/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220502.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 81 Headlines ALL MY SONS: Form of Class Notice in Vega Suit Granted in Part ANTHEM INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in NY Court ANTHONY MARKS: Henry Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ARNOT HEALTH: Court Dismisses Zona Class Suit Without Prejudice ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ortmann Sues Over Share Price Drop BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Poirier Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop BARNES & NOBLE: Cal. App. Reverses Summary Judgment in Hebert Suit BEST WIRELESS: John Spooner Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL BETTER MORTGAGE: Mejia Sues Over California Labor Code Violations BIG LOTS STORES: Cornejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BIOREFERENCE LAB: Rosenberg Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA BIT DIGITAL: Faces Pauwels Shareholder Suit in NY Court BIT DIGITAL: Faces Yang Shareholder Suit in NY Court BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Shareholder Suit Dismissed BROWN SECURITY: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Gilbert Shareholder Suit in DE Court BURLINGTON STORES: Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Crossley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COLLECTION BUREAU: Church, Husain Seek to Certify Class Action CONAGRA GROCERY: Cal. App. Affirms June 2 Judgment in Nuisance Suit CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Settlement Reached in Rodriguez Suit CSX CORPORATION: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Pending in DC Court DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Burford Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Stay Linde Suit Pending Dismissal EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY: Taylor-Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement Systems Seek to Certify Class Action EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Sues Over Alleged Inaccurate Consumer Reports FARRIOR CORP: Court Seals Settlement Docs in Nooney Class Suit FASHION NOVA: Offley Files Suit in D. Massachusetts FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in OH Court FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Buldas Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Emmons Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Smith Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached on HCCI Suit FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Class Deals in Bernardez & Brown Suits OK'd FLINT, MI: Bid to Disqualify Attorney Cuker From Water Suit Denied FLORIDA FARM: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Yoder FLSA Suit FORT 709: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Hoffman Suit Affirmed FURNITURE ENT: Sanchez Suit Seeks Stockers' Proper Overtime Wages GAMETIME UNITED: Backer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Wants Brief on Staley Settlement Issues GORTON'S INC: Tilapia Products Not Sustainably Sourced, Suit Says GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Si Fan Suit Over 37.3% Drop of Stock Price HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Appeals Discrimination Suit Dismissal HOME DEPOT: Illegally Profits From Returned Goods, Collins Claims HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Giguere HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Faces Quan Suit Over Cyberattack & Data Breach HOT SPRING COUNTY, AR: Mike Cash Seeks to Extend Response Time HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Court Denies Class Certification in Brown Suit HP HOOD: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages INTEGON NATIONAL: Moors Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania INTERNATIONAL SPORTS: Barnett Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices J WALES HOME: Loses Bids to Toss Starling Suit, Strike Class Claims JOHN MATZ: Long Seeks to Certify Class of Plaintiffs JOHN MATZ: Long's Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice JORDAN NICHOLAS: Fails to Pay Sufficient Wages Under FLSA, FMWA JOSEPH FINANCIAL: O'Neal Files Suit in M.D. Florida JT/SG ENTERPRISES: Prelim Pretrial Order Entered in Ocampo Suit KE HOLDINGS: Faces Chin Shareholder Suit in NY Court KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Brayman KRAFT HEINZ: Rodgers Sues Over False Content Labeling of Cannisters KRUEGER PIZZA: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Wiles Says LABOR SOURCE: Partial Dismissal of Speight Suit Granted in Part LIVINGSTON PARISH: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Firefighters LUCKIN COFFEE: Court Stays Banoon Class Action LUCKIN COFFEE: Faces Shareholder Actions in New York Over IPO LUCKIN COFFEE: Settlement of Class Suits Subject to Negotiation M & DK CONTRACTORS: Santos Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shenk Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Ruderman Sues Over Coercive Labor Practices MDL 2244: 3 Cases Consolidated in Hip Implant Liability Row MDL 2670: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit Denied MDL 2816: Heater-Cooler System Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. MDL 2873: Marathon Suit Consolidated in AFFF Product Liability Case MDL 2945: Equipmentshare.com v. Ahern Transferred to W.D. Mo. MDL 3025: Aerosol Product Liability Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio MICHIGAN: Suit Seeks to Certify Medicaid Beneficiary Class MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of Williams-Hopkins, Toft Suits Affirmed MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Amended Baysal Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Brinkley Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass MS. WINE SHOP: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York NABORS COMPLETION: Court Enters Judgment in Favor of Gibson NATURA MANAGEMENT: Chapman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NAVER CORP: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss Ji Suit Continued to May 12 ND PAPER: Maxwell Sues Over Retaliatory Discharge, Defamation NEVADA PROPERTY: Final OK of Collective Action Settlement Sought NEWARK, NJ: Court Refuses to Enter Aziz's Class Certification Order NYP HOLDINGS: Violates Video Privacy Protection Act, Ring Says OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Seeks OK of Class Status Renewed Bid ONEOK FIELD: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Dinsmore ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in CA Court ONTRAK INC: Faces Farhar Shareholder Suit in CA Court ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in CA Court ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Anderson Suit in CA Court ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Aptor Suit in California ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Certiorari Petition Filed in Ahlman Suit OSP INC: Nolley Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliatory Discharge PATZERIA FAMILY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Bocel Suit PERFECT BAR: Consumer Food Products Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says PHILLIPS 66: Scheduling Order Entered in Dinsmore Class Suit PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Panaligan Suit Over False Reference Pricing PIERCE COUNTY, WA: August 19 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Sought PREHIRED LLC: Reid Sues Over Illegal Income Share Agreement PROCTER & GAMBLE: Asencio Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernsee Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Delcid Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dethrow Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROGRESS GLASS: Alvarenga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESSIVE CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pryce