collection Law. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages and withheld cash tips and compensation for all hours worked as reimbursement for unpaid customer bills, unclaimed pick-up orders, and misplaced tickets. The Plaintiff was a waitress for Ritter's Diner beginning in March of 2018 until August 7, 2021. Ritters Diner, Inc. is a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 ROBERT HALF: Scott Sues Over Incident Managers' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC. and COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01105-RBS (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants who was employed in the position of incident manager. During the course of their employment, Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at one and a half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in 40 hours in a workweek. Robert Half International Inc. is a global human resource consulting firm based in Menlo Park, California. Comcast Corporation is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawer.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Franklin Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE FRANKLIN and IRENE GAMBOA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCRIPPS HEALTH and DOES No. 1 through No. 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-00367-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal., March 21, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Scripps to the Plaintiffs and Scripps' other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Scripps' decision to make its own non-exempt employees bear the economic burden for the hack. According to the complaint, like many other companies across the United States, Scripps' timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Scripps' organization. As a result, Scripps' workers who were not exempt from the overtime requirements under federal and state law, were allegedly not paid for all overtime hours worked or were not paid their proper overtime premium after the onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit. Michelle Franklin and Irene Gamboa are both such Scripps workers. Scripps could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay hourly and non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Scripps did not pay its non-exempt hourly and salaried employees their full overtime premium for all overtime hours worked, as required by federal and California law, the suit added. Scripps allegedly pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Scripps made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line workers -- average Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to make ends meet.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: (310) 928 1277 E-mail: matt@parmet.law SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Salhotra Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ravi Salhotra, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RAVI SALHOTRA, et al., v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07901-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that the Defendants' construction connectors and fasteners prematurely corrode, causing danger to Plaintiffs' properties and requiring costly repairs. This case concerns HD Strap-tie Holdowns and MAS Mudsil Anchors created, marketed, and sold by the defendants. The Products are embedded in homes' concrete foundations, nailed to structural members, and covered with house wrap or exterior cladding. The Products are made of steel and coated with a standard "Low" G90 galvanization, a thin layer of zinc, designed to protect the Products from corrosion. Between 1992 and 2018, Simpson sold more than 426 million Products. Simpson advertises its Products to construction professionals in Simpson's Wood Construction Connector Catalogs (the "Catalogs"). Simpson's Catalogs provide corrosion information, recommendations, specifications, and warranties that broadly apply to all of Simpson's connectors. The Plaintiffs are California and Arizona homeowners with homes containing Simpson's Products in the concrete foundations. The Plaintiffs assert Simpson's Products are inherently defective and prone to premature corrosion, thereby beaching Simpson's express warranty. On August 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify three classes: National Class: All individuals in the United States who own residential structures constructed with Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors embedded in the foundations and all prior owners of residential structures who paid to repair and/or replace Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors. California Class: All individuals in California who own residential structures constructed with Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors embedded in the foundations and all prior owners of residential structures who paid to repair and/or replace Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors. Arizona Class: All individuals in Arizona who own residential structures constructed with Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors embedded in the foundations and all prior owners of residential structures who paid to repair and/or replace Simpson HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and/or Simpson MAS Mudsill Anchors. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court entered an order denying the motion for class certification; granted defendants' request for judicial notice; denied defendants' objections to plaintiffs' non-expert declarations; granted defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony; denied as moot plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' objections, defendants' motion to strike reply evidence, and defendants' objections to new reply evidence; and granted in part and denied in part motions to seal. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Ravi Salhotra, et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners RAVI SALHOTRA, SANDHYA SALHOTRA, MELISSA CARD, KEVIN SULLINS, and MAURICE VAN ROEKEL, as Trustee of The Van Roekel Survivor's Trust, are represented by: Marie Noel Appel, Esq. Michael Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-7155 E-mail: mappel@robinskaplan.com mram@robinskaplan.com - and - Stephen Gerard Larson, Esq. Paul Anthony Rigali, Esq. LARSON, LLP 555 S Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 436-4888 - and - Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq. LIPPSMITH, LLP 555 S Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 344-1820 E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com Defendants-Respondents SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., a Calfiornia Corporation; and SIMPSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. are represented by: Erick Charles Howard, Esq. Joseph Vincent Mauch, Esq. SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, CA 94111-3598 Telephone: (415) 421-6500 E-mail: ehoward@sflaw.com jmauch@sflaw.com SOFI LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Student Loan Scam --------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi reports that SoFi Lending Corp. and a handful of other companies are behind a scheme whereby federal student loan borrowers are preyed upon via "tens of thousands" of robocalls that use "spoofed" telephone numbers and prerecorded messages, a proposed class action lawsuit alleges. According to the case, the robocalls at issue feature carefully crafted messages that make it appear as though the companies are calling on behalf of the state and/or federal government to help borrowers obtain loan forgiveness. It's through these illegal robocalls, the 49-page case claims, that several yet-to-be-identified telemarketing companies have stolen federal student loan borrowers' voiceprints. Three other companies named as defendants in the suit-Onvoy, Inteliquent and IP Horizon Communications-helped facilitate the apparent scheme by providing caller ID "spoofing," voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP) and other robocall services and technologies, the suit alleges. Also to blame, the lawsuit says, is the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), who, as the servicing agent