/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220428.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 79 Headlines 212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification A & L OF NY: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Wages, Suit Alleges BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Bid for Class Certification Tossed CARGILL INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges CASTLE STRATEGIC: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Akselrod COMCAST CABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Aweau Class Suit DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in California DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in Ohio and Delaware DRESS BARN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over False Reference Pricing DREYER'S GRAND: S.D. New York Dismisses Yu Suit Without Prejudice EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Lacon EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Joint Bid to Dismiss Alvarado Suit Granted FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Consumer Reviews, Dumelle Class Suit Says FCA US: Nuwer, et al File Bid for Class Certification FEDERAL EXPRESS: July 7 Class Certification Bid Filing Sought FUNDING METRICS: Class Certification in Letha's Pies Suit Reversed GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Gets Settlement for Defective Airbag Suit GOSSAMER BIO: $2.3 Million Settlement to be Heard on June 24 GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Barasch Securities Suit in Texas Court GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Disclosures Dispute GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in NY Court GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Business Malpractice Suit GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Wins Initial Approval of Class Settlement GSKILL USA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Misleading Advertised Speeds GTV MEDIA: June 6 Fixed as Claims Filing Deadline HP INC: Faces So Class Suit Over Malicious Firmware Updates INCGSGI INC: Parties in Vela Seek Approval of Conditional Status INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Levine Suit Denied INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Court Enters Consent Decree in Estevez Suit INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Action in Texas Court INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Action in Texas Court INVESTORS BANCORP: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JOBCO INCORPORATED: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Nod JZANUS LTD: Leah Mann Files Bid for Class Certification K I MOBILITY: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due Sept. 23 KELLER WILLIAMS: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to May 2 KEYSTONE CREDIT: Court Dismisses Barclift's Amended FDCPA Complaint LEGACY HEALTH: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hunter Suit LEGO SYSTEMS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Elli Alleges LEWIS BROTHERS: Provisional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought LIPPER COMPONENTS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Sheets Class Suit MED-TRANS CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Bradley MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Appeals Court Orders Dismissal of Verdini Suit MICRO FOCUS: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 29 MINDBODY INC: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 MOBILITYLESS LLC: Swenson, et al., File Bid for Class Status MORCONAVA GROUP: Roman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MOUNTAIN WEST: Jodie, Drange File Bid for Rule 23 Class Status NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Settlement to be Heard on June 27 OPHTHOTECH CORP: $29MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8 PANERA BREAD: Court Remands Sally Suit to St. Louis Circuit Court PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought PORTLAND GENERAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9 QUAKER OATS COMPANY: Winger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Remains Pending Class Cert. Resolution RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Okay SCWORX CORP: $3.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29 SMITHFIELD FRESH: Winking Class Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Wages SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Discovery & Cert Schedule Order Entered UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Court Narrows Claims in Hoelzer Suit UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Lewis Re-Notice of Class Cert Bid Nixed UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Bid for Lead Roles in Risley Suit Due June 7 VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Orders Rodriguez to Amend Pleading VILLA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Wages, Coulter Suit Says WALT DISNEY: District Court Issues Protective Order in Woodall Suit WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia WELLS FARGO: Becker, et al Seek to Certify Settlement Class WELLS FARGO: Faces Dowdy Suit Over Ponzi-like Fraudulent Scheme WELTMAN WEINBERG: Widmer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell Consumer Suit WISCONSIN: Peshek, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ZALE CORP: Faces Villalpando Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now ********* 212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINO MARTINENKO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. 212 STEAKHOUSE, INC., and NIKOLAY VOLPER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective. 212 Steakhouse offers an exclusive steak collection for the New York, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37t3gRu at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA collective, and proposed Class, are: Denise A. Schulman, Esq. D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 A & L OF NY: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Wages, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGUS CHEN, on behalf of himself and a class and collective of similarly situated individuals, v. A & L OF NY CORP d/b/a IZAKAYA TORIBAR, and SCOTT LEE, FRANK AHN, AND JOHN DOE AHN, in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 22-Civ-3139 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seeks to put an end to unlawful practices perpetrated by the Defendants which have deprived the Restaurant's service staff of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in hard-earned wages, and to provide redress to those whose wages have been unlawfully pilfered. The Defendants subjected Plaintiff, who worked as a Server, and other similarly-situated employees at Izakaya Toribar to numerous violations of federal and state laws during their employment, including: (a) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), section 650 et seq.; and (b) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Grub Street, New York Magazine's food and restaurant blog, recently listed Izakaya Toribar as one of the "Excellent Things to Eat, Drink, and Do in New York City." Unfortunately, when it comes to lawfully paying employees the wages they are owed, the busy midtown Japanese restaurant's record has been anything but "excellent," the lawsuit says. Rather, the owners of Izakaya Toribar have engaged in a scheme that can be described as nothing short of wage theft. Simply put, the Restaurant steals between 20% and 30% of the hourly wages and tips earned by service employees, purportedly as a "tax," the suit adds. Incredibly, the Restaurant tells its staff that they are being benefitted by this "tax" since the Restaurant pays them "off-the-books," and thus does not subject their wages to tax and other withholdings which would otherwise exceed 20-30%. However, the only party that benefits from this "tax" are Defendants who have lined their pockets with their staff's hard-earned money for years. Remarkably, Defendants carry out this unlawful scheme brazenly and out in the open. In fact, as discussed below, Defendants even document this practice every week on employee tip sheets. Angus Chen is a former service employee at Izakaya Toribar Toribar is a Japanese restaurant located at 164 East 56th Street, New York, New York. Defendant Scott Lee is a co-owner of Izakaya Toribar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. RAHMAN LAW P.C. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 920-4096 Facsimile: (347) 467-4142 E-mail: thr@rahmanlawyer.com BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al., on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant BANA is dismissed from this litigation, the Court says. On February 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Schertzer, Hicks and Covell initiated this proposed (or putative) class action by filing suit. The basis of Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the fees charged by BANA to its account holders for balance inquiries performed at out-of-network (OON) Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). On May 31, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed alleging original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 and, specifically under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2) and setting forth a total of thirteen claims against the defendants individually and collectively. Combined, the claims were for: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2) conversion; (3) negligence; (4) violation of the California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (5) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (6) breach of contract; and (7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On March 4, 2020, this court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 24, 2020, the operative third amend complaint was filed, again claiming original jurisdiction under CAFA. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff Hicks and Defendant Cash Depot filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was granted by the court. Cash Depot was dismissed as a party to this litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OvE655 at no extra charge.[CC] CARGILL INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES FUTRELL and APRIL BROWN, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Case No. 0:22-cv-00969 (D. Minn., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Cargill to the Plaintiffs and Cargill's other non-overtime-exempt worker, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Cargill's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack. Cargill's alleged failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all hours worked to its workers across the United States violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Overtime Law. Like many other companies across the United States, Cargill's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Cargill's organization. As a result, Cargill's workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. James Futrell and April Brown are two such Cargill workers. Cargill could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn’t. Instead, Cargill did not pay its non-exempt hourly and salaried employees their full overtime premium for all overtime hours worked, as required by federal law, the lawsuit says. Cargill pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Cargill 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, the lawsiut says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rolf T. Fiebiger, Esq. FIEBIGER LAW LLC 6800 France Ave. S., Ste. 190 Edina, MN 55435 Telephone (612) 888-6084 E-mail: rolf@fiebigerlaw.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999 5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law CASTLE STRATEGIC: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Akselrod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG AKSELROD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CASTLE STRATEGIC PROPERTIES, LLC and ZACHARY ALEXANDRE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01529-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order modifying the class certification deadlines as follows: Previous New Deadline Dealine -- Deadline for Completion April 8, 2022 May 23, 2022 of Fact and Expert Discovery: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs May 10, 2022 June 24, 2022 to File Motion for Class Certification (Briefing deadlines shall conform with Local Rule 7): Castle Strategic is a real estate investment firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Or7NUYat no extra charge.[CC] COMCAST CABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Aweau Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANNEL AWEAU, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-05675-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The Parties shall complete all class discovery no later than May 19, 2022; 2. The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification no later than June 9, 2022; 3. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for class certification no later than June 30, 2022; 4. A Class Certification Hearing is scheduled for July 14, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14A, United States District Court, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106; 5. The Parties may conduct discovery remotely at their discretion; and 6. In accordance with Rule 1 and the conciliation requirements of Local Rule 26.1(f), Counsel shall make reasonable efforts to resolve discovery disputes among themselves in an expeditious and professional manner. Before bringing a discovery dispute to my attention, Counsel must certify that they have made a reasonable effort to resolve the dispute. Comcast Cable is an American telecommunications company and division of Comcast Corporation used to market consumer cable television, internet, telephone, and wireless services provided by the company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K7ubiO at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in California ---------------------------------------------------- Diamondhead Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2022, that David T. Hamamoto, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, was named as an individual defendant in several class actions (and two derivative lawsuits) filed between April and July 2018 in connection with the merger of Colony Capital and NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. (which Hamamoto formerly headed) and the merged company's performance thereafter. Three were in federal court in California, three in state court in California and two in state court in Maryland. The lawsuits generally share a factual nexus, and allege securities law violations and other claims against all defendants, including Mr. Hamamoto. Presently, only one federal and one (consolidated) state case are pending. Diamondhead Holdings is an early stage blank check company recently incorporated as a Delaware corporation and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in Ohio and Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Diamondhead Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2022, that David T. Hamamoto, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, was named as an individual defendant in several 2021 class actions and derivative lawsuits filed in connection with the DiamondPeak-Lordstown Motors merger and claims relating to Lordstown vehicle pre-orders and production timeline; seven in federal court in Ohio, four in federal court in Delaware and four in chancery court in Delaware. The lawsuits generally share a factual nexus, and allege securities law violations and other claims against all defendants, including Mr. Hamamoto. Diamondhead Holdings is an early stage blank check company recently incorporated as a Delaware corporation and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. DRESS BARN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over False Reference Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------- JAIMIE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE DRESS BARN, INC., a Connecticut Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00656-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) alleges that Dress Barn engages in a false and misleading reference price scheme in the marketing and selling of its products on its Dress Barn e-commerce website. Sellers substantially benefit from employing false reference pricing schemes and experience increased sales because consumers use advertised reference prices to make purchase decisions. The information available to consumers can vary significantly amongst different types of products. Nonetheless, consumers frequently lack fundamental information about a product and as a result often rely on information from sellers to make purchase decisions, especially when a product's value or quality is otherwise difficult to discern. Discounts of products benefit both sellers and their customers—when they are legitimate. To the detriment of consumers, as stated by the Ninth Circuit, sellers are "well aware of consumers' susceptibility to a bargain, [and] therefore have an incentive to lie to their customers. Products perceived by consumers as discounted are thus not always actual bargains, and consumers' perceptions can stem directly from sellers' deceptions. This class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its own deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and corresponding 13 phantom discounts on its e-commerce website, dressbarn.com, where it sells women's 14 clothing and other related items. False reference pricing occurs when a seller fabricates a false "original" price for a product and then offers that product at a substantially lower price under the guise of a sale. The resulting artificial price disparity misleads consumers into believing the product they are buying has a higher market value, and it induces them into purchasing the product. This practice artificially inflates the true market price for these products by raising consumers' internal reference price and in turn the value consumers ascribe to these products (i.e., demand). Consequently, false reference pricing schemes enable retailers, like Defendant, to sell products above their true market price and value -- and consumers are left to pay the price. Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more products through dressbarn.com that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false reference price. Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased products tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 DREYER'S GRAND: S.D. New York Dismisses Yu Suit Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit entitled LAUREN YU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 8512 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.). On Oct. 13, 2020, Lauren Yu brought the putative class action against Dreyer's, alleging that the representations on the label of certain Dreyer's ice cream bars sold under its Haagen-Dazs brand are misleading in violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), along with other claims. In an opinion and order dated March 16, 2022, the Court dismissed all of Yu's claims and granted her leave to replead by April 6, 2022. The Court's order specifically concluded, "Yu may file any amended complaint by April 6, 2022. If she does not, the case will be closed." District Judge Edgardo Ramos notes that Yu has neither filed any amended complaint nor requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, he dismisses the action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p98ncc7 from Leagle.com. EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Lacon -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN LACON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATION PRINCIPLE FOUNDATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03957-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- All motions to amend the Complaint April 22, 2022 and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before: -- Affirmative expert reports, if any, July 8, 2022 are due by: -- Rebuttal expert reports, if any, August 8, 2022 are due by: -- The Parties shall complete all Sept. 12, 2022 discovery by: -- Motions for class certification, October 3, 2022 if any, shall be filed by: -- Responses, if any, shall be October 31, 2022 filed by: -- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: November 14, 2022 -- Sur-replies, if any, shall be November 21, 2022 filed by: A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L84W1k at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Joint Bid to Dismiss Alvarado Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the parties' joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JESUS ALVARADO, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0050-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against Defendants LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. ("Lexis") and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. on Jan. 13, 2022. On March 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice against LexisNexis, thereby, terminating that the Defendant from the action. On April 7, 2022, the parties jointly moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss claims against the lone remaining Defendant, Experian, and, thus, the action in its entirety. District Judge Cynthia Bashant notes that under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Crucially, "prior to certification" a named plaintiff may dismiss claims on behalf of a putative class under Rule 41(a)(1) because Rule 23(e) does not provide the district court with any supervisory authority over such dismissals, nor does it require notice to the absent class members, Judge Bashant explains, citing Ripley v. Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., No. C09-1482 RSM, 2010 WL 11684294, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2010). Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by its text permits voluntary dismissal by filing a compliant stipulation, the local civil rules of this district require that such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion, Judge Bashant points out. Having considered the parties' request, the Court construes the parties' stipulation as a Joint Motion to dismiss this action and grants that Joint Motion. Thus, it dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's individual claims against Experian and dismisses without prejudice the claims of the putative class. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3rpv2x from Leagle.com. FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Consumer Reviews, Dumelle Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE DUMELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-60741 (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2022) is a class action regarding Defendant's intentional suppression of hundreds of thousands of 1-star, 2-star, and 3-star consumer reviews from its online website to artificially inflate the value of its products. When shopping online, consumers heavily rely on reviews from fellow shoppers. In fact, 93% of adults in the United States read reviews before making online purchases. Fashion Nova, an almost exclusively online retailer, has made millions of dollars selling clothing, apparel, accessories, and more on its website, fashionnova.com. Taking advantage of the fact that prospective consumers rely on fellow consumers' reviews prior to making an online purchase, Defendant intentionally suppressed Lower-Starred Reviews for all Products on its website. Had Defendant not engaged in these deceptive and unfair practices, the average ratings, and inherent value to prospective consumers, of Defendant's Products would have been lower. Moreover, the written reviews would have provided more information to prospective consumers, including concerns over the quality of the Products, prior to deciding whether to purchase said Products. As a result, had Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred Reviews, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased a number of Products, or would have paid substantially less for the Products, because the Products would have been rated poorly and deterred Plaintiff and other consumers from making purchases. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Products for violations of the consumer protections laws of Florida. Ms. Dumelle purchased multiple dresses from Defendant's website in November 2018. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misrepresentations, material omissions, and deceptive practices in its website, Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers have suffered actual injuries from their purchase of one or more of the Products because Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid significantly less for them, had Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred Reviews.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel L. Miller, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: rmiller@bursor.com FCA US: Nuwer, et al File Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the classes defined by Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3); -- The Nationwide Class (excluding California): "All persons in the United States (excluding the State of California) who currently own or lease, or who have owned or leased, one or more vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, which are equipped with headrests containing the defective AHR;" -- The Florida Subclass: "All persons who purchased or leased one or more vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, in Florida, which vehicles were installed with headrests containing the defective AHR. -- The New York Subclass: "All persons who purchased or leased one or more vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, in New York, which vehicles were installed with headrests containing the defective AHR. 2. designating them as Class Representatives; and 3. designating Benjamin J. Widlanski and the law firm of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton as Class Counsel. Chrysler allegedly sold and leased vehicles with dangerously defective AHRs for more than a decade. In 2008, Chrysler and Grammer Industries began to manufacture AHRs which they had designed to spring forward to support drivers' and passengers' heads and necks in the event of a significant rear-end collision. As designed, the forward-facing padded surface of the Chrysler headrest is mounted to a plastic carriage that is loaded by pre-tensioned springs when stowed in the headrest prior to deployment. Chrysler is one of the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the United States, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 5, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JZN1s1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Gail McQuilkin, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Katherine Mitchell, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com hst@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com kmitchell@kttlaw.com - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. Alissa Del Riego, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One S.E. 3 rd Ave., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravanteiii@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com adelriego@podhurst.com - and - Michael Burger, Esq. SANTIAGO BURGER LLP 2280 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14610 Telephone: (585) 563-2400 Facsimile: (585) 563-7526 E-mail: mike@litgrp.com - and - George Franjola, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE FRANJOLA 233 SW 3rd St., Suite 3 Ocala, FL 34471 Telephone: (352) 812-0462 E-mail: gfranjola@franjolalaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: July 7 Class Certification Bid Filing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE DEAN BLOOM, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-04855-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to the following dates: -- Last day for Plaintiffs to file a July 7, 2022 motion for class certification and to serve their expert disclosures and reports related to class certification -- Last day for Defendant to file an August 22, 2022 opposition brief to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to concurrently file its expert disclosures and reports related to class certification: FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce and services based in Memphis, Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExieBK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq. Meghan N. Higday, Esq. WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 674-4922 E-mail: jacob@jnwpc.com mhigday@jnwpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas J. Moran, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 8 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 862-4585 Facsimile: (901) 492-5641 E-mail: thomas.moran@fedex.com FUNDING METRICS: Class Certification in Letha's Pies Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled FUNDING METRICS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A QUICK FIX CAPITAL AND LENDINI; JOHN DOES 1-10; AND JOHN DOES 11-20, Appellants v. LETHA'S PIES, LLC, AN ARKANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; RHONDA GLENN, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND TIMOTHY GLENN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-21-448 (Ark.), the Supreme Court of Arkansas reverses and remands the circuit court's order granting class certification. The Appellant, Funding Metrics, LLC, appeals the Washington County Circuit Court's June 23, 2021 order granting class certification in a lawsuit brought by Appellees Letha's Pies, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company; and Rhonda Glenn and Timothy Glenn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (hereinafter "Letha's Pies") for alleged violations of the Arkansas Securities Act. Letha's Pies sells frozen pies to restaurants. In 2017, Letha's Pies entered into a written agreement (the "Merchant Agreement") to sell Funding Metrics $21,900 of Letha's Pies' future receivables in exchange for an immediate payment of $15,000 by Funding Metrics. Pursuant to the Merchant Agreement, Funding Metrics was allowed to withdraw from Letha's Pies' depository accounts a daily amount corresponding to 11.38 percent of Letha's Pies' daily receipts. Letha's Pies also agreed to pay a one-time 8% origination fee. The Glenns signed the agreement on behalf of Letha's Pies. The terms of the Merchant Agreement included a choice-of-law provision stating that any litigation relating to the agreement would be brought in the state or federal courts of New York. Additionally, the Merchant Agreement contained a class-action-waiver provision. Letha's Pies paid the contracted amount. In July 2019, Letha's Pies filed a class-action complaint against Funding Metrics, claiming that it promoted and sold securities in violation of Arkansas law. Funding Metrics moved to dismiss in part based on the forum-selection provision and class-action waiver, and also asserted the Merchant Agreement was not a security. Letha's Pies amended its complaint and Funding Metrics again moved to dismiss. On Feb. 5, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing and concluded that it was required to accept Letha's Pies' allegation that the agreement was a security. The circuit court found that the forum-selection clause was valid and required dismissal of one of Letha's Pies' claims, but that it did not apply to claims that allegedly arose before the parties entered into the Merchant Agreement. The circuit court denied Funding Metrics' request to enforce the class-action waiver based on its finding that the agreement lacked mutuality of obligation. On Feb. 27, 2020, Letha's Pies filed a second amended class-action complaint, the operative complaint in this appeal. Letha's Pies alleged three causes of action: (1) failure to register the Merchant Agreement with the Arkansas Securities Department, (2) promotion of securities by an unregistered broker or dealer, and (3) fraud in connection with the sale of a security. On March 18, Funding Metrics filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and motion to strike class claims arguing that it was time-barred and reiterated its arguments regarding the forum-selection clause and class waiver. Funding Metrics also contended that the expanded class was untenable. On June 29, the circuit court denied Funding Metrics' motion to dismiss the second complaint and motion to strike. On July 14, Funding Metrics filed its answer and affirmative defenses and a counterclaim for its costs based on an indemnification clause in the agreement. After discovery, Letha's Pies moved for class certification. On June 23, 2021, the circuit court granted Letha's Pies' motion. The court found that the waiver provision was not enforceable and certified two classes: (1) Predominant Class: All Arkansas individuals and/or entities that entered into a Merchant Agreement with Funding Metrics through its subsidiaries, Quick Fix Capital and Lendini, at any time within three years prior to filing of the Letha's Pies' Complaint through the date of final disposition of this action; and (2) Ancillary Class: All Arkansas individuals and/or entities that have received communications promoting a Quick Fix Capital or Lendini Merchant Agreement at any time within three years prior to filing of the Letha's Pies' Complaint through the date of final disposition of this action. From the order granting class certification, Funding Metrics appeals and argues that the circuit court abused its discretion (1) by refusing to enforce the class-action waiver in the Merchant Agreement as a bar to class certification; (2) by holding that Letha's Pies met their burden of proving that common questions predominate and a class action is superior under Rule 23; and (3) by certifying the ancillary class, which was overbroad as defined to include class members, who lack standing and suffered no harm. The Supreme Court reverses and remands. Law and Analysis Associate Justice Karen R. Baker, writing for the Panel, notes that an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order certifying a case as a class action in accordance with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Circuit courts are given broad discretion in matters regarding class certification. Points on Appeal For its first point on appeal, Funding Metrics contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the class-action waiver. The circuit court found that the waiver was void, explaining in its order that the Merchant Agreement at issue does not contain a mandatory arbitration provision. Funding Metrics contends that the circuit court erred and asserts that there is no legal basis for the circuit court's refusal to hold Letha's Pies to the class-action waiver. Further, Funding Metrics asserts that the waiver is valid under Arkansas contract and security law and New York law. Specifically, Funding Metrics contends that the circuit court's reasoning conflicts with this Court's holding in Jorja Trading, Inc. v. Willis, 2020 Ark. 133, 598 S.W.3d 1. Funding Metrics argues that under this Court's precedent, the class-action-waiver provision is enforceable. In Jorja Trading, the Supreme Court upheld a class-action-waiver provision contained in an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that class-action waivers were valid under Arkansas law. With respect to the arbitration agreement as a whole, the Supreme Court held that the agreement was subject to Arkansas contract law. Letha's Pies contends that the absence of an arbitration agreement and the inapplicability of the Federal Arbitration Act determines the viability of the class-action waiver. However, in Jorja Trading, the Supreme Court specifically addressed Arkansas contract law and held that the class waiver there did not turn on application of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, concludes that the class-action waiver is enforceable pursuant to Arkansas contract law. Further, the Supreme Court is not persuaded by the argument that the waiver is inapplicable. Letha's Pies contends that the class-action waiver does not apply here because Funding Metrics is not seeking to enforce the Merchant Agreement but rather to enforce the Arkansas Securities Act. Letha's Pies contends that Funding Metrics' liability exists independently of the execution of the Merchant Agreement and neither the class-action waiver nor any of the other contract terms apply. The Supreme Court disagrees. Judge Baker explains that the parties' relationship is governed by the Merchant Agreement, and the language of the class-action waiver is broad--waiving any right to assert any claims against the other party as a representative action, except where such waiver is prohibited by law as against public policy. Also, the operative complaint here seeks recission of the agreement, and return of fees and profits obtained under the Merchant Agreement. Finally, the Supreme Court rejects the argument that the waiver is invalid pursuant to Arkansas securities law. Letha's Pies relies on language in the Arkansas Securities Act that states that parties cannot waive compliance with the Act: "Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or any rule or order under this chapter is void," Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-42-109 (Repl. 2012). The parties, however, contracted to waive their right to pursue a class action, and there is no provision in the Arkansas Securities Act regarding class actions, Judge Baker finds. Although Letha's Pies waived its right to bring a class-action, it did not "waive compliance with any provision rule or order" set forth in the Arkansas Securities Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court finds merit in Funding Metrics' argument and reverses the class-certification order because the waiver is enforceable. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not reach the remaining points on appeal. The Supreme Court reverses the circuit court's order granting class certification and remands the matter for an order consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/efb8yypr from Leagle.com. Eldridge Brooks, PLLC, by: Conner Eldridge -- conner@eldridgebrooks.com -- and Emily A. Neal -- emily@eldridgebrooks.com -- for the Appellant. RMP, LLP, by: Timothy C. Hutchinson, Larry McCredy, Bo Renner, and Lisa M. Geary; and Bishop Law Firm, by: Matt Bishop -- matt@bishoplawfirm.org -- for the Appellees. GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Gets Settlement for Defective Airbag Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the company was a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit captioned "In re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation" in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against General Motors related to the economic loss associated with certain model vehicles previously subject to recall for ignition switches, electronic power steering, and side impact airbags, for model years 1997-2014. On November 30, 2021, CarMax received $22.6 million in net recoveries from the GM settlement fund. CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia. GOSSAMER BIO: $2.3 Million Settlement to be Heard on June 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ A Federal Court has authorized the following Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Please read the Notice carefully. A $2.375 million settlement has been reached for investors in Gossamer Bio, Inc. stock between February 8, 2019, and December 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or who acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable to Gossamer's Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO (the "Class"). If you are a member of the Class, your legal rights will be affected whether you act or not. Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB Notice of Pendency of Class Action: Please be advised that your rights may be affected by the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), if, during the period between February 8, 2019 and December 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you purchased or otherwise acquired Gossamer Bio, Inc. ("Gossamer" or the "Company") common stock, and/or acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable to Gossamer's Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO. Notice of Settlement: Please also be advised that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, has reached a proposed settlement of this Action for $2,375,000 in cash that, if approved, would resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). Please read the Notice carefully. It explains important rights you may have, including the possible receipt of cash from the Settlement. If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected whether or not you act. If you have any questions about the Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, please do not contact Gossamer, any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel. Questions should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. This Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending Action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in materials accompanying Gossamer's IPO and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The Defendants deny each and every claim and contention alleged in the Action and deny any misconduct or wrongdoing whatsoever. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle all claims of the Class. Subject to Court approval, Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, has agreed to settle the Action in exchange for a settlement payment of $2,375,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") to be deposited into an escrow account. The Net Settlement Fund (i.e., the Settlement Amount plus any and all interest earned thereon (the "Settlement Fund") less (i) the amount of the Fee and Expense Award and any award to Lead Plaintiff as allowed under the PSLRA, if and to the extent allowed by the Court; (ii) Notice and Administration Expenses; (iii) Taxes and Tax Expenses; and (iv) any other fees or expenses approved by the Court. The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation that is approved by the Court, which will determine how the Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated among members of the Class. Based on Lead Plaintiff's damages expert's estimates of the number of shares of Gossamer common stock purchased during the Class Period that may have been affected by the matters at issue in the Action, and assuming that all Class Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the estimated average recovery (before the deduction of any Court-approved fees, expenses and costs as described herein) per eligible security is approximately 6 cents per share. Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing average recovery per share is only an estimate. Some Class Members may recover more or less than this estimated amount depending on, among other factors, when and at what prices they purchased/acquired or sold their Gossamer common stock and the total number of valid Claim Forms submitted. Distributions to Class Members will be made based on the Plan of Allocation set forth on Page 8 of the Notice or such other plan of allocation as may be ordered by the Court. The Parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share that would be recoverable if Lead Plaintiff was to prevail in the Action. Among other things, Defendants do not agree with the assertion that they violated the federal securities laws or that any damages were suffered by any members of the Class as a result of their conduct. Lead Counsel, who have been prosecuting the Action on a wholly contingent basis since its inception in 2020, have not received any payment of attorneys' fees for their representation of the Class and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute this Action. Court appointed Lead Counsel, Block & Leviton LLP, will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed $60,000, which may include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to his representation of the Class. Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court, or any Lead Plaintiff Award, shall be paid solely from the Settlement Fund and shall be paid to Lead Counsel, or with respect to a Lead Plaintiff Award, paid to Lead Plaintiff, within five days following an award ordered by the Court, provided that there has been final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the Court. If there is any appeal of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or of a Lead Plaintiff Award, Lead Counsel shall repay to the Settlement Fund any amount of attorneys' fees or expenses reversed on appeal. Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. Estimates of the average cost per affected share of Gossamer common stock, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, is 2 cents per eligible share. Lead Plaintiff and the Class are represented by Block & Leviton LLP, 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860, Boston, MA 02110. You may contact attorney Jacob A. Walker at jake@blockleviton.com, or at (617) 398-5600. Lead Plaintiff's principal reason for entering into the Settlement is the substantial immediate cash benefit for the Class without the risk or the delays inherent in further litigation. Moreover, the substantial cash benefit provided under the Settlement must be considered against the significant risk that a smaller recovery -- or indeed no recovery at all -– might be achieved after motions for class certification, summary judgment, a trial of the Action, and the likely appeals that would follow a trial. This process could be expected to last several years. Defendants, who deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, are entering into the Settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. Your Legal Rights and Options in the Settlement Submit a claim. Submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 7, 2022. This is the only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement Fund. If you are a Class Member and you remain in the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement as approved by the Court and you will give up any Released Claims (as defined on pages 5-6 of the Notice) that you have against Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties (as defined on pages 5-6 of the Notice), so it is in your interest to submit a Claim Form. Exclude yourself. Exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written exclusion so that it is received by no later than June 3, 2022. If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be eligible to receive any payment from the Settlement Fund. This is the only option that allows you ever to be part of any other lawsuit against any of the Defendants or the other Released Defendant Parties concerning the Released Claims. Object. Object to the Settlement by submitting a written objection so that it is received no later than June 3, 2022. If you do not like the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, you may write to the Court and explain why you do not like them. You cannot object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation or the fee and expense request unless you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class. Appear at a hearing. Attend a hearing on June 24, 2022 and file a Notice of Intention to Appear so that it is received no later than June 3, 2022. Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear by June 3, 2022, allows you to speak in Court, at the discretion of the Court, about the fairness of the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. If you submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing and, at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection. Do nothing. If you are a member of the Class and you do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive any payment from the Settlement Fund. You will, however, remain a member of the Class, which means that you give up your right to sue about the claims that are resolved by the Settlement, and you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Gossamer Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Claims Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 1-833-554-0994 www.GossamerSecuritiesLitigation.com info@GossamerSecuritiesLitigation.com Block & Leviton LLP Attn: Jacob A. Walker 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Email: jake@blockleviton.com Capitalized terms used in the Notice and throughout this website that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Class Action Settlement dated February 1, 2022 (the "Stipulation"). GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Barasch Securities Suit in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------ GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas filed in November 2019 against GPB, GPB-managed limited partnerships, AAS and Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund administrator, and individuals. The original complaint was captioned "Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay, individually and on behalf of others similar situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." with Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff, but since her death, her trust has successfully moved to substitute for all purposes in this litigation. The complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, declaratory relief, among other forms of relief. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Disclosures Dispute ------------------------------------------------------ GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a consolidated class action filed in New York Supreme Court in May 2020 captioned "GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation." Case that were consolidated were "Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." and "Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in NY Court -------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed in November 2019, against GPB, GPB Holdings II, the Partnership, David Gentile, Jeffery Lash, AAS, Axiom, Jeffry Schneider, Mark Martino and Ascendant under case captioned "Barbara Deluca and Drew R. Naylor, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP et al." The complaint alleges, among other things, fraud and material omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas filed in October 2019, against GPB, certain limited partnerships, including the Partnership, for which GPB is the general partner, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator and other individuals under case captioned "Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al" The complaint alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and certain equitable relief. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Business Malpractice Suit ------------------------------------------------------ GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a class action filed in New York Supreme Court in May 2020 captioned "Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. GPB Capital Holdings LLC, Automile Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Prime Automotive Group), David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and individuals." The complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices of the defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products related to the same throughout the State of New York. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and penalties. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New York. GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Wins Initial Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certifying Class for Purposes of Settlement, Directing Notice to the Class, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing in the lawsuit entitled KATRINA WALLACE, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV501 (M.D.N.C.). The Plaintiff and Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Greystar Management Services, L.P., Greystar RS SE, LLP, GREP Southeast, LLC, and Innesbrook Apartments, LLC d/b/a Southpoint Glen (collectively, "the Parties"), have reached a Settlement Agreement resolving the action. The Court, having reviewed the Proposed Order, the Settlement Agreement, and Declaration by the Plaintiff's council ("Harris Declaration"), finds that the Settlement Agreement and defined class are appropriate for preliminary approval and certification. Therefore, Judge Biggs grants the Unopposed Motion, subject to terms and conditions set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only Judge Biggs rules that the proposed Settlement Agreement submitted with the Motion, is preliminarily approved, as it appears fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, subject to final consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing. For settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court provisionally certifies the Classes defined as: Collection Letter Class: natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter; and Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees. Class Counsel and Class Representative Finding that the factors of Rule 23(g) have been satisfied for the purpose of settlement only, the Court appoints Edward H. Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis Howard, and Scott C. Harris and Patrick M. Wallace of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Any member of the Settlement Class, who does not elect to be excluded may, but need not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement Class members, who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys, will be represented by Class Counsel. For the purposes of settlement only, the Court further appoints Plaintiff Katrina Wallace as the representative of the Classes. Preliminary Approval The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as describing a settlement that is within the range of settlements that the Court would find to be fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court's preliminary approval is subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the Settlement and to show cause, if any exists, why a Final Order and Judgment dismissing this action based on the Settlement should not be entered, after due and adequate notice has been provided to the Class and a fairness hearing has been held as otherwise ordered here. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from arm's-length negotiations, extensive investigation, and motions practice, and that the proposed settlement is sufficiently fair and reasonable so as to warrant notice thereof to the Classes, and to warrant a hearing concerning the settlement and the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Notice to Settlement Classes, Opt-In Procedure, and Appointment of Settlement Administrator The Court finds that the manner and content of the Settlement Notice as set forth in Section IV.C of the Settlement Agreement and in the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement will provide the best notice practicable to the Classes under the circumstances. The manner and forms of Notice to be sent to members of the Putative Settlement Class set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement and in the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement are hereby approved and the provisions thereof are incorporated into this Order so that upon entry of this Order, the Parties are directed to ensure that the Notice is disseminated according to the terms of Section IV.C of the Settlement Agreement. The Notice Period must commence within 14 days after the entry of this Order and will be substantially complete no later than 45 days after the entry of this Order via electronic mail, first-class mail, an Internet website, and a toll-free number as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator will provide the notification required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 to each Appropriate Federal Official and to each Appropriate State Official. Requests for Exclusion from the Classes Any Class Member, who wishes to be excluded from the proposed settlement, must send a written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator, in care of the post office box rented for that purpose within 60 days of this Order. In the event the Settlement receives final approval, any Class Member, who does not send a timely written request for exclusion meeting the conditions described in the foregoing paragraph will be bound by the final settlement and by all subsequent proceedings, orders and judgments in this action, even if such person has pending or subsequently initiates litigation or other proceedings against any Released Persons relating to matters or the claims released in this action. Objections to the Settlement Any Class Member, who does not file a timely written request for exclusion, may object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement. Class Members may not seek to exclude themselves from the Classes and file an objection to the proposed settlement. Any Class Member, who wishes to object to any aspect of the Settlement, must deliver to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, and file with the Court, within 60 days of this Order a written statement of his/her objection(s). Class Members may raise an objection either on their own or through an attorney hired at their own expense. Any Class Member, who fails to comply with the provisions of the subsections concerning objections will waive and forfeit any and all rights he or she may have to appear separately and/or object and will be bound by all the terms of the settlement and by all proceedings, orders and judgments in this action. Approval and Appointment of Settlement Administrator The Court approves and appoints CPT Group to administer certain aspects of the settlement, including providing notice to the Class; establishing and maintaining the Settlement Website; receiving and maintaining correspondence regarding requests for exclusion, intervention and objections to the settlement; responding to inquiries from Class members received through the Settlement Website, or by first-class mail or by telephone; and assisting the Defendants' Counsel and Class Counsel with other aspects of the settlement as necessary and directed by Counsel. CPT Group is appointed as the Claims Administrator. Fairness Hearing Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court will hold a hearing to determine whether the Settlement Agreement and its terms are fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the members of the Settlement Classes, and whether a final judgment as to the Plaintiff's claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement should be entered granting final approval of the Settlement (the "Fairness Hearing"). Schedule These deadlines will apply unless modified by further order of the Court: a. Notices in the form of the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement will be sent to Class Members as provided in the Settlement, within 14 days after entry of this Order; b. Notices will be made available through the Settlement Website no later than the date the first Class Notice is sent by electronic mail; c. Class Members will have 60 calendar days following the mailing of notice to postmark, email, or fax required Claim Forms to the Settlement Administrator, as provided in the Settlement; d. Any exclusions and objections to the Settlement Agreement will be submitted within 60 calendar days after the mailing date of the Notice; e. Any notices to appear at the Fairness Hearing will be filed within 67 calendar days after the mailing date of the Notice; f. The Fairness Hearing will be held at 10:00 A.M. on July 22, 2022, in Courtroom No. 4 of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (approx. 90 days from this Order); g. The parties will file and serve papers in support of final approval of the settlement, including any responses to proper and timely objections filed thereto, by June 24, 2022 (approx. 80 days from this Order); and h. Class Counsel will file with the Court their petition for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and request for an incentive award to the Plaintiff no later than on June 24, 2022 (approx. 80 days from this Order). A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytmct5p5 from Leagle.com. GSKILL USA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Misleading Advertised Speeds --------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Gskill USA, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-06175 (W.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to inform purchasers that the advertised speeds are not attainable without the modifications described, which may result in the other issues. The Defendant markets its products with lifetime warranties, which consumers understand to mean if there is an issue with a product they buy, Defendant will fix or replace it, for the duration of the product's use. However, the Defendant fails to honor the lifetime warranties by not replacing or repairing products which are non-functional. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully market and describe the components, attributes, and features of a product, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than $129, 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. Gskill manufactures, labels, markets, and sells RAM products which provide high-speed computer memory, such as its Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 MHz, to users who want to improve their computer's performance in games or other uses. The representations of Defendant and third-parties acting on its behalf describe the Product as having "Blazing Fast Transfer Speed," which "lets you enjoy a faster computing experience for gaming, video & image editing, rendering, and data processing." Memory speed refers to the speed of computers in terms of megahertz ("MHz"). RAM with greater MHz will have faster memory and perform at higher levels. The Product can be plugged into the memory slots of a computer. These representations are made by Defendant and at its directions, including in stores and on websites of third-parties. However, the Product cannot reach these speeds unless the computer's firmware is modified through "overclocking," which theoretically optimizes the system’s performance. Overclocking memory requires adjusting the computer’s Basic Input/Output System ("BIOS") or Unified Extensible Firmware Interface ("UEFI") settings. These settings control how a computer operates and can only be accessed through specialized keyboard controls. The user must then locate settings for RAM frequency (its MHz speed), increase it to the target speed, i.e., 4000 MHz, and change multiple memory "timing" settings, which interact with the frequency settings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com GTV MEDIA: June 6 Fixed as Claims Filing Deadline ------------------------------------------------- If you purchased GTV common stock and/or the digital asset security referred to as G-Coins or G-Dollars between April 2020 and June 2020, you may be eligible for a distribution payment from the GTV Media Group Fair Fund. JND Legal Administration announces that on September 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued an Order instituting and simultaneously settling cease-and-desist proceedings against Respondents GTV Media Group, Inc. ("GTV"), Saraca Media Group, Inc. ("Saraca"), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. In the Order, the SEC found that from approximately April 2020 through June 2020, Respondents generally solicited thousands of individuals to invest in the GTV Common Stock offering. The SEC further found that during the same period, GTV and Saraca ("the G Entities") also solicited individuals to invest in the Digital Asset offering. According to the Order, as a result of these two unregistered securities offerings, whose proceeds were commingled, Respondents collectively raised approximately $487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States. The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay $486,745,063 in disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest of $17,688,365 and $35,000,000 in civil money penalties, for a total of $539,433,428, to the SEC. The SEC also created the Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties paid, along with the disgorgement and interest paid, can be distributed to harmed investors. To date, the Respondents have paid a total of $455,439,194.49. Any additional funds collected from the Respondents pursuant to the Order will be added to the Fair Fund. The Fair Fund has been deposited at the United States Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service ("BFS") for investment. G Entities [Relevant Period start and end dates (inclusive)]: * GTV Common Stock [4/20/2020 through 6/2/2020]; and * G-Dollars or G-Coins [4/1/2020 through 6/30/2020]; On October 14, 2021, the SEC appointed Miller Kaplan Arase LLP as Tax Administrator. The SEC also appointed JND Legal Administration as Fund Administrator (the "Fund Administrator") on November 23, 2021. The SEC approved a plan for the distribution of the GTV Media Group Fair Fund (the "Plan"). The Plan is publicly available at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com, and available on the SEC's webpage for this matter at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/gtv-media-group.htm. If you purchased one or more of the securities listed above during the corresponding Relevant Period(s) and would like to be considered for eligibility for a distribution from the GTV Media Group Fair Fund, you must submit a completed and signed Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"), including adequate supporting documentation of your purchases and a completed tax certification, to the Fund Administrator by the Claims Bar Date. Please note that the claim filing deadline for this matter is June 6, 2022. The Claim Form is available at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com. You may submit your Claim Form online no later than 11:59 p.m. PT on the Claims Bar Date following the directions at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com/claim. Alternatively, you may send your Claim Form to the Fund Administrator. Claim Forms must be postmarked no later than the Claims Bar Date if sent by First Class Mail; and if not by First Class Mail, received by the Fund Administrator by the Claims Bar Date. If not submitted online, Claim Forms should be directed to the following address: GTV Media Group Fair Fund c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91403 Seattle, WA 98111 Additional information regarding the GTV Media Group Fair Fund, including the Distribution Plan, the Plan Notice, the Claim Form, relevant deadlines, and related materials are available on the Distribution Website at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com. You may obtain additional information or request copies of the Claim Form by contacting the Fund Administrator toll-free at 866-853-5013, emailing info@GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com, or writing to: GTV Media Group Fair Fund c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91403 Seattle, WA 98111 Please check the website www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com frequently for updates. HP INC: Faces So Class Suit Over Malicious Firmware Updates ----------------------------------------------------------- HENRY SO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. HP, INC. d/b/a HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-02327-NC (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2022) alleges that HP wrongfully compels users of its printers to buy and use only HP ink and toner supplies by transmitting firmware updates without authorization to HP printers over the Internet that lock out its competitors' refilled, new build, or remanufactured ink and toner supply cartridges. HP's firmware "updates" act as malware -- adding, deleting or altering code, diminishing the capabilities of HP printers, and rendering third-party cartridges incompatible with HP printers ("malicious firmware updates"). As a result, and by HP's design, Plaintiff and Class Members who reasonably and lawfully buy competitors' much less costly and equally effective supplies are left with useless printers and supply cartridges, the lawsuit says. HP has marketed and sold its standard HP printers as capable of printing using HP Original Supplies as well as refilled or third-party cartridges. The Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and exemplary damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring HP to reverse the effects of its malware transmissions insofar as they render once-compatible ink cartridges obsolete and prohibiting HP from sending such transmissions in the future without obtaining the fully informed consent of each printer owner. HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology company headquartered in Palo Alto, California, that develops personal computers, printers and related supplies, as well as 3D printing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com INCGSGI INC: Parties in Vela Seek Approval of Conditional Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE VELA, on his own behalf and On behalf of those similarly situated, v. INCGSGI, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and DANIEL K. COSTOULAS, Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-59-FtM-66NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving conditional certification and court-authorized notice under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for a stay of the proceedings, until the completion of alternative dispute resolution following the opt-in period. The collective action shall consist of the following individuals to be conditionally certified and receive notice of this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All individuals who worked for INCGSGI, Inc. as a Security Guard at any time and who did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week from [three years prior to the Court's order granting certification] to the present." On January 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the United States Court for the Middle District of Florida. On March 26, 2021, the Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Incgsgi is in the security guard service business. A copy of the Parties motion dated April 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OnO1tA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Orlando, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 E-Mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael G. Fink, Esq. MIKE FINK LAW FIRM, P.A. 1500 Royal Palm Sq. Blvd., Unit 101 Fort Myers, Fl 33919 Telephone: (239) 939-1906 E-mail: Mfink@mikefinklaw.net INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Levine Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the motion to decertify class in the lawsuit styled LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC, et al., Defendants, 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). The Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2021. At the same time, itt denied in part and held in abeyance Defendant ProFax Inc.'s motion to decertify. The Court requested additional briefing regarding the size and scope of the class, which was due June 11. Defendant ProFax filed its notice of bankruptcy on June 8, and the case was stayed. The Plaintiff proceeded to file its additional briefing on June 11, and the Plaintiff filed a status update on Nov. 15, 2021, advising that the bankruptcy stay could be lifted. There having been no further activity on the docket, the Court lifted the stay and advised that Defendant ProFax and any other party could have until Feb. 3, 2022, by which to file the additional briefing contemplated by the May 11, 2021 Order. That date has now passed, and no party filed additional briefing. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class on Feb. 9, 2018. The class consists of: All persons who received a facsimile transmission sent by ProFax, Inc., on behalf of Innate Intelligence LLC or its chiropractic clinics between January 27, 2016 and July 13, 2016, as confirmed by either: (1) presence on a facsimile transmission log produced by Innate Intelligence LLC in this case showing one or more transmissions sent and complete; or (2) presence on a list of those who opted out from receiving future faxes from Innate Intelligence LLC, produced by ProFax, Inc. in this case. Defendant ProFax filed a motion to decertify the class as part of its motion for summary judgment on Feb. 1, 2021. Although the Court denied the motion to decertify on the grounds ProFax raised, the Court stated that it is mindful that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. ProFax's primary argument for decertifying the class hinged on the Federal Communications Commission's recent declaratory ruling, In the Matter of Amerifactors Fin. Grp., LLC Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991 Junk Fax Prot. Act of 2005, CG 2019 WL 6712128, Docket Nos. 02-278 (Dec. 9, 2019). ProFax argued that the 10,000-member class would require 10,000 mini-trials to determine whether the fax they received was received over the Internet by email as opposed to on a physical fax machine. As such, ProFax argued that the case was not amenable to class action. However, the Court determined that the Amerifactors decision, which again was issued by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, did not appear to constitute a "final order" of the FCC under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2342(1). Regardless, the Sixth Circuit in Lyngaas v. Ag, 992 F.3d 412, 427 (6th Cir. 2021), recently held that the Amerifactors decision was not retroactive, Judge Limbaugh notes. Thus, the Court held the Amerifactors decision did not require reconsideration of the Court's certification decision. Regardless, the TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. The parties were, thus, ordered to submit additional briefing on this issue. Judge Limbaugh states that only the Plaintiff has filed the additional briefing invited by the Court. The Plaintiff notes that the Defendant bears the burden to show the class should be decertified, citing Day v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., 827 F.3d 817, 831 (8th Cir. 2016). The Court declines to decertify the class or otherwise amend the definition. Again, only the Plaintiff responded to the Court's invitation to file further briefing. The Plaintiff maintains that a 2003 FCC ruling is controlling, In Re Rules & Reguls. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14133 (2003) ("the 2003 Ruling"). There, the FCC concluded that "telephone facsimile machine" "broadly applies to any equipment that has the capacity to send or receive text or images," including "personal computers equipped with, or attached to, modems and to computerized fax servers." The 2003 Ruling included one exception: "we clarify that the prohibition does not extend to facsimile messages sent as email over the internet." The Plaintiff states that because the Subject Faxes were not sent as email over the internet, the Subject Faxes are subject to the TCPA and the class definition should not be modified. The Court agrees on this record. Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh holds that the motion to decertify is denied, and the Court further declines to revise the previously approved class definition. The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff will submit a proposed order consistent with this opinion implementing the Court's grant of summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nxbv5u2 from Leagle.com. INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Court Enters Consent Decree in Estevez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ARTURO ESTEVEZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09027 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Consent Decree. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12181-12189 ("ADA") and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates any place of public accommodation. On Nov. 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against the Defendant. He alleged that those U.S. portions of the website directed at consumers which can be accessed by U.S. based consumers through the use of the domain name http://www.I-nbeauty.com(the "Website" as further defined in Paragraph 14), contains barriers that prevent full and equal use by visual impaired persons, in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12181-12189 and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). The Defendant expressly denies that the Website violates any federal, state or local Law, including the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, and any other wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. By entry into the Consent Decree, the Defendant does not admit any wrongdoing. The Consent Decree resolves, settles, and compromises all issues between the Parties based on the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff's Complaint and those claims or issues which arise from such allegations. The Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff, individually, prior to a determination on class certification. Therefore, notice to the putative class of the Consent Decree is not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) nor appropriate. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is a private entity that owns and/or operates, or contracts to have operated, the Website which is available through the internet to personal computers, laptops, mobile devices, tablets, and other similar technology. He contends that the Defendant's Website is a sales and service establishment whose operations affect commerce and a public accommodation subject to Title III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C Section 12181(7); 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. Sections 36.104, 36.201(a). The Defendant denies that its Website is a public accommodation or a place of public accommodation or is otherwise subject to Title III of the ADA and/or NYCHRL. The Plaintiff is suing on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated as an aggrieved person pursuant to 42 U.SC. Section 12188(b)(2)(b). The Plaintiff and the Defendant agree that it is in the Parties' best interest to resolve the putative class action lawsuit on mutually agreeable terms without further litigation. Accordingly, they agree to the entry of thie Consent Decree without trial or further adjudication of any issues of fact or law raised in the Complaint. In resolution of the action, the Parties agreed and the Court expressly approves, enters, and orders the Consent Decree. The term of the Consent Decree will commence as of the Effective Date and remain in effect for the earlier of: (a) 18 months from the Effective Date; or (b) the date, if any, that the United States Department of Justice adopts regulations for websites under Title III of the ADA. The Defendant will use Reasonable Efforts to improve the existing level of accessibility of the Website as set forth in paragraph 13 thereof and with such improvement to be completed no later than 18 months from the Effective Date. It will not be responsible for ensuring that third party content or plug-ins that are not owned by the Defendant, but are otherwise located on the Website or linked to from the Website, are accessible or otherwise conform to WCAG 2.1 AA. The Plaintiff (through his counsel) will have the right to perform, at his/her own cost, his/her own accessibility testing of the Website. If he raises any purported failure(s) of the Defendant to substantially comply with its obligations under paragraphs 13 and 17 in writing within the permitted 30-day window provided above, the Parties (through their respective counsel) will meet and confer within 60 days thereafter in good faith to determine a resolution of the issue(s). If a Party believes that any other Party has not complied with any provision of the Consent Decree, that Party will provide the other Party with written notice of non-compliance. Within 45 days of receipt of a Notice, the non-initiating Party will respond to the initiating Party in writing. Within 14 days after the response described, the Parties will informally meet and confer by telephone or in person and attempt to resolve the issues raised in the Notice. If the issue remains unresolved within 30 days of the meet and confer referenced, the Parties will each have an additional 30 days to select an expert and the two experts will mutually select an independent accessibility consultant with substantial experience in accessible website design who will evaluate the particular item(s) raised based on whether a person who has a visual impairment can adequately utilize the Website. Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given to the Parties will be given in writing by e-mail and by overnight express mail or United States first class mail, addressed as follows: If to the Plaintiff: Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. Mizrahi Kroub LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor/Mailroom New York, NY 10281 Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com Phone: (212) 595-6200 Fax: (212) 595-9700. If to the Defendant: Adam Michaels, Esq. HAND BALDACHIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 1740 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, New York 10019 E-mail: amichaels@hballp.com Phone: (212) 956-9508. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Consent Decree is available at https://tinyurl.com/m63ureux from Leagle.com. INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Action in Texas Court -------------------------------------------------- Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that in April and May 2021, Intrusion Inc., its current chief financial officer B. Franklin Byrd, and its now-former chief executive officer Jack Blount were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The lawsuit was captioned "Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al.," Case No. 4:21-cv-00307. In November 2021, this suit was consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022, which named as additional defendants current and former officers and directors of the Company James Gero, T. Joe Head, Gary Davis, and Michael Paxton. Intrusion Inc. is a computer communications equipment provider based in Plano, TX. INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Action in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------ Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that in April and May 2021, Intrusion Inc., its current chief financial officer B. Franklin Byrd, and its now-former chief executive officer Jack Blount were named in two purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The lawsuit was captioned "Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al.," Case No. 4:12-cv-00374. In November 2021, this suit was consolidated with another suit and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022, which named as additional defendants current and former officers and directors of the Company James Gero, T. Joe Head, Gary Davis, and Michael Paxton. Intrusion Inc. is a computer communications equipment provider based in Plano, TX. INVESTORS BANCORP: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03107 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the websites they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. Assistant Attorney General Boyd's letter provides: The Department [of Justice] first articulated its interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations' websites over 20 years ago. This interpretation is consistent with the ADA's title III requirement that the goods, services, privileges, or activities provided by places of public accommodation be equally accessible to people with disabilities. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant operates the Investors Bank online financial advisor service as well as the Investors Bank website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal JOBCO INCORPORATED: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO PINEDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. JOBCO INCORPORATED, and COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING SERVICES INC., and JAIME DELAHUNT, individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-05321-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order preliminary approving the settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). -- The Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only, the settlement classes, defined as: a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), individuals that Plaintiffs have alleged were employed by Defendant as manual laborers that worked overtime hours at any time during the period of July 13, 2018 through September 28, 2018 at the Moxey Rigby Project located in Freeport, New York according to the time records maintained at the jobsite (New York Class); and b. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individuals that Plaintiffs have alleged were employed by Defendant as manual laborers that worked overtime hours at any time during the period of July 13, 2018 through September 28, 2018 at the Moxey Rigby Project located in Freeport, New York according to the time records maintained at the jobsite, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby opting into the settlement of all FLSA claims (Federal Class). -- Class Counsel has designated, Defendant Jobco has consented to, and the Court hereby appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC (Claims Administrator) to be responsible for communicating with Class Members, disseminating the Notice, accepting and maintaining documents sent by Class Members, including Claim Forms, Opt-out statements, objections, and other documents relating to claims administration, and administering claims for allocation, according to the formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement. -- The Parties are directed to require the Claims Administrator to send the Notice and Claim Form referenced in Paragraph (6) above to putative class members by May 29, 2022 (30 days after entry of this Order). Prior to May 29, 2022, Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of attorney's fees and a motion for service awards. If necessary, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel can supplement these filings prior to the Final Fairness Hearing. Jobco was founded by Michael S. Puntillo in 1950. Based in Great Neck, New York, Jobco specializes in residential construction and rehabilitation, community development, commercial construction, and urban renewal. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0ZcPt at no extra charge.[CC] JZANUS LTD: Leah Mann Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leah Mann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JZanus, Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-06388-DG-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for class certification and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Jzanus provides revenue recovery and improvement consulting services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LcPBfC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ, 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121 E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com K I MOBILITY: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due Sept. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA SHARPLESS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KI MOBILITY, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00816-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order: -- Amendments to the pleadings: May 13, 2022 -- The Plaintiffs' motion for Sept. 23, 2022 conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class: -- Motions & Briefs To Certify/Decertify March 31, 2023 Classes: Responses: April 28, 2023 Replies: May 12, 2023 -- Disclosure of all experts: Plaintiff: August 5, 2022 Defendant: Sept. 16, 2022 -- Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 25, 2023 -- Deadline for filing dispositive Sept. 22, 2023 motions: -- Settlement Letters: Jan. 12, 2024 -- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Jan. 19, 2024 all motions in limine: Objections: Feb. 2, 2024 -- Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 14, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MilsMj at no extra charge.[CC] KELLER WILLIAMS: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to May 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HAYHURST, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-657 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order that the Motion for extension of time is granted and the time for the Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc. to file and serve its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's motion to for class certification is extended up to and including May 2, 2022. Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. It claimed to be the largest real estate franchise in number of agents and sales volume for 2018 and 2019. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExJtMy at no extra charge.[CC] KEYSTONE CREDIT: Court Dismisses Barclift's Amended FDCPA Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAULETTE BARCLIFT, on behalf of Herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-04335 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. I. Introduction Ms. Barclift brought suit against Keystone under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA). She claimed that Keystone violated the FDCPA when, in order to send her a collection letter regarding a personal debt, it shared her personal information with RevSpring Inc., a mailing vendor. The Court determined that even though Barclift alleged that Keystone violated the FDCPA, she had not alleged that Keystone's violation caused her a concrete injury. As a result, Barclift lacked standing. The Court therefore dismissed her original complaint without prejudice because, without standing, the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. Ms. Barclift then filed an amended complaint, and Keystone filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. II. Background One day, Barclift received a letter from a debt collector -- Keystone. The letter informed her that Keystone had acquired a personal debt of hers from a prior creditor. Nearly one year after receiving the letter, Barclift sued Keystone. She filed her original complaint as a class action suit, seeking to include as Plaintiffs all persons with a Pennsylvania address who received collection letters from Keystone via a mailing vendor. Ms. Barclift alleged in her Original Complaint that Keystone violated the FDCPA by sharing her information with the mailing vendor in connection with the collection of a debt. According to Barclift, sharing her information with a mailing vendor without her permission violated her "right not to have her private information shared with third parties." She claimed that she had been "embarrassed and distressed by the disclosure of her sensitive financial details and personal medical services. For relief, she sought statutory damages, actual damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. See id. Keystone filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. However, the Court never adjudicated Keystone's motion to dismiss. Instead, the Court dismissed Barclift's Original Complaint because she lacked standing. The Court determined that Barclift lacked standing because she had not alleged that she suffered a concrete harm. In her Original Complaint, Barclift alleged that Keystone had committed a procedural violation of the FDCPA. The Court explained, however, that a simple procedural violation of the FDCPA does not automatically establish an injury-in-fact. The Court determined next that Keystone's alleged procedural violation of the FDCPA -- sharing Barclift's information with a mailing vendor -- was most closely related to the traditionally recognized privacy cause of action for public disclosure of private facts. It explained that a prima facie case of public disclosure of private facts requires that the private facts be publicized. Reasoning that Keystone had not publicized or even come close to publicizing Barclift's private facts by sharing them with a mailing vendor, it determined that Barclift had not alleged that she suffered an injury-in-fact. The Court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the Original Complaint because Barclift had not satisfied Article III's standing requirement. As a result, the Court dismissed the Original Complaint. Ms. Barclift then filed an amended complaint. The Amended Complaint is nearly identical to the Original Complaint. Only some additional allegations are of any substance. In the Amended Complaint, Barclift also adds cites to two cases where debt collectors used mailing vendors and courts determined that the Plaintiffs had established standing: Morales v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 859 F. App'x 625 (3d Cir. 2021) and DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC, 934 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2019). Once again, Keystone filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. III. Discussion Ms. Barclift raises the same claim in her Amended Complaint that she did in the Original Complaint -- that Keystone violated the FDCPA. Specifically, Barclift takes issue with the fact that Keystone shared her personal information with a mailing vendor without her permission. Barclift alleges that by sharing her information with a mailing vendor, Keystone violated section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from communicating "with any person other than the consumer" regarding the collection of a debt. Judge Leeson opines that the Amended Complaint does not establish standing for the same reasons that the Original Complaint did not. Barclift alleges Keystone committed a procedural violation of the FDCPA, but she does not allege a concrete injury. Moreover, Barclift cannot rely on the mere possibility of a future harm to establish an injury-in-fact because she has not alleged that such a hypothetical harm is certain to happen. IV. Conclusion Since Barclift did not plead sufficient facts to show that she suffered a concrete injury, she did not satisfy the standing requirement in Article III. Without standing, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. Judge Leeson, therefore, dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice. A separate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4z9uut from Leagle.com. LEGACY HEALTH: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hunter Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGACY HEALTH, LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & HEALTH CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT LEGACY EMANUEL, Case No. 3:18-cv-02219-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey J. Armistead entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to modify the scheduling order as follows: 1. The Parties to complete discovery related to certification of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and decertification of any conditionally certified FLSA collective, to be completed by September 12, 2022; 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the Defendants' motion for FLSA decertification are to be filed on or before October 12, 2022; 3. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Decertification due 28 days after motions for Rule 23 class certification and FLSA decertification are filed. 4. Plaintiff's reply in support of Rule 23 certification, and Defendants' reply in support of FLSA decertification are due 21 days after the respective responsive briefs are filed. 5. The Court delays the setting of a discovery cut-off date related to liability and expert discovery until after resolution of the class and collective treatment questions. Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland, Oregon, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vuzovY at no extra charge.[CC] LEGO SYSTEMS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Elli Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEHRI ELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGO SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02177-DG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all of Lego's employees in the State of New York that engage in manual work in the course of their employment. New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. See New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Article 6, section 191. The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The New York Court Of Appeals has explained that this law is "intended for the protection of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance." People v. Vetri, 309 N.Y. 401, 405 (citing former Labor Law section 196). The Defendant has violated this law by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff therefore liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees on behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the last six years. The Plaintiff Shehri Elli is a citizen of New York who resides in Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from July 2014 to September 2018 at a Lego store located in Staten Island, New York. Lego Systems owns a chain of Lego retail stores that employ hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com LEWIS BROTHERS: Provisional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO CALDWELL, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES INCORPORATED OF TENNESSEE, Case No. 3:20-cv-01081 (M.D. Tenn.), the parties jointly move the Court to provisionally certify a class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the Court's February 17, 2022 Order: "Persons currently or formerly employed by Defendant in its Murfreesboro, Tennessee bakery and were classified as part- time merchandisers within the three year period preceding the filing of the original Complaint who assert they were required or permitted to work under multiple, different names and/or aliases, who would have been eligible to participate in an ERISA health insurance plan available to Defendant’s full-time employees." The Plaintiff commenced the instant lawsuit on December 18, 2020, alleging that the Defendant violated Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, through an alleged scheme of requiring, suffering, and/or permitting Plaintiff and the class to each work for the Defendant under multiple, different names and/or aliases, in order to avoid their obligations to offer an ERISA health insurance plan sponsored by Defendant, and thereafter filed an Amended Complaint on February 2, 2022. The Defendant has answered the Amended Complaint, denies all of Plaintiff's allegations, and denies that it has violated ERISA in any manner. On February 16, 2022, the Court held a status conference during which the parties indicated their agreement to engage in direct settlement discussions, including potential mediation, in an effort to resolve their dispute on a class basis. Lewis Brothers provides bakery products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 5, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vyckfD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert E. Boston, Esq. John E. B. Gerth, Esq. WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP Nashville City Center 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219-8966 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (615) 244-6804 E-mail: Bob.Boston@wallerlaw.com Jeb.Gerth@wallerlaw.com LIPPER COMPONENTS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Sheets Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Kristie Sheets, et al., Plaintiffs v. Lipper Components, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01683-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approves Plaintiff Kristie Sheets' request for final judgment in a putative class action. The request is brought pursuant to the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the litigation of class actions in federal court. Rule 23(e) includes several provisions on the settlement and voluntary dismissal of class actions, but that subsection requires the court's approval of a settlement only when a class has been certified. Because no class has been certified in this case, the Court need not approve the parties' settlement agreement. Nevertheless, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller notes that Rule 23(d)(1) allows the Court to issue orders that require--to protect class members and fairly conduct the action--giving appropriate notice to some or all class members of any step in the action. Similarly, the Court may also consider whether the proposed settlement and dismissal are tainted by collusion or will prejudice absent putative members with a reasonable reliance expectation of the maintenance of the action for the protection of their interests, and the Court may inquire into possible prejudice from lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations. Here, the Court is satisfied that dismissal of the action will result in no prejudice to the putative class members. Judge Mueller points out that this is not a widely publicized case, and potential class members are unlikely to have relied on this action to vindicate their interests, citing Castro v. Zenith Acquisition Corp., No. 06-04163, 2007 WL 81905, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007). Judge Mueller holds that all of the individual claims and allegations brought by Kristie Sheets are dismissed with prejudice and all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members are dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2he32s8s from Leagle.com. MED-TRANS CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Bradley ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alphine Bradley and William Daniel Black, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Med-Trans Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02679-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order denying the motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing the appropriateness of Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(2) certification. The Plaintiffs are individuals who received transport services from Defendant, an air ambulance company. The Defendant transported Bradley from Bishopville, South Carolina to Columbia, South Carolina on February 8, 2020. The cost of Bradley's transport was $43,462.00, of which her insurer paid $30,750.00. The Defendant transported Black from Greer, South Carolina to Charleston, South Carolina on June 27, 2020. The cost of Black’s transport was $66,976.00, of which his insurer paid $25,000.00. Black signed an Ambulance Billing Authorization Form ("ABA") at the time of transport, and Bradley did not. The ABA is a document providing that the signor "agrees that the patient is financially responsible for, and obligated to pay, the amount charged by the Supplier for the medical services, including any amount that is not paid by any applicable insurance (unless Supplier is a contracted network provider for such applicable insurance, in which case any applicable co-pay, coinsurance, or deductible is owed)."No other price term appears in the ABA. Med-Trans is a private ambulance company serving the Greater Miami Valley and surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ewm1iN at no extra charge.[CC] MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Appeals Court Orders Dismissal of Verdini Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College, Appellant v. Fernando Verdini, Appellee, Case No. 3D21-0470 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed the order denying District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College's motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. I. Background Appellant/Defendant Miami Dade College ("MDC") appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, a doctrine that prohibits suit in the absence of an express contract. The is a putative class action for breach of contract stemming from the transition from on-campus instruction to remote instruction at MDC due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the Florida Department of Education ordered all public institutions of higher learning to close in response to the pandemic. MDC transitioned to remote learning during part of the Spring 2020 semester and the entire Summer 2020 semester. Mr. Verdini, who was enrolled as a nursing student during the Spring and Summer 2020 semesters, filed a class action Complaint against MDC (through its Board of Trustees) alleging breach of contract. Verdini alleges he paid certain mandatory fees for on-campus services pursuant to express, written contracts with MDC, and MDC breached when it failed to provide the on-campus services for which the fees were intended. The Complaint lists five mandatory fees, charged on a per credit hour basis: Student Services: $8.28, Financial Aid: $4.14, Capital Improvement: $15.88, Technology: $4.14, and Parking: $3. The Complaint alleges that the express, written contracts are constituted by bills, invoices, and other written agreements. The Complaint includes two exhibits: (A) Verdini's Spring and Summer 2020 invoices and (B) a Financial Obligation Agreement. Verdini further alleges he does not have all the documents constituting the express contracts, but he asserts he should be given the opportunity to establish these unidentified documents by way of discovery. MDC moved to dismiss, arguing that as a public college it is protected by sovereign immunity; therefore, Verdini is required to establish waiver by identifying an express, written contract requiring MDC to provide on-campus services. In response, Verdini maintained that "the Complaint attaches the express agreement that the Plaintiff entered into with MDC in which he agreed to pay all fees in exchange for specifically enumerated services." Verdini again pointed to the invoices and the Financial Obligation Agreement attached to the Complaint. Additionally, though not alleged in the Complaint, Verdini's response relied heavily on the payment of laboratory fees. Following a virtual hearing, the lower court denied MDC's motion to dismiss, concluding that the invoices attached to the Complaint "sufficiently contain the express written terms and provide the specific services MDC was contractually obligated to provide in exchange for the Plaintiff's payment of 'fees' to survive a motion to dismiss," citing Waite Dev., Inc. v. City of Milton, 866 So.2d 153, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("Several writings may constitute a valid and binding written contract when they evidence a complete meeting of the minds of the parties and an agreement upon the terms and conditions of the contract.")). MDC timely appealed. II. Analysis There is no dispute that MDC, a member of the Florida College System, is protected by sovereign immunity. In Florida, sovereign immunity is the rule, rather than the exception. There are no statutory provisions for sovereign immunity, or its waiver, with regard to contracts. That issue has fallen instead to the courts to address." It is firmly established that a sovereign may be sued in contract only when there is an express, written contract. Mr. Verdini argues he has sufficiently alleged that MDC breached an express, written contract to provide on-campus services in exchange for certain mandatory fees. The District Court of Appeals need not decide whether Verdini has alleged an express contractual relationship to provide some services because this alone is not sufficient to survive MDC's motion to dismiss. This is because Verdini's breach claim is not based on MDC's complete failure to provide services; it is premised on MDC's failure to provide on-campus or in-person services. So, the issue here is whether Verdini has sufficiently identified an express, written contract to provide on-campus or in-person services. Mr. Verdini's Complaint specifically mentions five mandatory fees. The first four fees -- student services, financial aid, capital improvement, and technology -- are student fees authorized pursuant to separate subsections within section 1009.23, Florida Statutes (2021). The fifth fee listed in the Complaint, parking, is a user fee authorized by section 1009.23(12)(a). Mr. Verdini also contends he is suing for a refund of laboratory fees, which are likewise user fees authorized by section 1009.23(12)(a). The District Court of Appeal addresses the student fees and the user fees in turn. And although Verdini maintains that his Complaint sufficiently alleges an express, written contract to provide on-campus services, the District Court of Appeal also considers Verdini's contention that discovery is needed to identify other potential documents evidencing an express contract. A. Student Fees As an initial matter, the District Court of Appeals opines that there is nothing in the Complaint or the attachments that expressly requires MDC to provide on-campus services in exchange for the student services, financial aid, capital improvement, and technology fees. Moreover, Verdini has not identified anything that expressly prohibits MDC from providing remote services in exchange for these fees. Mr. Verdini argues that the attached invoices incorporate the conditions imposed by section 1009.23. Even assuming for the sake of argument this is true, Verdini fails to identify the conditions in section 1009.23 that require on-campus or in-person services. Nothing in the broad provisions requires the student fees at issue to be used only for on-campus or in-person services. Consequently, based on the Complaint, the attachments to the Complaint, and section 1009.23, the District Court of Appeal holds that Verdini has failed to establish an express, written contractual obligation to provide on-campus services in exchange for the Student Services, Financial Aid, Capital Improvement, and Technology fees. B. User Fees With respect to the parking fee, the Complaint concedes that for the Summer 2020 semester, students were not assessed the parking fee and that the fee would be credited to their account if they already paid. Thus, only the parking fee for the Spring 2020 semester is at issue. However, Verdini has failed to identify an express, written contract for this fee because the attached Spring 2020 invoice does not list a parking fee. Finally, Verdini's response in opposition to MDC's motion to dismiss raised allegations, for the first time, related to laboratory fees. As with the parking fee, a laboratory fee is a user fee that "shall not exceed the cost of the services provided and will only be charged to persons receiving the service." Although a laboratory fee is listed on the attached Spring 2020 invoice, Verdini's Complaint does not contain any allegations with respect to laboratory fees as a basis for his breach of contract claim. Moreover, Verdini has not moved to amend the Complaint to add any allegations regarding laboratory fees. The District Court of Appeal is therefore unable to conclude that Verdini has sufficiently alleged breach of an express, written contract with respect to laboratory fees. C. Discovery Mr. Verdini's primary argument on appeal is that the Complaint (and attachments), as is, sufficiently alleges the existence of an express, written contract. However, Verdini also argues there could be additional, unspecified documents evidencing an express contract and that he should therefore be allowed discovery. The District Court of Appeal disagrees. It opines that Verdini has only alleged the possibility of unspecified documents evidencing an express, written contract. Verdini has not cited, and research has failed to uncover, any authority supporting the broad proposition that discovery is warranted when a complaint merely alleges the possible existence of an unidentified contract that may or may not be another's possession. Indeed, such a rule would be contrary not only to the plain language of Rule 1.130 but also its recognized purpose of apprising the defendant of the nature and extent of the cause of action. III. Conclusion The District Court of Appeal concludes that Verdini has failed to identify an express, written contractual obligation to provide on-campus or in-person services in exchange for the various fees listed in the Complaint. Further, the Complaint does not contain allegations related to laboratory fees. And finally, Verdini is not entitled to discovery simply for alleging the possible existence of unspecified documents. The District Court of Appeal therefore reversed the order denying MDC's motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Complaint. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p82fmxb from Leagle.com. Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Javier A. Lopez -- jal@kttlaw.com -- Dwayne A. Robinson, Michael R. Lorigas, and Eric S. Kay; Javier A. Ley-Soto, General Counsel, for the Appellant. The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, and Adam Moskowitz -- info@moskowitz-law.com -- Howard M. Bushman, and Adam A. Schwartzbaum, for the Appellee. Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Kansas R. Gooden -- kgooden@boydjen.com; Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J. Sniffen and Jeffrey D. Slanker (Tallahassee), for the Florida Defense Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae. Matthew H. Mears (Tallahassee); Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, and Rocco E. Testani and Stacey M. Mohr (Atlanta, GA); Isicoff RagatzM, and Eric D. Isicoff ; Lacey D. Hofmeyer (Fort Lauderdale); B. Shannon Saunders, P.A., and B. Shannon Saunders (Marianna); Brian Babb (Daytona Beach); Carl J. Coleman (Fort Myers); Gilligan, Gooding, Batsel, Anderson & Phelan, P.A., and Robert W. Batsel, Jr. (Ocala); Michael A. Richey (Melbourne); Romualdo C. Marquinez, Jr. (Jacksonville); Derrick Bennett, P.A., and Derrick Bennett (Panama City Beach); Neill Griffin Marquis, PLLC, and Richard V. Neill, Jr. (Fort Pierce); Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J. Sniffen (Tallahassee); Martha Kaye Koehler (Tampa); Law Office of Anita Geraci-Carver, P.A., and Anita Geraci-Carver (Clermont); Hand Arendale Harrison Sale , and Hayward Dykes, Jr. (Destin); Kevin Fernander (Lake Worth); Boswell & Dunlap, LLP, and Donald H. Wilson (Bartow); J. Paul Carland, II (Sanford); Thomas J. Gilliam, Jr. (Pensacola); Patti Locascio (Gainesville); Karlson Law Group, P.A., and Pamela T. Karlson (Lake Placid); Melissa C. Miller (Palatka); Steven W. Prouty (Bradenton); William J. Mullowney (Orlando); Suzanne L. Gardner (St. Petersburg); Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, LLP, and J. Craig Knox (Tallahassee), for the Florida State Board of Education, the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, and 36 Florida Public Colleges and Universities, as amici curiae. Robert B. Shillinger Jr., Monroe County Attorney, and Cynthia L. Hall and Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorneys; Steven T. Williams, City Attorney; Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, and Dirk M. Smits and Gaelan P. Jones; Roget V. Bryan ; Shawn D. Smith, Key West City Attorney, and Nathalia Mellies, Assistant City Attorney, for Monroe County, Florida, and the Cities of Key West, Marathon, Key Colony Beach, Layton, and the Village of Islamorada, Florida, as amici curiae. Holland & Knight LLP, and Frances G. De La Guardia -- Frances.Guasch@hklaw.com; Miriam Soler Ramos, City Attorney, for the City of Coral Gables, as amicus curiae. Varnell & Warwick, P.A., and Janet R. Varnell -- JVarnell@VarnellandWarwick.com -- (Tampa), for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, as amicus curiae. MICRO FOCUS: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP issued a Notice of Pendency of Class Action involving purchasers of Micro Focus American Depositary Shares. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO In re MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 18CIV01549 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES OF MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC PURSUANT TO THE INTERRELATED REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ON FORMS F-4 AND F-6 AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER OF MICRO FOCUS WITH HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY (OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES). Please be advised that your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, if you purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Micro Focus International plc ("Micro Focus") in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 7, 2016, with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE"), Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Seattle Holdings, Inc., and Seattle Merger Sub, Inc., pursuant to which Micro Focus combined with the software business segment of HPE. A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to a Court Order dated November 19, 2021, a Class has been certified in a class action entitled In re Micro Focus International PLC Securities Litigation, Case No. 18CIV01549 (the "Action"), pending before Judge Marie S. Weiner of the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County (the "Court"). The Action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired ADSs of Micro Focus pursuant to the interrelated Registration Statements on Forms F-4 and F-6 and Prospectus (the "Offering Materials") issued in connection with the Merger (the "Class"), and asserts claims under the federal Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against: (a) defendant Micro Focus; and (b) certain current and former Micro Focus officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") who signed the Offering Materials. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, allege that all Defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act because the Offering Materials, pursuant to which Micro Focus ADSs were offered, contained materially false or misleading statements and/or omitted material information required to be disclosed therein. Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of the Class, that Micro Focus violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and that each Individual Defendant is liable for Micro Focus's alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) as a "controlling person" of Micro Focus under Section 15 of the Securities Act. Each Defendant denies any wrongdoing or having violated any provisions of the Securities Act. The Court has decided that the Action should proceed as a class action on behalf of a Class that (subject to certain exclusions) consists of "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares of Micro Focus International plc pursuant to the interrelated Registration Statements on Forms F-4 and F-6 and Prospectus issued in connections with the merger of Micro Focus with the software business segment of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (or their subsidiaries)." If you are a member of the Class, your rights may be affected by this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing to Notice Administrator, Micro Focus Class Action, c/o Epiq, PO Box 5459, Portland, OR 97228-5459, tel: (855) 604-1743, or by downloading this information at www.MicroFocusClassAction.com. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, c/o James I. Jaconette, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, tel. 1-800-449-4900; Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, c/o John T. Jasnoch, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101, tel. 1-800-332-2259; or Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, c/o Mark C. Molumphy, 840 Malcolm Rd., Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, tel. 650-697-6000. You have the right to request exclusion (opt out) from the Class. If you do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by past and any future rulings of the Court on the claims asserted against the Defendants, even if there is no recovery. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY JUNE 29, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO DO NOT VALIDLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, THAT THE COURT HAS MADE OR WILL MAKE IN THIS ACTION, EVEN IF THERE IS NO RECOVERY. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: April 15, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN MATEO COUNTY Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP James I. Jaconette Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP John T. Jasnoch Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP Mark C. Molumphy Telephone: (650) 697-6000 URL// www.MicroFocusClassAction.com MINDBODY INC: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- This Notice relates to a stockholder class action In re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholder Litigation C.A. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (the "Action") arising out of the merger of MINDBODY, Inc. ("Mindbody") with affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC ("Vista") on February 15, 2019 (the "Merger"). Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, Luxor Capital Partners, LP, Luxor Capital Partners Offshore Master Fund, LP, Luxor Wavefront, LP, and Lugard Road Capital Master Fund, LP (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs" or "Luxor") allege that defendants Richard Stollmeyer ("Stollmeyer") and Eric Liaw ("Liaw") breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Merger and by causing Mindbody to issue a false and misleading Proxy statement in connection with the Merger. Lead Plaintiffs further allege that Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent, LLC ("Torreys Parent"), Torreys Merger Sub, Inc. ("Torreys Merger Sub"), and Institutional Venture Partners XIII, L.P. and Institutional Venture Management XIII LLC (the "IVP Entities," and together with Stollmeyer, Liaw, Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent, Torreys Merger Sub, and the IVP Entities, "Defendants") aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class, and settling defendants Liaw and IVP Entities (together, the "Settling Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement for $27,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action as against the Settling Defendants. The proposed Settlement does not settle or release any claims or dissenter rights (including appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) brought by Lead Plaintiffs against non-settling defendants Stollmeyer, Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent, and Torreys Merger Sub (together with their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors (except for Settling Defendant Liaw), predecessors, successors, and assigns, the "Non-Settling Defendants"). Lead Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims in the Action against the Non-Settling Defendants. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected, and you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement. The Class certified by the Court's Order dated December 17, 2021 consists of: All holders of Mindbody common stock as of the closing of the merger with affiliates of Vista on February 15, 2019 ("Closing"), whether beneficial or of record, including their legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees and assignees of all such foregoing holders. Excluded from the Class are: (i) defendants in this Action, (ii) any person who is, or was at the time of Closing, an officer, director, or partner of Mindbody, Vista, or the IVP Entities, (iii) the immediate family members, meaning the parents, spouse, siblings, or children, of any of the foregoing, (iv) any trusts, estates, entities, or accounts that held Mindbody shares for the benefit of any of the foregoing, and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest, successors, transferees, and assigns of the foregoing (the "Excluded Stockholders"). PLEASE NOTE: The Class is a non-"opt-out" class pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the Class. Payments to eligible Class Members will be made only if the Court approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation for the distribution of the Settlement proceeds, and only after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient, as this process may take some time to complete. Eligible Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in order to receive a distribution from the Settlement. If you are eligible to receive a distribution from the Settlement, your distribution will be paid to you directly. Please be patient. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, it will take some time to conduct the Settlement distribution. CLASS MEMBERS' LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTLEMENT: RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT. CLASS MEMBERS DO NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM. If you are a member of the Class (defined in paragraph 17 of the Notice), you may be eligible to receive a pro rata distribution from the Settlement proceeds. Eligible Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in order to receive a distribution from the Settlement, if approved by the Court. Your distribution from the Settlement will be paid to you directly. See paragraphs 23-30 of the Notice for further discussion. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN May 25, 2022. If you are a member of the Class and would like to object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, you may write to the Court and explain the reasons for your objection. ATTEND A HEARING ON JUNE 8, 2022 AT 1:30 P.M., AND FILE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 25, 2022. Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear that is received by May 25, 2022, allows you to speak in Court, at the discretion of the Court, about your objection. In the Court's discretion, the June 8, 2022 hearing may be conducted by telephone or video conference (see paragraphs 36-37 of the Notice). If you submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing and, at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection. How do I obtain more information? More detailed information about the Action and the Settlement is contained in the Notice. If you have questions, you may contact the Settlement Administrator by calling toll-free 1-855-606-1085; emailing info@MindbodyMergerLitigation.com; or mailing a letter to: Mindbody Merger Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91014 Seattle, WA 98111 Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court, the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel. FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit the website -- https://www.mindbodymergerlitigation.com/ -- often to get the most up-to-date information. Call 1-855-606-1085 Emailinfo@MindbodyMergerLitigation.com MailMindbody Merger Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91014 Seattle, WA 98111 MOBILITYLESS LLC: Swenson, et al., File Bid for Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA SWENSON; GERALD SHEARON and all similarly situated persons, v. MOBILITYLESS, LLC; GABOR SMATKO; MONICA SMATKO; JOHN DOES I-X, Case No. 3:19-cv-30168-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 of two consumer classes, and appointment of Adam Deutsch, Esq. of Northeast Law Group, LLC to serve as class counsel. -- Class A "All persons within the United States, other than any of Plaintiff's counsel, who (1) purchased merchandise from Mobilityless, LLC through its website www.mobility4less.com; (2) during the time-period from September 2018 to December 31, 2021. -- Class B -- "All persons within the United States, other than any of Plaintiff's counsel, who (1) purchased merchandise from Mobilityless, LLC through its website www.mobility4less.com; (2) received goods that were non- conforming to what was ordered; and (3) during the time- period from September 2018 to December 31, 2021. Through its website Mobility4less.com, Defendants allegedly deceived customers by among other things, (1) making misrepresentations of the type and quality of goods being sold; (2) serially failing to deliver upgraded parts purchased by customers; (3) serially delivering damaged and/or non-conforming goods; (4) falsely claiming to have locations in six states; and, (5) maintaining conflicting inoperable return and warranty policies. The Defendants' conduct included "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce" that violate the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants' deceptive conduct was made knowingly with intent to deceive and constitutes common law fraud. The Defendants further used deceptive conduct to defraud customers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by knowingly shipping damaged and/or defective products to victim customers across state lines, through the hiring of commercial interstate carriers. The Plaintiffs Barbara Swenson and Gerald Shearon commenced this action on December 23, 2019. On January 15, 2020, the summons and complaint were served on the registered corporate agent for Mobilityless, LLC. On May 12, 2020, Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to serve Gabor Smatko and Monica Smatko by alternative means. On September 2, 2020 a First Amended Complaint was filed, adding among other things, a claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 5, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v5RVjh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Deutsch, Esq. NORTHEAST LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 60717 Longmeadow, MA 01106 Telephone: (413) 285-3646 MORCONAVA GROUP: Roman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- RAMON ROMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MORCONAVA GROUP, LLC d/b/a SANTIAGO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, SANTIAGO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, and CARMEN MORALES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00907 (D. Colo., April 14, 2022) is a class action complaint for unpaid wages pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (MWA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), the Denver Minimum Wage Ordinance, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (the COMPS Order), and predecessor Minimum Wage Orders. The Plaintiff asserts his Count I, II, III and IV claims for unpaid overtime wages and associated damages and penalties, on behalf of himself only. The Plaintiff asserts his Count V claim for denial of compensated rest breaks on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants to work as a cook in the kitchen of their Santiago's Mexican Restaurant located at 6365 E. Hampden Ave., Denver, Colorado. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff all required overtime wages for hours he worked. The Defendants failed to grant the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated mandatory, compensated rest periods and failed to compensate them for denial of these compensated rest periods in violation of the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (and of predecessor Wage Orders), the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway -- Suite B Boulder, CO. 80304 Telephone: (303) 305-8230 E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com MOUNTAIN WEST: Jodie, Drange File Bid for Rule 23 Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODIE and ANDY DRANGE, each individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:20-cv-00030-SPW (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs move for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mountain West is an insurance company providing 401k plan, health, and group life insurance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvsE0R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Selik, Esq. MCCATHERN LLP 523 West 6th Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: eselik@mcccathernlaw.com - and - Jesse Kodadek, Esq. Sean Morris, Esq. WORDEN THANE P.C. 321 W. Broadway Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 721-3400 E-mail: jkodadek@wordenthane.com smorris@wordenthane.com NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Settlement to be Heard on June 27 ------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation No. 3:17-cv-209-ZNQ-LHG SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased the American Depository Receipts of Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk") between February 3, 2015 and February 2, 2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full definition of the Class including a complete description of who is excluded from the Class is set forth in the full Settlement Notice referred to below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that co-lead plaintiffs and class representatives Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Boston Retirement System, Employees' Pension Plan of the City of Clearwater, and Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Novo Nordisk, Lars Rebien Sørensen, Jesper Brandgaard, and Jakob Riis (collectively, "Defendants") for $100,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 27, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, by videoconference to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 23, 2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and the Settlement Notice should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses (including awards to the Lead Plaintiffs) should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91154, Seattle, WA 98111, by telephone at 1 (833) 674-0167, or by email at info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for the Action, www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website, www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than July 27, 2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no later than June 6, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Novo Nordisk, any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Or you may visit www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com or toll-free at 1 (833) 674-0167. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91154 Seattle, WA 98111 1 (833) 674-0167 info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: Luke O. Brooks, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 1 (800) 449-4900 rickn@rgrdlaw.com Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court District of New Jersey OPHTHOTECH CORP: $29MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8 -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Ophthotech Corporation Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R. GUYER and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants. CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION ("OPHTHOTECH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 8, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $29,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and to award Lead Plaintiff reimbursement of its time and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of the Class, and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. The COVID-19 pandemic creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear remotely at the hearing, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the conference will be posted to the Settlement website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 6, 2022) or electronically (no later than July 6, 2022). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 6, 2022, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or acquired Ophthotech common stock between March 2, 2015 through December 12, 2016, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Ophthotech Securities Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 43307 Providence, RI 02940-3307 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800-449-4900 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST 18, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $29,000,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, PLUS INTEREST EARNED ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT TO EXCEED $7,500 IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 1, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: March 17, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com. PANERA BREAD: Court Remands Sally Suit to St. Louis Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RANDALL SALLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, a/k/a SAINT LOUIS BREAD CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00217 (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. I. Background The Plaintiff originally filed his petition in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Defendants Panera Bread Co. and Panera, LLC (collectively "Panera") removed the case by purportedly invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.010 et seq., case arises out of Panera's "clean" advertising campaign. The Plaintiff's MMPA action centers around Panera's claim, made in advertisements, on its website, and displayed in its restaurants, that all its food is "clean," a word Panera self-defines as meaning that the food is free from any "artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors from artificial sources." Panera previously removed the case to federal court, and the Court remanded the case back to state court finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Since then, Panera implemented new "Terms of Use," imposing arbitration agreements during the pendency of the lawsuit that did not exist at the time he filed his case. Based on these arbitration agreements, Panera moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims on the grounds that he had agreed to the Terms of Use containing an arbitration provision, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. In response, the Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order to Strike Arbitration Clauses. For a second time, Panera removed the action to the Court, once again asserting federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Plaintiff never amended his original Petition. Rather, Panera now argues that Panera's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the Plaintiff's subsequent motion against arbitration (collectively the "Arbitration Motions") invoke federal question jurisdiction because the FAA and First Amendment are implicated. In the current Motion, the Plaintiff moves to remand the case back to state court. II. Discussion Judge Schelp explains that under the "well-pleaded complaint rule," a case ordinarily is not removable on federal question grounds unless the federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. In the case, the Plaintiff's Petition states a claim for violations of the MMPA resulting from Panera's allegedly false and misleading "clean" representations. Nothing in the Petition alleges a dispute under Panera's arbitration agreements; nor does it implicate any relief related to Panera's arbitration agreements. In fact, the Plaintiff's Petition could not have raised such a dispute since the arbitration agreements of which Panera seeks to compel enforcement of did not exist when Plaintiff filed the action. Because the Plaintiff asserts a claim only under the MMPA, "no federal question appears on the face of the Petition." Nonetheless, Panera interjected the litigation into federal court -- for a second time -- via federal question jurisdiction asserting that the FAA and First Amendment is implicated because of the Arbitration Motions. But, defenses and counterclaims cannot create federal jurisdiction. Judge Schelp holds that the case here does not require the Court to interpret or apply the FAA or First Amendment but rather to determine questions of state law regarding Panera's allegedly false and misleading "clean" representations. Indeed, Panera has made no showing that the Petition states any facts that bring the Plaintiff's MMPA claim into the theater of federal question jurisdiction. As the Court already concluded, upon its first remand of the case back to state court, "federal law does not 'create the cause of action asserted,' so there is no basis for 'arising under' jurisdiction on the face of the Plaintiff's Petition." III. Conclusion As the Court previously noted in the matter, the Plaintiff is the "master of his complaint," and as such he "may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." In his Petition, he alleged only a violation of the MMPA, a state law; thus, federal law does not create the cause of action alleged here. Nor has Panera shown how the FAA allows it a work-around to establish jurisdiction in federal court. Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and the Court must remand the case. Accordingly, Judge Schelp granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. A separate Order of Remand will accompany the Memorandum and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysbwbfbj from Leagle.com. PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARL KENDALL, SUZANNE RAINEY and VINCENZO PERNICE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 7:20-cv-00071-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs Karl Kendall, Suzanne Rainey, and Vincenzo Pernice, and participants in the Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC Retirement Savings Plan, submit an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement entered into with defendants, preliminary approval of class notice, approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of a fairness hearing. Pharmaceutical Product Development is a global contract research organization providing comprehensive, integrated drug development, laboratory and lifecycle management services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36uyk2H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, 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 donr@capozziadler.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9 ------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) on April 4 provided notice of proposed settlement of derivative actions and settlement hearing. JS HALBERSTAM IRREVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST, Derivatively and on Behalf of PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, JACK E. DAVIS, JOHN W. BALLANTINE, RODNEY L. BROWN, JR., KIRBY A. DYESS, MARK B. GANZ, MARIE OH HUBER, KATHRYN J. JACKSON, PH.D., MICHAEL A. LEWIS, MICHAEL H. MILLEGAN, NEIL J. NELSON, M. LEE PELTON, PH.D., MARIA M. POPE, CHARLES W. SHIVERY, JAMES P. TORGERSON, AND JAMES LOBDELL, Defendants, and PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Nominal Defendant. Case No. 3:21-cv-00413-SI SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND SETTLEMENT HEARING TO: ALL OWNERS OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ("PGE") COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 28, 2022. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned shareholder action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (the "Action"), have reached a Settlement to resolve the issues raised in the Action and related shareholder derivative actions captioned Berning v. Pope et al., No. 21-cv-00783-SI, filed in this Court, and Shimberg v. Pope et al., No. 21CV02957, and Ashabraner v. Pope et al., No. 21CV13698, filed in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County (collectively, the "Actions"). The parties to the Actions have entered into a Stipulation dated February 11, 2022, setting forth the terms of the Settlement. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, would fully, finally and forever resolve this Action on the terms set forth in the Stipulation.1 The Stipulation and a detailed Notice of Settlement describing in greater detail the Actions, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of Current PGE Shareholders with regard to the Settlement are available on PGE's website at https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/. You have the right to participate in a Settlement Hearing to be held on May 9, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse, Room 15B, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 to determine: (i) whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Portland General Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") and PGE's shareholders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23.1; (ii) whether to enter a judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguish and release all Settled Claims; (iii) whether the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process have been satisfied in connection with notice of the Settlement; and (iv) whether the Court should approve Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Amount, as well as to consider such other matters as may properly come before the Court. Unless otherwise defined, all capitalized terms contained in this Summary Notice shall have the same definitions as set forth in the Stipulation. The Settlement, reached with the substantial assistance and oversight of an experienced mediator, addresses allegations that certain current and former directors and officers of PGE breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maintain an adequate system of internal controls to oversee PGE's energy trading and purportedly disseminating materially false and misleading statements relating to the Company's energy trading activities. As part of the Settlement, PGE has implemented or, to the extent PGE has not already done so, will implement certain corporate governance reforms specifically set forth in Exhibit A of the Stipulation. After negotiating the principal terms of the Settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel and PGE separately negotiated at arm's-length with the assistance of the mediator the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel, agreeing that PGE or its insurance carriers shall, subject to and upon Court approval, pursuant to the timetable provided in the Stipulation, pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of $750,000. The individual defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing and that they have any liability on the claims asserted in the Actions. PGE also has denied and continues to deny the claims in the Actions. If you are a Current PGE Shareholder, your rights to pursue certain derivative claims on behalf of PGE may be affected by the Settlement. Any Current PGE Shareholder wishing to assert an objection to the Settlement or Fee and Expense Amount must, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, (i) file with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement and/or Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Amount setting forth: (a) the nature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of PGE common stock at the time the Preliminary Approval Order was entered through the date of the Settlement Hearing, including the number of shares of PGE common stock held by the shareholder and the date(s) of purchase; and (c) any documentation in support of such objection; and (ii) if a Current PGE Shareholder intends to appear and requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such shareholder must have, in addition to the requirements of (i) above, filed with the Clerk of Court: (a) a written notice of such shareholder's intention to appear; (b) a statement that indicates the basis for such appearance; and (c) the identities of any witnesses the shareholder intends to call at the Settlement Hearing and a statement as to the subjects of the testimony of each witness. Any Current PGE Shareholder who fails to object in the manner provided above will be deemed to have waived all objections (including the right to appeal) and will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Any inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action should be directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel: David C. Katz Mark D. Smilow WeissLaw LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 dkatz@weisslawllp.com msmilow@weisslawllp.com PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR PGE REGARDING THIS NOTICE A copy of the Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") fully executed as of February 11, 2022, is available on PGE's website at https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/. About Portland General Electric Company Portland General Electric (NYSE: POR) -- http://www.PortlandGeneral.com/newsis a fully integrated energy company based in Portland, Oregon. The company serves approximately 900,000 customers with a service area population of 2 million Oregonians in 51 cities. PGE owns 16 generation plants across Oregon and other Northwestern states and maintains and operates 14 public parks and recreation areas. For more than 130 years, PGE has powered the advancement of society, delivering safe, affordable, and reliable energy to Oregonians. PGE and its approximately 3,000 employees are working with customers to build a clean energy future. Together with its customers, PGE has the No. 1 voluntary renewable energy program in the U.S. PGE is committed to achieving at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power served to customers by 2030 and 100% reduction by 2040. In 2021, PGE became the first U.S. utility to join The Climate Pledge. For the eighth year in a row PGE achieved a perfect score on the 2021 Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking survey and report on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ workplace equality. In 2021, PGE, employees, retirees, and the PGE Foundation donated $4.8 million and volunteered 15,760 hours with more than 300 nonprofits across Oregon. QUAKER OATS COMPANY: Winger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jamal Winger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-02023 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2022), is brought to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by the Defendant along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana Minimum Wage Law, and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Like many other companies across the United States, Quaker Oats' timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Quaker Oats' organization. As a result, Quaker Oats' workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Quaker Oats could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Quaker Oats used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees. Quaker Oats' failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all hours worked violates the FLSA the IMWL and the IWPS, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Quaker Oats since April 2016. The Defendant The Quaker Oats Company is a foreign corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713 999 5228 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Warren Astbury, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 55 E. Monroe St., Ste. 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 706-0550 Fax: (313) 739-1976 Email: wastbury@forthepeople.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Remains Pending Class Cert. Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE, et al., v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01590 (D.N.J.), the Court will not stay all discovery pending resolution of the class-certification motion as discussed during the April 5, 2022 telephone conference. On or before May 16, 2022, the parties will submit a joint proposal to continue to conduct discovery while the class-certification motion is pending, says Judge Hammer. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property - Other Fraud. Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.[CC] RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-2863 (WMW/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, move to amend the March 25, 2022 Judgment in the case. The Plaintiffs' motion seeks to correct an inadvertent erroneous omission in the Court's March 25, 2022 Judgment -- namely, to reflect that "the action is dismissed with prejudice." The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, which is consistent with the parties' Settlement Agreement. As such, the motion is granted. Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings therein, Judge Wright granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the March 25, 2022 Judgment; vacated the March 25, 2022 Judgment; and directed the Clerk of Court to enter an Amended Judgment as provided therein. Judge Wright granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards is granted. The Court (i) awards $13.75 million, plus any accrued interest, in attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel; (ii) awards $349,575.75 in litigation expenses to the Plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) approves service awards of $12,500 to the Gabelli Group and $10,000 to the Naya Group, for an aggregate amount of $22,500, to compensate the Lead Plaintiffs for the time spent directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class. Without affecting the finality of the Order and the judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of resolving disputes related to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement. Judgment is entered accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r3ahsde from Leagle.com. SCWORX CORP: $3.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL YANNES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SCWORX CORPORATION and MARC S. SCHESSEL, Defendants. Civil Action No.: 20-cv-3349-JGK CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (i) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (ii) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (iii) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SCWORX CORPORATION ("SCWORX") COMMON STOCK ON THE NASDAQ OR OTHER U.S. EXCHANGES OR IN A U.S. TRANSACTION BETWEEN APRIL 13, 2020 AND APRIL 17, 2020, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 11, 2022 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that the parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action ("Settlement"). A hearing will be held on June 29, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge, at the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 14A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: a) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims alleged in the Action for a total value of no less than Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000.00), consisting of Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,700,000.00) in cash and the number of shares of SCWorx common stock that equate to a value of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), plus an additional one hundred thousand (100,000) shares of SCWorx common stock at then-current market values, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; b) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation; c) whether the Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of settlement; d) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; e) whether Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved by the Court; and f) any other relief the Court deems necessary to effectuate the terms of the Settlement. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (ii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (iii) Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and Claim Form, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at SCWorx Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173034, Milwaukee, WI, 53217, by email at info@SCWorxSecuritiesLitigation.com, by telephone at 1-877-266-4060, or by the website at www.SCWorxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by mail (postmarked no later than August 9, 2022), or electronically no later than August 9, 2022, establishing that you are entitled to recover. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the attorneys' fee and Litigation Expense applications, or otherwise request to be heard. To object, you must submit a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed Notice, referred to above. Any written objection must be delivered to the following recipients so that it is received no later than June 8, 2022: (a) the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007; (b) Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10022; (c) Carole R. Bernstein, Law Offices of Carole R. Bernstein, 41 Maple Ave. N., Westport, CT 06880; and (d) Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding LLP, 500 West 2nd Street, Ste. 1800, Austin, TX 78701. Note that the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement, not change the terms of the Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 8, 2022, in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that allows you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below: Frederic S. Fox KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 687-1980, mail@kaplanfox.com Dated: April 18, 2022 By Order of the Clerk of Court United States District Court Southern District of New York SMITHFIELD FRESH: Winking Class Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN WINKING, SUMMER HOLLIS, and JAMES KILBANE on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, v. SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP. And SMITHFIELD DISTRIBUTION LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01937 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2022) is a collective action claim for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs Winking and Hollis worked as hourly employees for Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. at its Monmouth, Illinois facility and Plaintiff Kilbane worked as an hourly employee for Smithfield Distribution, LLC at its Tar Heel, North Carolina distribution center. Smithfield is an enterprise made of various corporations and LLCs. It operates in substantial part from 4225 Naperville Road, Lisle Illinois. Smithfield is "a global food company with farms, facilities and offices in the United States, Europe and Mexico." This includes over 40 production plants, 6 distribution centers, 5 corporate offices, 20 Direct Store Delivery locations, and 16 slaughterhouses located in the United States. Working at meatpacking facilities, and Smithfield Foods in particular, during the COVID-19 Pandemic was hazardous. The Washington Post reported that plants "became deadly coronavirus hot spots" resulting in deaths, outbreaks of COVID-19 infections, and OSHA fines because meatpacking plants failed to provide a workplace "free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees". The working conditions at Smithfield were so dangerous that it became the focus of a Congressional Committee investigation by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. The Select Subcommittee reported that "Smithfield Foods, whose parent company reported $925 million in profit in the first half of 2020, has had over 3,500 workers contract the coronavirus and 8 employees die."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Cowlin, Es FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. www.fishlawfirm.com 111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com - and - David J. Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C 200 E 5th Ave. Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630)355-7590 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Discovery & Cert Schedule Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FALLS v. SOULBOUND STUDIOS LLC, et al., Case No. C21-922 JCC-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered a class discovery and certification scheduling order as follows : Event Date -- Deadline to Join Additional May 2, 2022 Parties: -- Deadline to Amend Pleadings: May 2, 2022 -- Phase One Discovery Commences – May 30, 2022 Class Certification Discovery: -- All motions related to Phase Oct. 14, 2022 One Discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d) and LCR 37(a)(2): -- Phase One Discovery Completed: Oct. 21, 2022 -- Motion for Class Nov. 18, 2022 Certification due: -- Opposition to Class Dec. 16, 2022 Certification due: Soulbound Studios is a game development company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXejLj at no extra charge.[CC] UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Court Narrows Claims in Hoelzer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HOELZER and all similarly situated individuals, v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Case No. 1:20CV1072 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: -- The motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for: Count One: Discrimination Based on Disability (Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process); Count Two: Discrimination Based on Disability (Failure to Accommodate); Count Three: Retaliation (For Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA); Count Four: FMLA Violation (Retaliation); and Count Five: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (Deprivation of Due Process) against UNC Board, UNC-CH, Individual Defendants in their official capacities, and Individual Defendants Farrow, Stephenson, Routh, and Dibbert; in their individual capacities and those claims are dismissed. -- The Defendant's motion is denied as to Plaintiff's Count Five: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (Deprivation of Due Process) claims against Individual Defendant Lebold in his individual capacity only. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's Motion to amend amended complaint is denied. -- The Plaintiff's consent notion to extend time to file motion under Local Rule 23.1(b) to Certify Class, is granted in part. -- The Plaintiff shall have 30 days following the entry of this Order to file her motion to certify class. The Plaintiff Martha Hoelzer brings this action for wrongful termination, among other claims, under Title I of the American Against Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the Defendants, The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (UNC Board), The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and five administrators: Raymond Farrow, Barbara J. Stephenson, Daniel Lebold, David Routh, and Debbie Dibbert. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXRoFt at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIR FORCE OFFICER v. AUSTIN, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff Air Force Officer, joined by Additional Representatives Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer, ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all members of the United States Air Force who (a) are subject to a mandate of the Department of Defense or Air Force to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious accommodation regarding such mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have received or will receive a final denial of such request from the Department of Defense or Air Force; and 2. appointing their counsel as class counsel. The Defendants include LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; FRANK KENDALL, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I. MILLER, in his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force. The United States Air Force is the air service branch of the United States Armed Forces, and is one of the eight U.S. uniformed services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXMGC0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Crampton, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Senior Counsel PO Box 4506 Tupelo, MS 38803 Telephone: (662) 255-9439 E-mail: scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org - and - Adam S. Hochschild, Esq. Hochschild Law Firm THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel PO Box 401 Plainfield, VT 05667 Telephone: (314)503-0326 E-mail: adam@hochschildlaw.com - and - Mary Catherine Hodes, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel 112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314)825-5725 E-mail: mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org - and - Michael McHale, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Counsel 10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110 Omaha, NE 68114 Telephone: (402) 501-8586 E-mail: mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org - and - Paul M. Jonna, Esq. LIMANDRI & JONNA LLP THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel P.O. Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 759-994 E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com - and - Michael R. Hirsh, Esq. HIRSH LAW OFFICE, LLC 2295 Towne Lake Parkway, Suite 116-181 Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (678) 653-9907 E-mail: michael@hirsh.law UNITED STATES: Lewis Re-Notice of Class Cert Bid Nixed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL A. LEWIS, et al., v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs' re-notice of class certification motion is denied. -- The Order is not a final Order subject to appeal. The United States Department of Health and Human Services, is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal government created to protect the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rEVbQf at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Bid for Lead Roles in Risley Suit Due June 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NESSA RISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION, d/b/a UNISWAP LABS, HAYDEN Z. ADAMS, PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ, and UNION SQUARE VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2780 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order setting June 7, 2022, as deadline to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. On April 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased any Tokens on the Exchange between April 5, 2021, and the present and were harmed thereby. The complaint alleges violations of Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77e; Section 12(a)(1) of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 771(a)(1); Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78e; Section 15(a)(1) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78o(a)(1); Section 20 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t; and Section 29(b) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78cc(b). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that: Not later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs will cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. The PSLRA also requires that: Not later than 90 days after the date on which a notice is published under subparagraph (A)(i), the court will consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to the notice, including any motion by a class member who is not individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint or complaints, and will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members In the event that "more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes or for trial, the Court will not" appoint a lead plaintiff "until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered." The Plaintiff's counsel published the required notice on April 8, 2022. Members of the purported class, therefore, have until June 7, 2022, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. Accordingly, Judge Failla ordered that opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by July 7, 2022. A conference will be held at 3:00 p.m. on July 29, 2022, in Courtroom 618, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. The named Plaintiffs will promptly serve a copy of the Order on each of the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4w84eab5 from Leagle.com. VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Orders Rodriguez to Amend Pleading ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Adriana Rodriguez, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veridian Healthcare LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 2989 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the Plaintiff to amend her pleading to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Defendant Veridian, invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, which grants district courts jurisdiction over any civil class action suit in which "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is a citizen of Illinois, because its principal place of business is in Gurnee, Illinois. But, if the Defendant is, indeed, a limited liability company, as its name would imply, Judge Torres holds that it "has the citizenship of each of its members." Accordingly, the complaint must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of the limited liability company and the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities who are members of the limited liability company. In addition, for the purposes of venue, a civil action may be brought in "(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." The Plaintiff states that venue is proper in this district because "she and the many Class Members reside in the Southern District of New York," and a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Classes' claims occurred in the district." But, the complaint contains no such factual allegations, stating only that the Plaintiff is a "citizen of New York State," viewed the Defendants' marketing materials and purchased the products in New York State, and had the products shipped to her home in New York State. Judge Torres cannot, accordingly, conclude that venue is proper in this district based on the complaint's factual allegations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff will amend her pleading to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity. If the Plaintiff fails to amend by the foregoing date to truthfully allege complete diversity based upon the citizenship of each constituent person or entity of the LLC, then the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff must also amend her pleading to truthfully establish that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York and that the action should not be transferred in the interest of justice. If she fails to do so, the Court will transfer the action to an appropriate judicial district. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8952rw from Leagle.com. VILLA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Wages, Coulter Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ION DAWN COULTER and TRACY JOHNSON, each individually and on behalf FLSA Collective Action of all others similarly situated, v. VILLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01970 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by Villa to all workers, along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by Illinois and Michigan laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and the Mighigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (MWOWA). Like many other companies across the United States, Villa's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Villa's organization. As a result, Villa's workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Dawn Coulter and Tracy Johnson are two such workers for Villa. Villa could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Villa used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, the lawsuit says. Coulter worked for Villa in Illinois. Johnson worked for Villa in Michigan. Coulter and Johnson represent at least three groups of similarly situated workers. Villa operates a network of nursing and rehabilitation centers. Many of Villa's employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried workers. Since at least 2021, Villa has used timekeeping software and hardware operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law WALT DISNEY: District Court Issues Protective Order in Woodall Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BUCK G. WOODALL, Plaintiff v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 20-3772-CBM (Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. I. Introduction The parties have agreed on the terms of a protective order, with the exception of two disputed provisions sought by the Defendants and opposed by the Plaintiff: (1) a provision precluding Mitchell Stein from having access to any documents the Defendants designate as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only"; and (2) a provision that the designating party may designate as confidential an entire document when the document contains both confidential information and information otherwise available to the public or to the receiving party. A privilege log the Plaintiff served in February of 2022 indicates that the Plaintiff has withheld, under claim of attorney-client privilege, an email from Stein dated Dec. 13, 2021. The privilege log also indicates that the Plaintiff's brother and two of his attorneys saw or received this email. Mr. Stein's role in the litigation is somewhat unclear. The Plaintiff has offered differing characterizations of Stein: (1) "a member of Plaintiff's outside counsel litigation team"; (2) an individual "akin" to a paralegal or clerical staff of counsel of record acting under attorney supervision; (3) a "paralegal and research assistant who is employed and being supervised by the Plaintiff's counsel of record" on a "pro bono" basis; and (4) a "Consultant to Plaintiff's Counsel." The Plaintiff does not identify the particular firm which may employ Stein, and he does not identify the particular person(s) for whom Stein provides services. II. Discussion A. Preclusion of Stein from Having Access to Documents Defendants Designate as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" It is undisputed that Stein was a California attorney and that Stein is currently suspended from practicing law in the State. It is also undisputed that, in 2013, Stein was convicted of multiple felonies involving fraud, for which Stein served a lengthy term in federal prison. The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") shows that Stein was released on Jan. 13, 2022. Thus, at the time Stein purportedly authored the Dec. 13, 2021 email identified on Plaintiff's privilege log, Stein evidently was still in BOP custody. Presently, Stein is unconstrained by the rules of professional responsibility governing the conduct of attorneys in the Court. Judge Eick finds that Stein's history reflects such a level of untrustworthiness and moral turpitude as to warrant the preclusion of Stein from having access to documents designated by the Defendants as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" in the case. He says, Stein's access to such documents, which may well include valuable intellectual property, would pose an unreasonable risk of disclosure of the documents to others, including the Defendants' competitors. There is no indication on this record that a preclusion of Stein's access to documents designated by the Defendants as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" would impair the Plaintiff's prosecution of this case in any appreciable respect. The Plaintiff is represented by multiple law firms which presumably can call upon the services of multiple competent paralegals, clerks, research assistants and consultants other than Stein. In sum, good cause exists for a protective order precluding Stein from having access to documents designated by Defendants as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only." B. Provision That the Designating Party May Designate an Entire Document as Confidential When the Document Contains Both Confidential Information and Information Otherwise Available to the Public or to the Receiving Party The Plaintiff already has served thousands of document requests in the case. Judge Eick declines to require the Defendants initially to separate out from their presumably thousands or hundreds of thousands of confidential, responsive documents those pages or portions of pages which may contain non-confidential information. Initial designations of confidential documents may proceed on a document-by-document basis. III. Order For the foregoing reasons, Judge Eick granted the Motion. Contemporaneously with the Order, he issued the Protective Order proposed by the Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8k4p5xu7 from Leagle.com. WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrantech Consumer Product Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Elliott, Susan Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warrantech Consumer Product Services, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Warrantech is a company that markets and administers extended warranties and service contracts for vehicles, consumer products, and homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Raymond Lynch, Esq. 160 Clairemont Ave., Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (404) 373-7735 Email: andrew@atlnotguilty.com - and - Joseph W. Weeks, Esq. MCNALLY WEEKS 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 450 Decatur, GA 30030-2560 Phone: (404) 373-3131 Email: jweeks@mcnallyweeks.com WELLS FARGO: Becker, et al Seek to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yvonne Becker, Christopher Nobles, Rosa, Valerie Seyler, and Jannien Weiner, v. Wells Fargo & Co.; Employee Benefit Review Committee; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Case No. 0:20-cv-02016-KMM/BRT (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement; 2. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), or in the alternative, 23(b)(2): "All Participants of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan at any time between March 13, 2014, through the date on which the Settlement becomes Final;" Excluded from the Settlement Class are members of the Employee Benefits Review Committee from March 13, 2014 through the date on which the Settlement becomes Final; 3. appointing Yvonne Becker, Christopher Nobles, Rosa Ramirez, Valerie Seyler, and Jannien Weiner as Settlement Class Representatives; 4. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Keller Rohrback LLP and Zimmerman Reed LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); 5. approving the form and manner of notice; and 6. setting a date for a Fairness Hearing. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States and internationally. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDExpG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com - and - Erin Riley, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com - and - June P. Hoidal, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: june.hoidal@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Dowdy Suit Over Ponzi-like Fraudulent Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY ANN DOWDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-00631 (D. Nev. April 15, 2022) is a class action to recover investment losses suffered by the Plaintiff and others who invested in an alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the J&J investment enterprise (J&J) and substantially assisted by Wells Fargo. J&J marketed and sold unregistered securities that purportedly would give investors interests in personal injury settlements obtained by tort plaintiffs who were seeking short-term funding before receiving the settlement payments. The Plaintiff Dowdy and other investors were told that their investments were safe and secure, and they would receive payment of returns on their investment every 90 days. In fact, the investor funds were misused and misappropriated by J&J, which paid returns using money from new investors, in Ponzi-like fashion. On March 3, 2022, FBI agents executed search warrants at the homes of J&J principals, Jeffrey Judd and Matthew Beasley. Beasley brandished a pistol and the agents shot him twice. Beasley then locked himself inside for several hours. A negotiation with the FBI ensued. Before surrendering, Beasley confessed that the J&J investment enterprise was a Ponzi scheme. On April 12, 2022, the SEC filed an enforcement action against J&J and others for injunctive relief, civil penalties and disgorgement. On April 13, 2022, on motion of the SEC, a Temporary Restraining Order was entered in the SEC action, enjoining among other things, the movement of assets under the control of the co-conspirators in the J&J investment enterprise, and further enjoining transfers of funds held in the co-conspirators' accounts, 11 including an attorney trust account maintained by Beasley on behalf of his law firm, the Beasley Law Group, PC, at Wells Fargo. Rather than terminating its relationship with the Beasley firm or taking affirmative steps to halt this fraudulent scheme dependent on the misuse of its banking services, Wells Fargo furthered the scheme, carrying out the instructions which allowed Beasley and his co-conspirators to commingle and dissipate investor funds, and continue to seek out new investors in furtherance of their Ponzi scheme.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Mark Albright, Esq. Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq. ALBRIGHT STODDARD WARNICK & ALBRIGHT 801 S. Rancho Dr., Suite D4 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Telephone: (702) 854-2791 E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com dormsby@albrightstoddard.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com WELTMAN WEINBERG: Widmer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. The case is styled as Edwin S. Widmer, Heather Widmer, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-01323-KSM (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA -- https://www.weltman.com/ -- is a full-service creditors' rights law firm with over 90 years of client service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 351-0200 Fax: (215) 922-3874 Email: rcocco@rcn.com - and - Sean P. Mays THE MAYS LAW FIRM PC Warminster Corporate Center 65 W. Street Rd., Suite B102 Warminster, PA 18974 Phone: (215) 792-4321 Fax: (215) 792-4321 Email: sean@maysfirm.com WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit styled MANDELL MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 8496 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.). On Oct. 12, 2020, Mandell Mitchell brought the putative class action against Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., alleging that the representations on the label of certain Whole Foods' ice cream bars are misleading, in violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, along with other claims. In an opinion and order dated March 4, 2022, the Court dismissed all of Mitchell's claims and granted him leave to replead by March 18, 2022. The order specifically concluded, "Mitchell is directed to file an amended complaint, if at all, by March 18, 2022. If he does not, the case will be closed." District Judge Edgardo Ramos states that Mitchell has neither filed any amended complaint nor requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vcaymwpt from Leagle.com. WISCONSIN: Peshek, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE PESHEK, HUNG TRAN, and BRIAN THRELKELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAREN TIMBERLAKE, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Case No. 21-cv-1061 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying that this case may be maintained as a class action on behalf of: "all individuals in the custody and care ofthe Wisconsin Department of Health Services who remain indefinitely and involuntarily detained at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment facility solely because they are unable to obtain a place to reside on supervised release that complies with the onerous placement and residency restrictions contained within Wis. Stat. Section 980.08;" 2. appointing their counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs Dale Peshek and Brian Threlkeld are two individuals who were previously adjudicated as "sexually violent persons" ("SVPs") and remanded to the custody and care of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services ("DHS"). They have all met the requirements for supervised release and received judicial approval for release from the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment facility ("Sand Ridge"), but they remain indefinitely and involuntarily detained at Sand Ridge solely because they are unable to obtain a place to reside on supervised release that complies with the placement and residency restrictions contained within Wis. Stat. Section 980.08. The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Statute. The Plaintiffs contend that the housing restrictions make it virtually impossible for them to obtain housing, forcing them to remain indefinitely and involuntarily at Sand Ridge and preventing them from being released into the community to complete their treatment. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services is a governmental agency of the U.S. state of Wisconsin responsible for maintaining public health. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ED8bev at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net - and - Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com ZALE CORP: Faces Villalpando Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE VILLALPANDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ZALE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. (April 14, 2022) is a class action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more products through zalesoutlet.com that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false reference price. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased products tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendant from using misrepresentations regarding former price comparisons in its labeling, marketing, and advertising permanently. Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks to obtain actual, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief in the amount by which the Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of its sales offered at a false discount. Discounts of products benefit both sellers and their customers—when they are legitimate. To the detriment of consumers, as announced by the Ninth Circuit, sellers are "well aware of consumers' susceptibility to a bargain, [and] therefore have an incentive to lie to their customers." The following example of a hypothetical DVD seller, which is parallel to Defendant's deceptive business practice, illustrates the illegal false reference pricing scheme and its attendant harm to consumers. A seller knows it can sell a particular DVD at 27 $5.00, which represents both the market price and the price at which the seller could 28 regularly offer the DVD and make a profit. Instead, however, the seller creates an inflated "original" price for the DVD of $100.00 and advertises the DVD as "on sale at 90% off rendering the "sale" price of the DVD $10.00. When a consumer purchases the DVD, he presumes he got a "good deal" on a DVD previously sold -- i.e., valued by others in the 4 market -- at an "original" price of $100.00. Through its alleged false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, the Defendant violated, and continues to violate, federal law and various state consumer protection laws, which prohibit the advertisement of goods for sale discounted 28 from false former prices. These laws also prohibit the dissemination of misleading statements about the existence and amount of price reductions. Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate: California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Zale is an American jewelry retailer, incorporated in Delaware in 1993.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Scott G. Braden, Esq. 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now ------------------------------------------------------------------ Register for the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, Monday, May 2nd, at the Harmonie Club. New speakers are announced weekly. If your firm is interested in sponsorship or a speaking opportunity, please contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com For more conference information, visit us at https://www.classactionconference.com/ ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***