Suit PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Williams Files Suit in D. Delaware RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses RESURGENT CAPITAL: Ferris Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection RHM RESTAURANT: Faces Machecha Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Pletsch Balks at Unpaid OT Under FLSA, IMWA RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Mohadeb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York SAFELITE GROUP: Bid to Remand Alvarez Suit to State Court Denied SAFEPOINT INSURANCE: Rosales Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FSLA, FMWA SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Hoffower Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Identity SHIRLEY HILL: Settlement in McCann Suit Gets Initial Nod SKYLINE CAPITAL: Stahl Sues Over "Bait and Switch" Practices SODEXO INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Smith Alleges STONEGATE SENIOR: Fails to Pay OT After Kronos Hack, Sanchez Says STRIDE INC: Ahmed Suit vs Corporate Officer Stayed STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal STRIDE INC: Shemen Suit vs Corporate Officer Stayed SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Union Suit SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Former Officer Faces Aldridge Suit SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Former Officer Faces Gilbert Suit TEP ROCKY: Jolley Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Owners TESLA INC: Talley Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Service Assistants TEXAS: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of J.A. v. TEA Suit TILT HOLDINGS: Settlement in in Securities Suit Gets Court Approval TRUIST BANK: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TUMI INC: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California UNION RAILROAD: Stouffer Appeals Job Discrimination Case Dismissal UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Bahuche Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VALE SA: Faces Indigenous Community Suit Over Salobo Mine VALE SA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Dam Project VALE SA: Shareholder Action in New York Dismissed VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit VOLTA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in CA Court WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Suitable Seating, Nava-Morales Says WALMART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Files Bid for Class Certification WALMART INC: Joint Bid to Stay Discovery OK'd in Hellige Suit WELLNESS BRANDS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Busch Sues Over Alleged Common Stock Split WESTERN STATES: Court Dismisses Dominguez's Claims With Prejudice XEROX CORPORATION: Vollmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class ********* ALL MY SONS: Form of Class Notice in Vega Suit Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Jose A. Vega, Plaintiff v. All My Sons Business Development LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00284-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz.), Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part Vega's Motion for Approval of Form of Rule 23 Class Notice and Plan for Distribution of Class Notice. The Plaintiff seeks approval of the proposed Rule 23 Class Notice form, as well as permission to send notice via simultaneous first-class mail, email, and text message to class members. He also seeks to delay notice until the close of the Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in period to avoid unnecessary confusion for recipients. Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Defendants to provide updated class member contact information to the Plaintiff to capture any additional Helpers hired after March 18, 2022 when the Defendants initially provided this information pursuant to the Court's Order. The Defendants object to the proposed Rule 23 Class Notice because it contains reference to All My Sons' alleged failure to "factor in non-discretionary bonuses that Helpers earned in determining the hourly rate used to calculate overtime pay." They assert that this claim was not in the Complaint, nor was it certified for Rule 23 class resolution by the Court. They do not raise any other objection with the proposed notice or procedure. In reply, the Plaintiff acknowledges that the reference to the non-discretionary bonuses failing to be factored into calculating the overtime pay is an FLSA overtime issue. However, he asserts that he is not attempting to amend the Complaint by including mention of non-discretionary bonuses, but rather, the inclusion of non-discretionary bonuses is relevant to the calculation of how much unpaid overtime compensation is due. The Plaintiff proposes amending the language in the notice as follows: "Plaintiff Vega alleges that he and other employees who worked as Helpers at the All My Sons' Tucson, Arizona location are owed unpaid compensation under the Arizona Wage Statute, A.R.S. Section 23-350 and Section 23-363, including alleged unpaid compensation for off the clock and overtime hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage, non-discretionary bonuses that Helpers earned and were not paid, and failure to pay overtime at the proper rate. Plaintiff Vega also alleges that All My Sons failed to factor in non-discretionary bonuses that Helpers earned in determining the hourly rate used to calculate overtime pay." On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court certified the Unpaid Wages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) "to seek to recover unpaid and untimely wages to the extent they are owed pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 23-350-65." It also conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA to pursue the Plaintiff's claims that Helpers are entitled to overtime compensation. To the extent Helpers are entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA, Arizona law requires All My Sons to timely pay such wages. Judge Collins agrees that the inclusion of non-discretionary bonuses is relevant to the calculation of any overtime compensation that may be due. The Plaintiff does not seek to amend the Complaint because nondiscretionary bonuses are not a separate claim but rather further definition of an existing claim. However, Judge Collins finds that the Plaintiff's amended proposed language does not provide sufficient notice to class members on this issue. Therefore, he will amend the language to read: "Plaintiff Vega alleges that he and other employees who worked as Helpers at the All My Sons' Tucson, Arizona location are owed unpaid compensation under the Arizona Wage Statute, A.R.S. Section 23-350 and Section 23-363. This allegation includes all unpaid compensation, such as wages for work performed off the clock, minimum wages, and untimely overtime wages." Because the Defendants did not raise any other objection to the proposed notice and procedure, Judge Collins approves the remaining language in the notice as well as the proposed date and manner of notification. The parties have notified the Court that the opt in period for the FLSA collective action will end on June 27, 2022. Thus, the Plaintiff is authorized to send the approved Rule 23 class action notice on June 28, 2022. Additionally, Judge Collins will amend its March 8, 2022 Order appointing the class counsel to reflect appointed counsel's new firm, Yen Pilch Robaina & Kresin PLC. The Court previously appointed Patricia Nicole Syverson and Ty Derek Frankel of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC to represent the Unpaid Wages Class. As of Jan. 4, 2022, appointed counsel moved to the firm Yen Pilch Robaina & Kresin PLC. Judge Collins has reviewed the experience of Yen Pilch Robaina & Kresin PLC and finds, as it did with Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, that she is satisfied that