for SoFi, negligently allowed the so-called fraudster telemarketers to access federal student loan borrower contact information and thereby enabled the targeting of these consumers. The suit stresses that the alleged robocalls are "purposely designed to trick borrowers" into disclosing their personal, financial and biometric information "that can (and soon very likely will) be used for fraudulent purposes." According to the complaint, the robocalls are particularly dangerous in that stolen voiceprints can be easily used to hack into individual borrowers' financial accounts at institutions who use voiceprint technology to verify an accountholder's identity. Most major financial institutions in the U.S. use voiceprint identification technology, the case says. The lawsuit aims to force the defendants to immediately purge all voiceprint data and other biometric information stored in their systems and to reveal the identities of the telemarketers and call centers that also participated in the alleged student loan forgiveness robocall scheme. The case alleges SoFi and its co-defendants have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Which robocalls are mentioned in the lawsuit? The lawsuit alleges Onvoy, Inteliquent, and IP Horizon Communications, as agents of SoFi and MOHELA, have used automated systems to place robocalls to student loan borrowers whose loans are serviced by MOHELA. The calls play fraudulent prerecorded messages when a consumer answers, at which time the person's biometric voiceprint is captured, the suit specifies. In other cases, a fraudulent prerecorded message may be delivered directly to a consumer's voicemail, the lawsuit says. At issue in the case are two prerecorded messages from computer-generated voices who identify themselves as "Mary Fuller," "David Miller," "David Fuller," "Elizabeth Adler" and "Margaret Smith." According to the complaint, one of the prerecorded robocalls relays: Hello, my name is [Mary Fuller] with the Division of Economic Impact with an important statewide update. We are required by the state to inform those on our list that have student loan debt that you now have access to the Economic Impact Student Debt Relief Program being offered to you during this special enrollment period. The Biden Administration has eliminated over 58 billion dollars in student debt and has now extended the enrollment period. This is a great opportunity for you to significantly reduce or, in most cases, eliminate your student loan debt altogether! However, the window for the special enrollment period can close at any time. So please call our consumer direct line at 970-707-5751. This message has been marked complete on behalf of the Division of Economic Impact. Please call now." Per the case, other student loan borrowers have received "an avalanche" of prerecorded messages, specifically with the following script, delivered by way of an artificial intelligence "bot" directly to their voicemails: I am the virtual assistant for Margaret Smith with the Central Processing Center for federal student loans. The purpose of her call was to make you aware that the new presidential Joe Biden Administration supports forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt per borrower, as well as excuses borrowers for making their payments in February, if not longer. Using our automated technology, you are now able to obtain enrollment information based on your current situation. To use our AI automation and find the program you are approved for, you will need to write down the website. I will also deliver a text message that will provide a link with the program benefits. Would you like to hear the website and receive a text message?" Should a federal student loan borrower respond with the word "yes" at the end of the AI bot message or call 970-707-5751 in response to the first prerecorded message, one of two things occur, the lawsuit says. The case claims that as of several months ago, the robocalls directed borrowers to the Pathways Student Loan Program, which was administered by MOHELA and is, the lawsuit alleges, "a private student loan refinancing product meant solely for borrowers with private student loans made by SoFi that are currently in default or are otherwise behind on their scheduled payments." "It is not designed to be marketed or used by federal student loan borrowers," the case says of the program. In a more recent scenario, should a borrower answer "yes" to any of the artificial voices purporting to be Mary Fuller, David Miller, Robert Fuller or Elizabeth Adler, or should they call back 970-707-5751, they will be connected by Onvoy, Inteliquent or IP Horizon Communications to any one of the telemarketing defendants' call centers, where agents will falsely claim to work for the "Central Processing Center for Student Loan Forgiveness Applications" and attempt to fraudulently gather confidential personal and biometric information, the lawsuit says. What numbers does the suit say the robocalls come from? Per the filing, the "spoofed" numbers used by the defendants include, but are not limited to, 707-400-1797, 469-591-0111, 845-847-1797, 934-204-3579, 239-488-3442, among "many others." The call-back number provided to many robocall recipients is 970-707-5751, the suit says. An environment of uncertainty for student loan borrowers As the lawsuit tells it, the robocalls are "particularly dangerous" given the potential for confusion in the current student loan servicing market. The suit relays that tens of thousands of federal student loan borrowers are eligible for public service loan forgiveness or temporary expanded public service loan forgiveness based on their years of work for governmental agencies and non-profits. Others may be eligible for a discharge of their remaining student loan balance if, for instance, they attended a fraudulent trade school, the case adds. Compounding the general uncertainty are multiple student loan payment pauses amid the pandemic and regular news reports on the government's potential support for waiving as much as $10,000 in student loan debt for all borrowers, the complaint continues. Broadly, there exists for student loan borrowers a "chaotic and uncertain environment" wherein they do not know "if or when their loan balance, or a portion of their balance, will be forgiven," the suit says. "This unusual and uncertain environment for loan forgiveness eligibility puts federal student loan borrowers-eager to learn if and when their federal loans will be forgiven-at heightened risk of identity theft and fraud when Defendants cause these illegal robocalls with artificial prerecorded messages promising loan forgiveness to be delivered to borrowers' telephones," the case reads. Who's covered by the class action? The lawsuit aims to cover all persons in the United States who received one or more calls or direct voicemails that fit the format of the two prerecorded calls described on this page and who are or were federal student loan borrowers at the time they received the first telephone call or voicemail message. How can I be added to the lawsuit? Right now, there's nothing you need to do to join, be added to or be considered included in the proposed class action detailed on this page. If the case proceeds and eventually settles, then consumers who are covered by the suit, called "class members," would receive notice of the deal with instructions on how to file a claim either online or by mail. Since it's not uncommon for class action cases to take a while to move toward a settlement, dismissal or arbitration outside of court, it's important to stay informed in the meantime. If you've received federal student loan robocalls, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter.[GN] SOUTHERNSCAPES LLC: Steven Moore Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERNSCAPES, LLC and JERED CLEVELAND, Case No. 1:22-cv-00062-HSO-RHWR (S.D. Miss., March 22, 2022) seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable penalties brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for the Defendants anywhere in the United States, at any time during the relevant statute of limitations through the final disposition of this matter, who were paid a straight hourly wage for all hours worked and no overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were allegedly not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The FLSA Collective Members are those current and former employees who worked for Defendants anywhere in the United States, at any time from March 22, 2019 through the final disposition of this matter, and were subject to the same illegal pay system under which Plaintiff Moore worked and was paid. The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company self-described as "[the Gulf Coast's Trusted Landscape Service Provider." Jered Cleveland is the Owner and Manager of SouthernScapes and an employer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Norris, Esq. WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC 4209 Lakeland Drive No. 365 Flowood, MS 39232 Telephone: (601) 968-0000 E-mail: nick@watsonnorris.com TAIJI ORIENTAL: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- YUCHEN YANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAIJI ORIENTAL SPA NJ CORP. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage, TAIJI ORIENTAL BODYWORK & FOOT RUB CORP. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage, ZHANG TAIJI SPA INC. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage, FENGHUA ZHAO, and DEYU SUN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01617 (D.N.J., March 22, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law arising from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages equal to his unpaid overtime wages or prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Yang was employed by the Defendants as a driver and cashier at Taiji Oriental Spa and Taiji Oriental Bodywork from March 2018 until December 2020, as a driver and cashier at Taiji Oriental Spa from January 2021 until August 3, 2021, and as a driver and masseur at Taiji Oriental Spa from August 4, 2021 until August 7, 2021. The Defendants are engaged in the spa business in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com TEAM HEALTH: Faces Louisiana Suit Over Alleged Medical Overbilling ------------------------------------------------------------------ LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC, HCFS HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and ACS PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS LOUISIANA PC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00104 (E.D. Tenn., March 21, 2022) seeks to recover damages reflecting the wrongful medical overbilling by the Defendants, on behalf of itself and a putative class of others similarly situated. The Plaintiff administers a self-funded insurance plan to cover medical expenses of employees of police departments, fire departments, ambulance and other important local services. Like so many other self-funded plans, the Plaintiff has faced ever-rising healthcare costs. The Plaintiff contends that a significant portion of these escalating healthcare costs is directly attributable to systematic overcharges by the TeamHealth organization whose doctors staff numerous emergency rooms of hospitals. This alleged overbilling came as no accident, but rather was the fruit of a deliberate business model and carefully reticulated scheme developed by the TeamHealth organization. The scheme makes the overbilling undetectable using traditional audit metrics. That is by design, the Plaintiff adds. TeamHealth has set up over 100 ostensibly separate provider entities across the nation, each seemingly independent and disconnected from the others. In fact, though, they are all commonly controlled in a cartel-like manner. TeamHealth is a private equity-owned management company headquartered in Tennessee that staffs many hospitals across the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Parker, Esq. PARKER & CROFFORD 5115 Maryland Way Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 244-2445 Facsimile: (615) 255-6037 E-mail: mparker@parker-crofford.com - and - Mona L. Wallace, Esq. John S. Hughes, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main St. Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and - Janet Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, No. 105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC PO Box 904 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: 985-783-6789 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com alemmon@milberg.com TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ("Ericsson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERIC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-01167, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson securities between April 27, 2017 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson securities during the Class Period, you have until May 2, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Ericsson, together with its subsidiaries, provides communication infrastructure, services, and software solutions to the telecommunications and other sectors. The Company operates in, among other countries, the Republic of Iraq ("Iraq"). Ericsson has a well-documented history of using bribes to secure business in countries throughout the Middle East and Asia. For example, in December 2019, Ericsson was the subject of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") action alleging, among other things, that the Company used third party consultants and illicit payments from 2011 through early 2017 to access business in Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and China. The Company also entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") the same month for its illicit business dealings. Following the foregoing regulatory enforcement actions—which resulted in Ericsson being fined over $520 million and nearly $540 million by the DOJ and SEC, respectively—Ericsson repeatedly assured investors that the Company had a "zero tolerance" stance for bribery and was making significant investments in related programs. For example, in a December 2019 press release, the Company asserted that it was "[e]nhancing . . . internal anti-corruption and compliance related awareness campaigns (including the Company's zero tolerance for corruption)." Likewise, in its 2019 annual report, the Company asserted that it has "zero tolerance for corruption" and "work[s] hard every day to build a culture of compliance, anchored securely within the organization, to ensure that such an event will never happen again." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ericsson overstated the extent to which it had reformed its business practices to eliminate the use of bribes to secure business in foreign countries; (ii) Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in at least substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 15, 2022, during intraday trading hours, Ericsson issued a press release disclosing media inquiries into its business dealings in Iraq. That press release assured investors of the Company's "transparency" regarding these inquiries, while vaguely alluding to having undertaken its own investigative and compliance efforts. Then, on February 16, 2022, Ericsson's Chief Executive Officer told a Swedish newspaper that the Company may have made payments to ISIS to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq, noting that the Company had identified "unusual expenses dating back to 2018" but had not yet determined the final recipient of the funds for those expenses, although Defendants could "see that it disappeared[,]" and that Ericsson has spent "considerable resources trying to understand this as best we can." Following these disclosures, Ericsson's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.44 per ADS, or 11.57%, to close at $11.01 per ADS on February 16, 2022. Finally, on Sunday, February 27, 2022, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") published a report on Ericsson's alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq, citing a leaked internal investigation that revealed that Ericsson had reportedly made "tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments" over nearly a decade to keep its business in the country. The ICIJ report also alleged that "a spreadsheet lists company probes into possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by employees in Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia, Libya, Morocco, the United States and South Africa[,]" which "have not been previously disclosed." On this news, Ericsson's ADS price fell $0.84 per ADS, or 8.3%, from its closing price on February 25, 2022, to close at $9.28 per ADS on February 28, 2022, the next trading day. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ("Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERIC) of a class action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit on behalf of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson investors has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired certain Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson securities between April 27, 2017 and February 25, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/telefonaktiebolaget-lm-ericsson-loss-submission-form?prid=25096&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson NEWS - ERIC NEWS CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Ericsson overstated the extent to which it had reformed its business practices to eliminate the use of bribes to secure business in foreign countries; (ii) Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in at least substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson during the relevant timeframe, you have until May 2, 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. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or obligation. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/telefonaktiebolaget-lm-ericsson-loss-submission-form?prid=25096&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Baltimore Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries LTD., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01340 (D.N.J., March 11, 2022), is brought arising out of Teva's anticompetitive scheme to unlawfully thwart generic competition in the United States and its territories for its prescription drug Copaxone. The complaint alleges that Teva duped health plans with an anticompetitive consumer copay "coupon" scheme that circumvented plan members' cost-sharing obligations and helped artificially increase and protect brand Copaxone's high prices. Then, as part of a scheme to foreclose uptake of generic Copaxone, Teva entered into multi-pronged "House Brand" agreements with intermediaries, including Pharmacy Benefit Managers ("PBMs") and PBM-owned specialty pharmacies, to block generics by (i) refusing to pay any rebates to the PBMs unless generic Copaxone was excluded from formularies, and (ii) reaching agreements with PBM-owned specialty pharmacies to dispense branded Copaxone even if a prescription was written specifically for generic Copaxone. At the same time, Teva engaged in a misinformation campaign, widely spreading false and misleading statements to convince prescribers and patients that generic Copaxone was inferior to Copaxone and/or that generic Copaxone manufacturers did not offer co-pay assistance and training and support services. These false marketing statements convinced a substantial percentage of healthcare providers to write "DAW" prescriptions, circumventing automatic substitution laws and ensuring that they would be filled only with branded Copaxone even though less expensive generic alternatives were available. Absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct, generic manufacturers of Copaxone would have been able to fairly compete with Teva in a full and timely manner, and the Plaintiff and Class members, which includes "third-party payors" such as health insurers and self-funded health plans, would have substituted lower-priced generic Copaxone for nearly all of their Copaxone purchases and paid lower prices for their branded Copaxone purchases. The Plaintiff and Class members would have purchased lower-priced Copaxone in substantially larger quantities. Instead, the Defendants' unlawful conduct allowed Teva to reap substantial amounts in ill-gotten gains and prevented uptake of the 40mg generic GA versions which has cost the Plaintiff and Class members hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages. The Plaintiff and the proposed class seek to recover damages, including treble damages, under the state antitrust and consumer protection laws enumerated below and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore is a municipality located in Baltimore, Maryland. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. is an Israeli corporation whose blockbuster drug is Copaxone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 Email: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com TRADER JOE'S: Underpays Crew Members, Acevedo Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S EAST, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01575 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) seeks to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Defendant in non-exempt hourly-paid positions in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant who worked for Defendant in the State of New York pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover statutory damages for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate relief pursuant to NYLL section 198. The Defendant has allegedly compensated Plaintiff and all other Crew Members who work or have worked for Defendant in New York on a bi-weekly basis. Although Plaintiff and similarly situated persons are manual workers, Defendant has failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned, as required by New York Labor Law section 191. In this regard, Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Crew Members in New York, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid, manual worker who worked as a Crew Member at Defendant's store located at 200 East 32nd Street, New York, New York from December 2019 to February 28, 2022. The Plaintiff's job duties included operating the cash register; bagging groceries; stocking shelves; merchandising; maintaining the cleanliness of his work area and the store; all of which required substantial periods of standing, walking, lifting, carrying, and bending to complete these duties. The Plaintiff and other Class Members spent more than twenty-five percent of their hours worked each week performing manual tasks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 UNION PACIFIC: Faces Meza ADA Suit Over "Fitness-for-Duty" Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 8:22-cv-00102-JFB-SMB (D. Neb., March 22, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages resulting from its violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes to its fitness-for-duty program ("Fitness-for-Duty"). As a result of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that employees in certain positions disclose specified health conditions -- even where the condition had no impact on the employee's ability to safely perform his or her job. This requirement was needlessly invasive and violated the ADA by itself, but Union Pacific made matters worse by imposing a policy that automatically removed the employees disclosing these conditions from service, says the suit. Union Pacific then subjected the employees to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation, again regardless of whether the employee had been safely performing the essential functions of his or her job. These evaluations do not assess whether an employee is fit for duty and Union Pacific does not conduct physical evaluations. Furthermore, it routinely disregards the opinions of outside doctors who provide physical evaluations of the employees. Instead, Union Pacific demands medical information from the employee and conducts a "file review," falsely determining that the employee is unfit for duty, or issuing unnecessary work restrictions which it then refuses to accommodate, added the suit. In February 2016, several Union Pacific employees commenced a class action disability discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific, alleging that Union Pacific's Fitness-for-Duty policies and practices constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination under the ADA. The district court of Nebraska certified the class in February 2019; however, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the certification decision in March 2020. Meza is allegedly a victim of the same discriminatory Fitness-for-Duty policies and practices alleged in Harris. Despite being qualified and safely performing his job without incident, Meza was removed from service for a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation under the new program and excluded from work at Union Pacific on the basis of his disability. Union Pacific is a railroad carrier engaged in interstate commerce and has operations in Bloomington, California, and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. Union Pacific's Medical Rules, as reviewed and revised on February 1, 2014, apply to all Union Pacific employees across the country. They outline the Fitness-for-Duty program at Union Pacific.