the Plaintiff's counsel has the requisite experience, knowledge, and resources to litigate these claims. For these reasons, Judge Collins granted in part the Motion for Approval. With the Court's amended language, the Plaintiff is authorized to send out the proposed notice via simultaneous first-class mail, email, and text message to class members on June 28, 2022. By June 17, 2022, the Defendants will produce to the Plaintiff an updated computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known email addresses, last known phone numbers, and dates of employment for class members, including all individuals who hired as helpers for All My Sons Moving & Storage of Tucson after the previous date set was provided on March 18, 2022. The Court's March 8, 2022 Order is amended to reflect the appointment of Patricia Nicole Syverson and Ty Derek Frankel of Yen Pilch Robaina & Kresin PLC as the class counsel for the Unpaid Wages Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/372jrfut from Leagle.com. ANTHEM INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Suit in NY Court ----------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that it is facing a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned "In Re Express Scripts/Anthem Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which the company provided prescription drug benefits through the Express Scripts Inc. - Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement, by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of our insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for its "NextRx" PBM business, and with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest. In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs pursued an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In December 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the ERISA complaint. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which the company opposed. In December 2021, the United States Supreme Court requested that the Solicitor General submit a brief "expressing the views of the United States" as to whether the court should grant plaintiffs' writ. Anthem is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving nearly 47 million medical members through our affiliated health plans as of March 31, 2022, offering a broad spectrum of network-based managed care risk-based plans to individual, group, Medicaid and Medicare markets. ANTHONY MARKS: Henry Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- Archie Henry, Maurice Geralds, Kevin Merritt, Taron Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANTHONY MARKS, FRANK MARKS, SCOTT MARKS, MARKSMEN LANDSCAPING, LLC, ABC COMPANIES, 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. CAM-L-659-22 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey: Law Division, Camden County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 11, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02101. The Complaint alleges multiple causes of action, including allegations under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act"), codified as the Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John P. Quirke, Esq. JOHN P. QUIRKE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 376 Harlingen Rd. Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Phone: (908) 829-4060 Facsimile: (908) 847-0287 ARNOT HEALTH: Court Dismisses Zona Class Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMMY ZONA and FREDERICK BAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARNOT HEALTH, INC., ARNOT OGDEN MEDICAL CENTER, and ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-CV-6902-FPG (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order: (1) denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and (2) granting in part and the Defendants' cross-motion seeking dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); and (3) denying as moot the Defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. I. Background Plaintiffs Zona and Bain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the class action against the Defendants arising from the Defendants' compensation practices for "non-exempt" nurses. Zona commenced this action on Oct. 28, 2020, with the filing of the initial complaint in the matter against the Defendants and Quest Staffing Group, Inc. The Court's subject matter jurisdiction was purportedly based upon the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Zona alleged that the "Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class action claims because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and because Zona and Defendants are citizens of different states. Moreover, the number of proposed class members in New York exceeds 100." On Dec. 15, 2020, the Defendants filed an answer, and the case was subsequently referred to United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions. On Feb. 18, 2021, Judge Payson issued a Scheduling Order governing discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. On Oct. 11, 2021, Zona voluntarily dismissed her claims against Quest without prejudice, and the Court ordered Quest to be terminated as a defendant in the suit. On Jan. 18, 2022, Zona and Bain filed the operative complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which did not name Quest as a defendant. The Amended Complaint asserted subject matter jurisdiction on the same basis (Class Action Fairness Act) as the initial complaint. The Defendants filed an answer to the Amended Complaint on Jan. 31, 2022. Thereafter, on Feb. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for an order certifying a class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Defendants responded in opposition on March 8, 2022. That same day, the Defendants filed a cross-motion seeking dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) based upon a lack of subject matter, or, in the alternative, seeking summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants' cross-motion, consenting to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but arguing that such dismissal should be without prejudice. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied as moot. The Defendants replied on April 5, 2022, "maintaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as outlined in the original moving papers and conceded by the Plaintiffs is appropriate." In addition, the Defendants urge the Court that, in the event it does exercise its jurisdiction over the matter, summary judgment should be granted. II. Discussion A. CAFA Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs' alleged basis for jurisdiction is the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Defendants argue, inter alia, that the "local controversy" exception to CAFA applies to the case and the Court must therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs agree that the local controversy applies but assert that dismissal must be without prejudice. To demonstrate that the local controversy exception is applicable, a party must show: (1) more than two-thirds of the class members are New York citizens; (2) at least one key defendant is a New York citizen; (3) the alleged conduct causing injury occurred in New York; and (4) no other class action has been filed asserting similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons during the three-year period preceding the filing of the case. With all elements met by a preponderance of the evidence, Judge Geraci finds that the local controversy exception to CAFA applies and the Court is therefore mandated to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the case. First, he finds that the records demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that more than two-thirds of the putative class are New York citizens. Second, all the Defendants are incorporated in New York, and each have their respective principal place of business in New York. Third, the alleged conduct causing injury occurred in New York State. Finally, no other class action has been filed asserting similar factual allegations against any of the Defendants on behalf of the same or other persons during the three-year period preceding the filing of the case. B. Dismissal Without Prejudice and Remaining Motions Under the analysis he described, Judge Geraci must decline to exercise jurisdiction over the matter under the local controversy exception to CAFA. Because he is declining to exercise jurisdiction, dismissal of the action must be without prejudice. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be deneid as moot. Judge Geraci need not reach the Defendants' alternative arguments for dismissal where it finds the local controversy exception to CAFA applies. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will also be denied as moot. III. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Geraci is required to decline jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, he granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, insofar as they argue that the Court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over the matter under the local controversy exception to CAFA. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint without prejudice to the Plaintiffs refiling their suit in an appropriate state court. The remaining aspects of the Defendants' motion, including summary judgment, are denied as moot as the Court need not reach the Defendants' alternative arguments for dismissal. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye55pn6t from Leagle.com. ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian And Pacific Islander Wellness Center, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Isaiah D. Hughes, an individual, on behalf of, himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Asian And Pacific Islander Wellness Center, Inc. d/b/a San Francisco Community Health Center, a California Corporation; Does 1-50, Inclusive; Case No. CGC22599270 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Other Employment Class Action Complaint)" Asian And Pacific Islander Wellness Center, Inc. -- https://www.avac.org/site/asian-pacific-islander-wellness-center -- is a wellness program in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-599-8292 Fax: 619-599-8291 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-255-9047 Fax: 858-404-9203 Email: shani@zakaylaw.com AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ortmann Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL J. ORTMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PETER GREENLEAF, and JOSEPH MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02185 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) is a federal securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Aurinia securities between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet medical need in Japan and the People's Republic of China. The Company's only product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, asserts the complaint. On this news, Aurinia's common share price fell $3.94 per share, or 24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28, 2022. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the complaint says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Poirier Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUZANNE POIRIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BAKKT HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, JOHN MARTIN, OLIBIA STAMATOGLOU, GORDON WATSON, KAI SCHMITZ, and KURT SUMMERS, Case No. 1:22-cv-02283 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bakkt securities between March 31, 2021 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive and/or (b) Bakkt Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the business combination between the Company and Bakkt Holdings completed on or about October 15, 2021 The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 11, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt announced entry into a definitive agreement for the Business Combination that would result in Legacy Bakkt becoming a publicly traded company with an enterprise value of approximately $2.1 billion. On March 31, 2021, the Company filed a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with the Business Combination, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On October 15, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Offering Documents. Thereafter, the Company changed its name to "Bakkt Holdings, Inc." and began operating a digital asset platform that enables consumers to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company had defective financial controls, says the suit. On May 17, 2021, Bakkt -- then still operating as VIH -- notified the SEC of its inability to timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Company advised that, as a result of a statement issued by the SEC, "the Company reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants and private placement warrants" and "is currently determining the extent of the SEC Statement's impact on its financial statements." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.13 per share, or 1.26%, to close at $10.18 per share on May 18, 2021. Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing that it had also previously failed to properly account for the classification of its Class A ordinary shares and "adjusted the initial carrying value of the Class A ordinary shares subject to possible redemption with the offset recorded to additional paid-in capital (to the extent available), accumulated deficit and Class A ordinary shares." Notably, the Company revised its balance sheet as of December 31, 2020, including, among other changes, additional paid-in capital that was reduced from $9,860,338 to nil, an accumulated deficit that ballooned from $4,861,190 to $29,250,419, and total shareholders' equity of $5,000,009 that swung to a total shareholders' deficit of $29,249,901. Following these additional disclosures, the Company's share price fell $0.47 per share, or 4.73%, to close at $9.46 per share on October 14, 2021. Finally, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed in another SEC filing that the Company's management "has re-valuated the accounting classification of the Class A ordinary shares of VIH. On this news, Bakkt's stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%, to close at $17.02 per share on November 22, 2021. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt securities during the Class Period, and/or Bakkt Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Business Combination, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and operated as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), also called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com BARNES & NOBLE: Cal. App. Reverses Summary Judgment in Hebert Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VICKI HEBERT, Plaintiff and Appellant v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D079038 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One, reversed the trial court's judgment in the company's favor and remanded the matter with directions that the trial court vacates its order granting the motion for summary judgment and enters a new order denying the motion for summary judgment. I. Background Ms. Hebert filed a putative class action against Barnes & Noble, alleging it willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq.; hereafter, the FCRA, or the Act). The FCRA requires an employer like Barnes & Noble to provide a job applicant like Hebert with a standalone disclosure stating that the employer may obtain the applicant's consumer report when making a hiring decision. According to Hebert, Barnes & Noble willfully violated the FCRA by providing job applicants with a disclosure that included extraneous