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil D. Pederson, Esq. James H. Kaster, Esq. Neil D. Pederson, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South Eighth Street 4700 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: kaster@nka.com npederson@nka.com UNITEDHEALTH: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Coverage Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Minemyer at fiercehealthcare.com reports that federal appeals court has overturned a lower court's ruling against a UnitedHealth subsidiary over behavioral health coverage denials. A district court judge ruled in 2019 that United Behavioral Health committed "pervasive and long-standing violations" of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying thousands of claims to protect its bottom line between 2011 and 2017. The company was ordered to reprocess all of the claims included in the lawsuit as well as reform its protocols for processing claims. Advocates called the ruling a landmark decision for mental health parity. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that United Behavioral Health followed plan terms in issuing the coverage denials in question. Why judge's ruling against UnitedHealth could be turning point for mental health parity The initial case encompassed two consolidated class action suits that claimed United Behavioral Health had a conflict of interest as denying claims allowed it to boost profits, and the district court agreed. However, the 9th Circuit argued that the company does not have to cover every service as long as it follows generally accepted standards of care. The plaintiffs did not prove that the plans in question mandate coverage for all services under generally accepted standards of care, according to the order. "Even if UBH has a conflict of interest because it serves as plan administrator and insurer for fully insured plans that are the main source of its revenue, this would not change the outcome on these facts," the court said. A similar class-action suit for more recent claims was filed late last year. [GN] UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Refuses to Return Ex-Drivers' Escrow Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a group of truck drivers have accused one of the country's leading trucking and intermodal logistics companies of failing to return escrow funds the company had collected weekly from the truckers, as required by federal transportation regulations. On March 18, attorney Michael Drew, of the Neighborhood Legal firm, of Chicago, filed a class action lawsuit in Chicago federal court against Universal Intermodal Services, a subsidiary of Universal Logistics Holdings. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Joel Pulido and Jorge Zepeda, truck drivers who at one time worked for Universal out of the company's trucking terminal in southwest suburban Harvey. The plaintiffs seek to expand the lawsuit to include many other truck driver owner-operators who worked for Universal Intermodal. According to the lawsuit, Universal deducts $15 per week from the pay owed to drivers to hold in escrow, ostensibly to cover the cost of operating a so-called Electronic Log Device the drivers are required by federal regulations to keep in their truck while in operation. Those ELDs require a monthly subscription or maintenance fee, paid to a third-party ELD service provider. The plaintiffs assert they were required by Universal to use a specific ELD in their vehicles. According to the complaint, Pulido's escrow account amounted to about $850 when he left Universal's employment in August 2020. Zepeda's account held about $1,500 when he quit working for Universal in June 2020. Federal regulations allow for such escrow deductions to cover incidental costs, and such accounts are common. However, the complaints assert Universal has violated federal rules which require trucking companies to hand the escrow funds back to the drivers within 45 days from the end of their employment. And the complaint accuses Universal of refusing the drivers' requests for the money. The lawsuit accuses Universal of engaging in a racketeering conspiracy to "steal Plaintiffs' and other owner-operator's money by requiring and accepting escrow money with no intention of repaying that money." The lawsuit includes counts of embezzlement, conversion and violations of federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations, issued under the federal Motor Carrier Act, plus other counts. The plaintiffs are seeking court orders requiring Universal to repay the funds in triple, as well as actual damages, emotional distress damages, and unspecified punitive damages, plus attorney fees. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Students Reach Class-Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Elissa Welle at Detroit Free Press reports that attorneys representing students and the University of Michigan reached a landmark class-action settlement that aims to reform the way the university addresses and prevents sexual misconduct. After 17 months of negotiation, the university agreed to form and fund a Coordinated Community Response Team (CCRT), a roughly 30-person committee composed of community and campus members. They will be charged with comprehensive oversight of the university's response and prevention of campus sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Filed in May 2021, this suit was one of many brought against the university in the months following public knowledge of the sexual misconduct committed by former U-M doctor Robert Anderson. During his employment from 1966 to 2003, Anderson abused thousands of students in his role as university health service director and athletics team physician. He died in 2008. Unlike the group of individual suitsbrought by 1,050 Anderson survivors, who reached a $490 million financial settlement with the university in January, the plaintiff in this lawsuit was a current student, Josephine Graham, acting on behalf of the future U-M student population. "It's a first step in establishing more accountability, transparency, and importantly, community decision making when it comes to the history of sexual misconduct and then the policies and procedures being implemented to address this issue on campus," Graham said. Josephine Graham was the plaintiff representative of students in a class action lawsuit against the University of Michigan regarding on-campus sexual misconduct. Jonathan Selbin, an attorney with the Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein law firm, said the CCRT will be created following final approval from the court, which is likely to happen this summer or fall. U-M students will receive notice of the settlement. While the settlement requires the CCRT to exist for five years, Selbin said he hopes the university will continue it in perpetuity. U-M President Mary Sue Coleman in a statement called the creation of the CCRT an "important step toward our vision of becoming a national leader in protecting our community from inappropriate behavior and sexual misconduct." E. Powell Miller, an attorney with the Miller Law Firm, said: "While this case in negotiation was long and difficult, in the end, the University of Michigan showed a high level of professionalism to get this done. "It's time for healing now, and I'm very optimistic that this settlement will dramatically reduce the chances that another Anderson appears in the future at this campus," Miller said. 'Best in class reforms' Nancy Cantalupo, professor at Wayne State University Law School and Title IX expert serving on the plaintiff's legal team, said CCRTs are known to be the most reliable method of addressing and preventing sexual misconduct on campus. For example, institutions who receive grants from U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women are required to establish CCRTs. Selbin said the settlement will implement "best in class institutional reform to address and prevent sexual misconduct both now and in the future." The reforms will center on policy and practice changes. "It adds transparency and new voices into the policymaking process," Selbin said. "We think (this) will help ensure a safer campus environment for everybody." Due to its comprehensive approach, Cantalupo said the CCRT requires a wide, inclusive membership of non-university-affiliated Title IX experts, survivors, university faculty, representatives of the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office and SafeHouse Center, community members, and select members of the administration. Seven current U-M students will serve on the CCRT, which, Cantalupo says, will give students a direct line to the university administration to communicate their concerns and needs. CCRT leadership balances objectivity with community buy-in, Cantalupo said. One of the three co-chairs will be Title IX expert Rebecca Leitman Veidlinger, who is unaffiliated with the university. Sandra Levitsky, U-M professor of sociology, will serve as the internal tenured faculty co-chair, whose job security can buffer potential pressure from the university from CCRT decision-making. Tamiko Strickman, currently executive director of the U-M Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX Office, will hold the internal administrator co-chair position. Repairing 'broken trust' Cantalupo said CCRTs and the institutions they aim to reform, are held accountable through regular publishing of the CCRT's work. This transparency, and subsequent increased access to their progress by the community, ensures CCRTs are more effective at changing campus sexual assault prevention measures than external watchdog groups hired by the university. "The external person has various incentives to do the kinds of things that an external watchdog would do, but they're going to get better information," Cantalupo said. "And the internal folks are set up to have a role and a voice in the process. Whereas, just having an external watchdog doesn't provide that kind of facilitation." Graham said students on campus "don't trust like these bodies of the universities hiring to investigate them," adding these firms are unable to repair the "broken trust at the school." Some financial compensation for the CCRT administration will be provided by the university at the time of the settlement to appropriately compensate the external co-chair and internal faculty co-chair, "so this is not an uncompensated extra duty on top of everything else," Cantalupo said. The other class action lawsuit, originally filed in March 2020 on behalf of two Anderson survivors, seeking both "monetary damages and equitable relief" has been stayed by the court as part of the mediation process, Selbin said. Although the two John Does from the original class-action lawsuit were not involved in this settlement, Selbin said they were consulted throughout the process and "strongly and unequivocally support the settlement." Elissa Welle is a breaking news reporter. You can email her at ewelle@freepress.com or find her on Twitter at @ElissaWelle. [GN] VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Preliminary Approval of $13M Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ skyhinews.com reports that a judge has granted preliminary approval of a $13.1 million deal offered by Vail Resorts to settle five wage and labor lawsuits in California, likely quashing a similar class action lawsuit filed in Colorado. The settlement deal, which was unveiled in court filings at the start of January, was granted preliminary approval by a judge in California state court on Feb. 1, according to court documents obtained by the Vail Daily. The settlement does not just apply to the plaintiffs of the five California cases directly involved in the deal - it would settle any and all allegations that the company failed to reimburse employees for equipment or pay employees for all hours worked over the last three to four years. The deal offers $13.1 million spread over a "class" of about 100,000 Vail Resorts employees nationwide. However, this amount quickly dwindles to $8.24 million after the deduction of administrative costs and $4.36 million in legal fees - a number that the California plaintiffs' attorneys say is "appropriate" and "in line with market rates." If the remaining $8.24 million were to be distributed evenly across the 100,000 "class members," it would shake out to about $82 per person. The settlement funds will not be doled out evenly across class members, though, and instead will use an "allocation formula" to determine how much each employee should receive based on how long they have worked for Vail Resorts, when and where they worked and the position or positions they worked in, giving twice as many "points" to people who work or worked in "snow positions." Any employee who cashes the settlement check they will receive in the mail gives up their right to bring similar legal action against Vail Resorts for the specified time period of three to four years depending on the state they work in. "We do not comment on settlement details, and Vail Resorts believes the settlement is appropriate and fair," Jamie Alvarez, director of corporate communications for Vail Resorts, said in a written statement provided to the Vail Daily in early October. "Moreover, it is being submitted to a judge who will be asked to ensure that it is fair and reasonable to everyone affected." "We dispute the accuracy of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, however, to avoid the time-consuming and costly nature of further litigation, the parties involved have negotiated a tentative settlement and will seek court approval to finalize and ensure the outcome is a fair resolution to all," Alvarez said. Vail Resorts and its attorneys have not responded to requests for comment on the ongoing lawsuits since this statement issued Oct. 5. "Obviously it's low, I mean, from my perspective," said Matt Elston, a part-time ski instructor for Vail Resorts who is also an inactive member of the California bar association. "It really depends on how they view some of this stuff going forward. Are they going to be paying for what they really should be paying for going forward?" "A hundred bucks or less for past underpayment really doesn't cover the damages," Elston said in a January interview. "To me, the damages would be more than that, but I think a lot of (ski) instructors would probably feel like, 'Hey, if we improve things going forward, that's acceptable.'" The fate of the Colorado case Two attorneys who represent employees at the heart of a similar proposed class action lawsuit filed in Colorado have continued efforts to block the settlement deal, saying they would have pushed for a higher settlement amount and, more importantly, for changes to Vail Resorts' compensation policies. The fate of the case filed in Colorado - known as the Quint et al. case - hangs upon whether the $13.1 million deal is granted final approval by the California state judge, a decision that will be made in the coming weeks. The Quint et al. case has been stalled since Vail Resorts announced that it was beginning settlement proceedings in the California cases last summer as the company argued that it did not make sense to continue litigation in a case that could be settled as part of the $13.1 million deal. A federal judge granted this request by Vail Resorts, known as a "motion to stay," in the fall of last year for a period of 90 days. The stay on the case was recently extended for another 60 days as the California settlement deal is on the brink of final approval. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Quint et al. case have argued that the complaints brought forward in their case are broader and more comprehensive than those brought forward in any of the five California cases, according to their response to the federal judge's decision to postpone their case. Given this - coupled with the fact that their case was filed first and was filed in the judicial district where Vail Resorts is headquartered - the attorneys said that their case should be allowed to move forward. The attorneys, Edward Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston, have declined to comment on the progression of the lawsuits. Their case is similar to the California cases, which were combined under one case for the purposes of negotiating a settlement, as both allege that Vail Resorts violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws in a number of states across the country. Both complaints allege that the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked as well as for overtime hours, meals, rest periods and training. They also allege that the company does not properly reimburse employees for the equipment needed to perform the basic functions of their jobs like skiing/snowboarding gear and cell phone costs. However, the complaint filed in the Quint et al. case was 167 pages long and contained 22 very specific and well-documented grievances with the company, Dietrich and Galdston argued. But an amended complaint filed in August once the five California cases had been combined into one shows that their claims are quite extensive as well. The document cites 33 claims ranging from "failure to pay for all hours worked" and "failure to pay overtime wages" under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act to violations of state labor laws in 16 different states where Vail Resorts operates. The amended complaint also brings forward claims of "breach of contract" and "unjust enrichment" against the company, according to the document. Pushing back With their case effectively stuck, the two Colorado-based attorneys filed a motion to intervene in the California case in December with the explicit intent to try to block the settlement proceedings. In the motion, the attorneys argued that the settlement deal cannot truly "resolve all claims" against Vail Resorts if the claims of their plaintiffs are sidelined and left out of the proceedings. The attorneys claimed that Vail Resorts did not give them enough notice that similar proposed class action lawsuits had been filed in California as is required by law. Vail Resorts did not file a notice alerting Dietrich and Galdston about the California cases until Aug. 12, according to court documents filed in the Quint et al. case. By this point, the company had already extended an initial settlement offer and the notice was filed alongside the motion to stay the Quint et al. case. ". . . . Vail deliberately avoided disclosing even the existence of the later-filed (California lawsuits), let alone its secret settlement negotiations, in order to secure a sweetheart deal with compliant plaintiffs in the California actions," Dietrich wrote in a legal brief supporting the motion to intervene. "Once the Colorado plaintiffs discovered this deception and gamesmanship, they took swift action to intervene before any settlement approval motion was filed." Dietrich and Galdston also highlighted Vail Resorts' decision to pull the settlement proceedings out of federal court and into state court in the "eleventh hour" of the proceedings when the California cases were originally being litigated in the Eastern District of California, calling this "highly suspicious." For these reasons, "mandatory intervention" in the California case "is warranted," they argued in the brief. "This forum shopping, flip-flopping and procedural machinations only confirm that the (two parties) have colluded to give Vail a cheap escape route from the massive liability it faces in the (Quint et al. case)," the attorneys said. Beaver Creek Ski Patrol Chris Johnson, right, and avalanche dog, Luna, practice rescuing a potential victim during avalanche training in Vail's Back Bowls Jan. 23, 2019, in Vail. Their motion to intervene in the case was denied by the California state judge, Michael J. McLaughlin, but they filed a motion to appeal that decision on March 7. The two attorneys also filed an objection to the preliminary approval of the settlement on January 18, in which they were quite blunt in stating what they thought of the deal. ". . . . Hamilton fails to satisfy applicable legal standards for preliminary approval because the motion lacks the data and other factual and legal support required to show the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate," the attorneys argued in the objection. Two days later, Judge McLaughlin granted a request from Vail Resorts to have the objection "stricken" or removed from the court's official record of the case. Judge McLaughlin granted preliminary approval of the settlement deal less than two weeks later. What comes next Elston said he does not plan to cash his settlement check if and when the time comes that he receives it in the mail. Vail Resorts employees across the country will soon find themselves in this position of deciding whether to rip up their settlement checks or cash it and give up their legal rights to bring claims against Vail Resorts for past mistreatment regarding wage and labor laws. Some class action settlements require class members to "opt in" to receive settlements, but this one requires that class members "opt out" by filling out a form or by choosing not to deposit the check they receive. This method of opting into a settlement is known as a "back-of-check release." "This approach will provide greater total compensation to the class because participation rates are typically much higher with back-of-check releases than when settlements are claims-made," Jennifer Liu, lthe ead attorney for the California plaintiffs, said in the request for preliminary approval of the settlement filed in January. Liu and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, the attorneys who filed the preliminary approval papers on behalf of the California plaintiffs, also did not respond to a request for comment. The settlement deal is currently being litigated in a California state court in El Dorado County, home to Heavenly Mountain Resort, which is owned by Vail Resorts. The two parties are now working through a third-party "settlement administrator" to coordinate the logistical details of the settlement as they prepare to ask the court for final approval of the deal in a hearing tentatively set for June, according to a motion requesting to extend the original timeline set for the settlement proceedings. The settlement administrator has already begun the work of sending out "notice packets" with information about the deal to Vail Resorts employees, a process which they now aim to have finished. The final date for employees to "opt out of or object to the settlement" is set for May 21. Both parties will then take a few weeks to "review the substance of any objections that are received" and to give responses to said objections ahead of the hearing for final approval of the settlement deal, which is set to be held on either June 17 or June 24. Meanwhile, the extended stay on the Quint et al. case will expire, but it is still unclear what, if anything, will come of that lawsuit. [GN] VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Vinings Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIRK VININGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERTIV HOLDINGS CO, ROB JOHNSON, and DAVID FALLON, Case No. 1:22-cv-02416 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Vertiv securities between April 28, 2021 and February 23, 2022 pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 23, 2022, at 6:00 a.m. Eastern, Vertiv reported disappointing financial results, including $0.06 earnings per share for fourth quarter 2021, missing analyst estimates of $0.28 per share. Vertiv's Chief Executive Officer attributed the poor results to management "consistently underestimat[ing] inflation and supply chain constraints for both timing and degree, which dictated a tepid 2021 pricing response." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $7.19, or 37%, to close at $12.38 per share on February 23, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company could not adequately respond to supply chain issues and inflation by increasing its prices. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff Vinings purchased Vertiv 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. Vertiv purports to be a "global leader in the design, manufacturing and servicing of critical digital infrastructure technology that powers, cools, deploys, secures and maintains electronics that process, store and transmit data." Its offerings include power management products, thermal management products, integrated rack systems, modular solutions, and management systems for monitoring and controlling digital infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 VERTIV HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Vinings v. Vertiv Holdings Co, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02416, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Vertiv Holdings Co ("Vertiv" or the "Company") (NYSE: VRT) securities between April 28, 2021 and February 23, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Vertiv investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/vertiv-holdings-co/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 23, 2022, at 6:00 a.m. Eastern, Vertiv reported disappointing financial results, including $0.06 earnings per share for fourth quarter 2021, missing analyst estimates of $0.28 per share. Vertiv's Chief Executive Officer attributed the poor results to management "consistently underestimat[ing] inflation and supply chain constraints for both timing and degree, which dictated a tepid 2021 pricing response." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $7.19, or 37%, to close at $12.38 per share on February 23, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company could not adequately respond to supply chain issues and inflation by increasing its prices; (2) that, as a result of the increasing costs, Vertiv's earnings would be adversely impacted; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vertiv securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Pope Sues Over Mortgage Refinance Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED POPE, on behalf of himself v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01793 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages for Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices in denying their applications to refinance their Wells Fargo mortgage loans in violation of the federal Fair Housing and Fair Lending acts, as well as state consumer protection laws. According to recent investigations of Wells Fargo's refinance activity during the Class Period that have been publicized in the media, Wells Fargo approved white applicants' mortgage refinance requests at twice the rate of its approval of Black and Hispanic/Latino minority applicants' refinance requests in numerous areas across the United States. The Plaintiff's own analysis of Wells Fargo's mortgage refinance rates bears this out. This is no accident. For nearly two decades, Wells Fargo exploited the American dream of home ownership through discriminatory housing practices in violation of the FHA, including by making a disproportionately higher number of subprime and higher cost mortgage loans to minorities than to white borrowers, and then discriminatorily foreclosing on minority mortgage loans in higher minority concentration neighborhoods compared to white neighborhoods. Such reprehensible conduct has stripped many Wells Fargo minority customers of their single greatest asset -- the equity value in their homes, the suit says. Allegedly, Wells Fargo is discriminatorily refusing to refinance minority higher cost mortgages. Such reprehensible conduct begs the question why any minority would ever bank with this institution. Indeed, as Wells Fargo's CEO Charles Scharf has publicly acknowledged in Congressional testimony, Wells Fargo engaged in predatory and discriminatory mortgage lending and servicing practices, as well as fraudulent customer account practices, added the suit. Mr. Alfred Pope is a minority homeowner who owns equity in a home located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. In December of 2021, he applied for a Wells Fargo home refinance and his application was denied. Wells Fargo is a nationally chartered bank with its principal place of business located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and is chartered in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. Jennifer Kraus Czeisler, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com jczeisler@milberg.com - and - James Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY 500 Sugar Mill Rd, Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8391 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com [*] U.S. Law Ending Sexual Assault Forced Arbitration Signed ------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth A. Schartz | Meghan McCaig | Phillip M. Schreiber, of Holland & Knight, disclosed that President Joe Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the Act) on March 3, 2022. The Act amends the Federal Arbitration Act and gives individuals asserting sexual assault or sexual harassment claims under federal, state or tribal law the option to bring those claims in court even if they had agreed to arbitrate such disputes before the claims arose. In addition, those individuals or a named representative bringing sexual assault or sexual harassment claims may choose to proceed via a class or collective action even if they had waived the right to proceed collectively before the claims arose. The Act is effective immediately and applies to arbitration and class- and collective-action waiver agreements entered into by employees before its effective date. The Act specifies that the enforceability of predispute arbitration provisions and class- and collective-action waivers is "at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or a sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct . . . ." In other words, such agreements are not per se invalid, but the party bringing sexual assault or sexual harassment claims can elect to avoid them. Arbitration agreements and class- and collective-action waivers are still enforceable if the parties enter into those agreements after a dispute arises (though it will be the unusual case in which a claimant will prefer to have the dispute arbitrated and not subject to class or collective proceedings). The Act gives the court, not an arbitrator, the power to determine the validity and enforceability of an agreement requiring arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims and the power to determine whether the Act applies. Under the Act, the court has that power even if the agreement purports to give the power to determine enforceability to the arbitrator. Often, complaints alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment also allege other claims. It remains to be determined whether the option to avoid predispute arbitration or class- or collective-action waivers applies only to sexual assault or sexual harassment claims (as some commentators have posited) or to all claims at issue in a case. The Act provides: "[N]o predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute." Parties bringing sexual harassment and sexual assault claims likely will argue that the statute's use of the word "case" renders the statute applicable to all claims in the case. Employers are not required to amend or replace existing arbitration and class- or collective-action waiver agreements. Nor are employers required to remove sexual assault or sexual harassment claims from their arbitration and class- or collective-action waiver agreements going forward. As explained above, claimants still can elect to use the arbitration process they previously agreed to and abide by the class-action waiver voluntarily, and may wish to do so to preserve privacy or because of a belief that the claim will be resolved more expeditiously than in the courts. For more information or to examine the impact that the Act may have on your business, contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Labor, Employment and Benefits Group. [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 ***