language unrelated to the topic of consumer reports. In 2018, Hebert applied to work for Barnes & Noble. During the application process, Barnes & Noble's consumer reporting agency, First Advantage, emailed Hebert a link to a website that displayed Barnes & Noble's consumer report disclosure and requested her authorization to procure a consumer report. Hebert clicked the link, viewed the disclosure, and authorized Barnes & Noble to procure her consumer report. In 2019, Hebert sued Barnes & Noble on behalf of a putative class of individuals as to whom the company had procured or caused to procure a consumer report in the preceding five years. The operative complaint asserted a single cause of action for willful violation of the FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement. It alleged the company willfully violated this requirement because its consumer report disclosure contained extraneous information unrelated to the procurement of a consumer report. It sought statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Barnes & Noble filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that no reasonable jury could find its alleged FCRA violation was willful. It asserted it included the extraneous information in its disclosure due to an inadvertent drafting error. The trial court agreed with Barnes & Noble, granted the company's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in the company's favor. Hebert appeals. II. Discussion Barnes & Noble urges the Court of Appeals to affirm the judgment for the same reason the trial court entered summary judgment in its favor -- it claims no reasonable jury could find its alleged FCRA violation was willful. It asserts its alleged violation was not willful, as a matter of law, because it was an "innocent mistake" that resulted "from a miscommunication" among its employees (Cardwell, Vilke, and Spivak), its outside counsel (Jackson Lewis), and its consumer reporting agency (First Advantage). Barnes & Noble contends no reasonable jury could find its alleged violation was willful because it relied in good faith on the advice of counsel when adopting its disclosure form. It argues its reliance on the advice of counsel "negates any showing of willfulness," thus requiring us to affirm the judgment. Barnes & Noble does not direct us to case law approving the use of an advice-of-counsel defense in a FCRA case. Unlike the trial court, the Court of Appeals concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Barnes & Noble's alleged FCRA violation was willful. Based on the evidence presented in the proceedings, a reasonable jury could find that Barnes & Noble acted willfully because it violated an unambiguous provision of the FCRA, at least one of the company's employees was aware of the extraneous information in the disclosure before the disclosure was displayed to job applicants, the company may not have adequately trained its employees on FCRA compliance, and/or the company may not have had a monitoring system in place to ensure its disclosure complied with the FCRA. Because a reasonable jury could find that Barnes & Noble's alleged FCRA violation was willful, the Court of Appeals will reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions that the trial court vacates its order granting the motion for summary judgment and enters a new order denying the motion for summary judgment. III. Conclusion The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded with directions that the trial court vacates its order granting the motion for summary judgment and enters a new order denying the motion for summary judgment. Hebert is entitled to her costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrfw2euw from Leagle.com. Peter R. Dion-Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com; The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- for the Plaintiff and Appellant. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- Daniel C. Posner -- danposner@quinnemanuel.com, and John W. Baumann -- jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent. BEST WIRELESS: John Spooner Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SPOONER, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. BEST WIRELESS MANAGEMENT LLC, JOHN DOE BEST WIRELESS STORES 1-34, NICK GARG, and NISHANT GARG, Case No. 2:22-cv-02290 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime, due to misclassification of non-exempt worker as exempt; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In or around October 2021, Mr. Spooner was hired by the Defendants to work as an assistant manager at Defendants' "BEST WIRELESS" store located at 90 East Main Street, Unit F, Patchogue, New York 11772, the "Farmingville" store. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until in or around February 2022. Best Wireless controls and operates all John Doe Best Wireless Stores 1-34. Individual Defendants Nick Garg and Nishant Garg are co-owners of all Defendant John Doe Best Wireless Stores 1-34. The Defendants collectively own and operate at least 34 electronic and wireless retail stores all under the trade name “Best Wireless” in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BETTER MORTGAGE: Mejia Sues Over California Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Misael Mejia, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV009600 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 8, 2022), is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage Orders, including without limitation, failure to pay sick pay and meal/rest period premium wages based on the correct regular rate of pay and provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying all required information. The Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired to work for Defendant as a non-exempt, or hourly employee. The Defendant is a mortgage loan processing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: 831.531.4214 Facsimile: 831.634.033 - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 BIG LOTS STORES: Cornejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Lots Stores Inc., et al. The case is styled as Katy Cornejo, and all others similarly situated v. Big Lots Stores Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00318624-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 20, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Big Lots, Inc. -- https://www.biglots.com/ -- is an American retail company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio with over 1,400 stores in 47 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com BIOREFERENCE LAB: Rosenberg Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE ROSENBERG and KELLY M. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02321 (D.N.J., April 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs as non-exempt, hourly paid employee and did not paid for all of their hours worked, not paid all earned overtime premiums, subjected to improper deductions from wages, issued non compliant wage statements, and suffered other damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful policies and practices which included requiring Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective members to work "off the clock," failing to pay Plaintiffs for all compensable time, time shaving and other unlawful policies, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant contracts with cruise ship operators to provide personnel to perform tests to detect COVID-19. BioReference employed the Plaintiffs to provide Point of Care services in Defendant's Passenger Department and assigned the Plaintiffs to the Contracted Royal Caribbean Group cruise ships to conduct tests of cruise ship crew and passengers boarding or disembarking cruises in the cities of Bayonne, New Jersey; Los Angeles, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Galveston, Texas; Port Canaveral, Florida; Seattle, Washington; or Tampa, Florida. The Collective Class consists of all persons who are or have been employed (either directly or through outside agencies) by Defendant as "Cruise Swabbers," "Swabbers," and "Team Leads" at ports and on Contracted RCG Ships traveling from US ports within the period of three years prior to the filing date of this Complaint (the "Collective Class Period") and who were subject to Defendant's policy of failing to pay overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hajar Hasani, Esq. Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Brendan Sweeney, Esq. Nicholas Bittner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 BIT DIGITAL: Faces Pauwels Shareholder Suit in NY Court ------------------------------------------------------- Bit Digital, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2022, that it is facing a securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, titled "Anthony Pauwels v. Bit Digital, Inc., Min Hu and Erke Huang," Case No. 1:21-cv-00515 (January 20, 2021, S.D. N.Y.). The class action is on behalf of persons that purchased or acquired its ordinary shares between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021. On April 21, 2021, the court consolidated said action with several related cases under the caption "In re Bit Digital Securities Litigation." Bit Digital, Inc. is a financial services company into digital/crypto currency based in New York. BIT DIGITAL: Faces Yang Shareholder Suit in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------- Bit Digital, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2022, that it is facing a securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, titled "Yang v. Bit Digital, Inc., Min Hu and Erke Huang," Case No. 1:21-cv- 00721 (January 26, 2021, S.D. N.Y.). The class action is on behalf of persons that purchased or acquired its ordinary shares between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021. On April 21, 2021, the court consolidated said action with several related cases under the caption "In re Bit Digital Securities Litigation." Bit Digital, Inc. is a financial services company into digital/crypto currency based in New York. BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Shareholder Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, 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 case captioned "Carlson v. Allen Wolff, Michael Gottlieb, Richard Simtob, Susan Miller and NTN Buzztime, Inc.," C.A. No. 2021-0193-KSJM (Del. Ch. Ct.) was dismissed with prejudice on September 16, 2021. On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported stockholder of Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.), filed a verified class action complaint against Brooklyn and its then current members of the board of directors, for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an annual stockholder meeting. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment at the same time that he filed his complaint. In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, Brooklyn agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021, which date was subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2021. On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation, which was "so ordered" by the court, extending defendants' time to respond to the complaint and to file their answering brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before July 16, 2021 and providing that plaintiff's reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment is due on or before August 20, 2021. On or about July 12, 2021, the parties entered in a further amended scheduling order, which provided that defendants were to respond to the complaint and file their answering brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before September 16, 2021 and plaintiff was to file its reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2021. On August 20, 2021, Brooklyn convened its 2021 annual meeting. Due to the lack of a required quorum, the meeting was adjourned to September 3, 2021. Thereafter, Brooklyn obtained a quorum, and the annual meeting was held on September 3, 2021. On September 10, 2021, Brooklyn filed a report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing the results of the annual meeting. On September 16, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation seeking voluntary dismissal of the complaint as moot. The court entered the dismissal on September 16, 2021 with prejudice as to the named plaintiff and without prejudice as to other members of the purported class and retained jurisdiction for the purpose of determining any fee application to the extent it cannot be resolved amicably the parties. Thereafter, on or about November 12, 2022, the parties resolved plaintiff's counsel's request for an award of fees and expenses for the purported benefit that Carlson contended was received by stockholders as a result of his action. Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on cytokine-based therapy for the immune system in treating patients with cancer, both as a single agent and in combination with other anti-cancer therapies. BROWN SECURITY: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL TAYLOR and DAVID MCDANIEL, Plaintiff v. BROWN SECURITY & LEO MANAGEMENT d/b/a SOUTHERN PROTECTION AGENCY and JOHN BROWN Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00073-TCB (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Taylor was employed by Defendants as a security guard and provided security services to Defendants' contracted clients in Covington, Georgia. Mr. McDaniel was employed as a site manager from November 2021 through January 2022. Brown Security & LEO Management, doing business as Southern Protection Agency, is a security company with its principal place of business in Carroll County, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone/Facsimile: (877) 443-0999 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Gilbert Shareholder Suit in DE Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ BurgerFi International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that Mr. Eric Gilbert filed a class action lawsuit, captioned "Eric Gilbert v. BurgerFi International, Inc., Ophir Sternberg, et al.," (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2022-0185-, filed on February 25, 2022) against BurgerFi International, Inc. and each of the members of the Board of Directors alleging that the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws improperly contains a provision restricting written consents by the shareholders. Mr. Gilbert is seeking an amendment to the bylaws, as well as attorney' fees and costs. BurgerFi International, Inc. multi-brand restaurant company based in Florida. BURLINGTON STORES: Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM PAYTON-FERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v. BURLINGTON STORES, INC., BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00608-NLH-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff Kim Payton-Fernandez, along with Opt-in Plaintiffs Lavern Coleman and Darniel Williams will move the Court, on May 2, 2022, to: conditionally certify a class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); to provide judicial notice of this lawsuit to all collective action members; and to facilitate notice by requiring Defendants to produce an electronic list of collective action class members, with their contact information. Burlington, formerly known as Burlington Coat Factory, is an American national off-price department store retailer, and a division of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation with 740 stores in 40 states and Puerto Rico. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OBw4HS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, New York 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger ----------------------------------------------------- Butterfly Network, Inc. (formerly Longview Acquisition 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 19, 2022, that on February 16, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company, certain of its executive officers and directors and certain of Longview Acquisition's executive officers and directors alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Rule 14a-9. The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021 and/or holders as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021 in connection with the approval of the Business Combination. The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business merger business and financial prospects, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Butterfly Network is a blank check company 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. CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Crossley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerebral Medical Group, P.A., et al. The case is styled as Kaycie Crossley, an individual on behalf of, herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Cerebral Medical Group, P.A., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive; Case No. CGC22599132 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 11, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Cerebral Medical Group, P.A. is a behavioral health agency in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas James Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-952-0354 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Church, Husain Seek to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD J. CHURCH and RANDA A. HUSAIN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON VALLEY, INC.; and JOHN 1 to 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-03172-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 23. Collection Bureau is a debt collection agency located in Newburgh, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rMcLBS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel. & Fax: (201) 273-7117 - and - Ronald I. LeVine, Esq. Eileen L. Linarducci, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RONALD L EVINE 210 River Street, Suite 11 Hackensack, NJ 07601 CONAGRA GROCERY: Cal. App. Affirms June 2 Judgment in Nuisance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A160548 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's judgment entered on June 2, 2020. I. Introduction The insurance coverage case arises from an underlying representative public nuisance action in which a number of former manufacturers of lead paint were ordered to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to be used to abate the public nuisance created by interior residential lead paint in 10 California jurisdictions. The question presented is whether the trial court correctly determined that ConAgra, as successor to paint manufacturer W.P. Fuller & Co., was not entitled to indemnity from its insurers for its payment to the abatement fund due to Insurance Code section 533, which provides that insurers are not liable for losses caused by a willful act of the insured. II. Background The case began in 2000, when the County of Santa Clara, subsequently joined by multiple other counties and governmental entities, filed a class action complaint against a number of lead paint manufacturers (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 299 (Santa Clara I).) After several amendments of the complaint, the trial court sustained demurrers to causes of action for public nuisance, one a claim by the class plaintiffs seeking damages and the other a representative action on behalf of the People of the State of California seeking abatement. The court later granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on other causes of action and entered a judgment of dismissal. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for representative public nuisance and granting summary judgment on three others. On remand, on March 16, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint alleging a single cause of action for representative public nuisance on behalf of the People. The complaint alleged that the presence of lead in paint and coatings in and around homes and buildings in California has created a massive public health crisis and that defendants created and/or assisted in the creation of this nuisance by, among other things, promoting lead for interior and exterior use despite having known for nearly a century that such use of lead was hazardous to human beings. Following a trial in 2013, the trial court found ConAgra and two other companies (NL Industries, Inc. and the Sherwin-Williams Company) jointly and severally liable and ordered establishment of a fund dedicated to abatement of lead paint in pre-1978 homes in the 10 jurisdictions represented in the case. The court's lengthy and detailed statement of decision (113 pages) and proposed judgment were filed on Jan. 7, 2014. On March 26, 2014, the trial court issued an amended statement of decision and amended judgment requiring the three companies to pay $1.15 billion into the abatement fund. ConAgra and the other two companies appealed. The Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected most of the challenges to the judgment, but reversed for recalculation of the abatement fund to exclude the cost of remediating lead hazards in post-1950 housing, as there was no evidence the companies affirmatively promoted lead paint for interior use after 1950 and insufficient evidence of a causal connection between the companies' earlier promotions and interior lead paint in homes built after 1950 (People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51 (Santa Clara II)). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. On remand, the trial court recalculated the amount to be paid into the abatement fund to $409 million. After an offset for payment by another lead paint manufacturer no longer in the case, the total amount to be paid into the fund was reduced to $401,122,482. On July 10, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement under which ConAgra, NL Industries, Inc. and Sherwin-Williams Co. each agreed to pay $101,666,666 in full satisfaction of any and all claims. Meanwhile, just after the trial court filed its initial statement of decision in January 2014, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and other insurers had filed a first amended complaint for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that they had no coverage obligation to ConAgra with respect to or arising from the case under policies issued to ConAgra and/or its predecessor companies. The declaratory relief action was stayed on April 2, 2014, and the stay was lifted as of March 13, 2019. On March 22, 2019, ConAgra filed its answer, seeking dismissal of the first amended complaint and judgment in ConAgra's favor, and a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that it was entitled to coverage under specified primary and excess liability insurance policies. On July 19, 2019, the insurers moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The insurers argued they had no duty to provide coverage for four reasons: (1) section 533 prohibits coverage for ConAgra's intentional promotion of lead paint or interior; residential use with actual knowledge of the health hazard that would result; (2) there was no "occurrence" within the meaning of the policies because the harm was expected or intended and not accidental; (3) the abatement remedy was not liability for "damages" or an "expense" under the policies; and/or (4) ConAgra's liability was not "because of" or "on account of" "bodily injury," "property damage" and/or "personal injury" under the policies. ConAgra moved for summary adjudication, arguing each of the issues raised in the insurers' motion should be resolved in favor of ConAgra. In connection with this motion, ConAgra submitted the parties' "Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Evidence," which essentially summarized the chronology of the underlying litigation, and "Joint Stipulated Summary of Policies and Policy Language," which included the policies themselves as exhibits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, holding that Insurance Code section 5334 precluded coverage as a matter of law because it "'precludes indemnification for liability arising from deliberate conduct that the insured expected or intended to cause damage'"; "'willful act of insured' includes an act 'intentionally performed with knowledge that damage is highly probable"; and courts in the underlying litigation "clearly and repeatedly found" that "Fuller intentionally promoted lead paint with knowledge that damage to children was at least highly probable." Judgment was entered on June 2, 2020, and ConAgra filed a timely notice of appeal. III. Discussion ConAgra was found liable in the underlying case as corporate successor to Fuller; ConAgra itself played no role in the lead paint business. ConAgra's arguments on appeal take two tacks, one attempting to distance itself from Fuller's conduct and knowledge and the other attempting to avoid application of section 533 even assuming Fuller's conduct and knowledge are the determinative factors. A. ConAgra argues section 533 does not apply because the statute precludes coverage for losses due to a willful act of "the insured," ConAgra is "the insured," and ConAgra (as opposed to Fuller) committed no wrongful act. It maintains applying section 533 to bar insurance coverage for its losses as successor to Fuller does not serve the policy purposes of the statute because, since Fuller committed the willful act, requiring ConAgra to bear the loss cannot be justified as precluding a party from benefitting from his or her own wrong or preventing intentional misconduct. ConAgra maintains that no authority supports applying section 533 to liability based on corporate succession for losses arising decades after the wrongful conduct of the predecessor. As explained in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (C.D. Cal. 1992) 786 F.Supp. 867, 870-871, the Court of Appeals says, application of section 533 is appropriate in the situation because the successor in a merger is "on notice that it is purchasing the predecessor subject to the liabilities of that entity." "The successor entity is responsible as the wrongdoer, in the sense that the successor knew that the predecessor may have committed some wrongdoing and thereby agreed to assume any liability therefore." The question under section 533 is whether the loss for which an insured seeks indemnity was caused by a willful act of the insured. The loss at issue in the case is the amount ConAgra paid into the abatement fund due to its liability for creating the public nuisance. The insurers' duty to indemnify is determined by the actual basis of liability imposed on the insured -- in the case, liability for public nuisance as successor to Fuller, whose conduct was a substantial factor in creating the nuisance. ConAgra has provided neither authority nor persuasive reasoning to support its contention that a different causation analysis is required under section 533 than that used to determine its underlying liability. B. ConAgra next argues the underlying findings did not establish as a matter of law that Fuller acted with the knowledge required for section 533 to apply. It argues the "actual knowledge" found in the underlying litigation is not the same as the subjective "substantial certainty" required to bar coverage under section 533, and Fuller's knowledge could be shown only by evidence that senior management was substantially certain its promotions would result in the loss for which ConAgra seeks indemnity, as to which no evidence was presented or findings made. The Court of Appeals holds that the underlying litigation established that Fuller -- the corporate entity -- had actual knowledge of the harms associated with lead paint when it promoted lead paint for interior residential use. It has already concluded that this actual knowledge finding necessarily means Fuller acted with knowledge that lead paint was "substantially certain" or "highly likely" to result in the hazard found to exist in the underlying litigation, and therefore established the willful act required to trigger section 533 prohibition against insurance coverage. ConAgra's argument that the knowledge required for application of section 533 required proof of what knowledge was held by specific individuals within the company is in effect a challenge to factual determinations made in the underlying litigation that are now final and binding. As the Court of Appeals has said, an insurer's duty to indemnify is determined by the actual basis of liability imposed on the insured. Since the findings establishing that liability also establish the willful act required for application of section 533, ConAgra's position is untenable. IV. Conclusion The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2y7x9zv8 from Leagle.com. Reed Smith, Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- David E. Weiss, T. Connor O'Carroll, Attorneys for Appellant ConAgra Grocery Products Company. Zuckerman Spaeder, Carl S. Kravitz -- ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- (Pro Hac Vice), Caroline E. Reynolds (Pro Hac Vice), Alicia Shelton (Pro Hac Vice), Nicolaides Fink Thorpe Michaelides Sullivan, Sara M. Thorpe, Ethan H. Seibert, Attorneys for Respondents Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London; Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company; The Northern Assurance Co. of America; and Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Hinshaw & Culbertson, John E. DeLascio -- jdelascio@hinshawlaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice), Scott M. Seaman (Pro Hac Vice), Robert G. Levy, Affiliated FM Insurance Co. Selvin Wraith Halman, Gary R. Selvin -- gselvin@selvinwraith.com -- Chaffetz Lindsey, Charles J. Scibetta (Pro Hac Vice), Ted Debonis (Pro Hac Vice), AIU Insurance Co.; American Home Assurance Company; Granite State Insurance Co.; The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; Lexington Insurance Co.; National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Skarzynski Marick & Black, James H. Kallianis, Jr., Sinnott, Puebla, Campagne & Curet, Debra R. Puebla, Robert A. Sanders, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.; American Zurich Insurance Co.; Zurich Reinsurance Co. Ltd.; Zurich Insurance Co. Clyde & Company US, Bruce D. Celebrezze -- bruce.celebrezze@clydeco.us -- Dean J. McElroy, W. Andrew Miller, Paul R. Koepff (Pro Hac Vice), Ryan Westerfield (Pro Hac Vice), Peter J. Whalen, O'Melveny & Myers, Jonathan Hacker (Pro Hac Vice), Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, Edward P. Murphy, Ancon Insurance Company; Brittany Insurance Company; CAN Reinsurance Company; Dominion Insurance Company; Terra Nova Insurance Company; Harper Insurance; La Union Atlantique; St. Katherine Insurance Company. Dorsey & Whitney, Faisal M. Zubairi -- zubairi.faisal@dorsey.com -- Employers Insurance Company of Wausau. Crowell & Moring, Mark D. Plevin -- mplevin@crowell.com -- Laura A. Foggan (Pro Hac Vice), Everest Reinsurance Company; Fairmont Premier Insurance Co.; Crum & Forster Insurance Co.; United States Fire Insurance Co. Tressler, Mary McPherson -- mmcpherson@tresslerllp.com -- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.; Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company. Kendall Brill & Kelly, Alan Jay Weil -- ajweil@kbkfirm.com -- Shauna E. Woods, First State Insurance Co.; Hartford Fire Insurance Co.; New England Insurance Co.; Twin City Fire Insurance Co. Duane Morris, William J. Baron -- WJBaron@duanemorris.com -- Philip R. Matthews, Great American E&S Insurance Company; Safety National Casualty Corporation. Craig & Winkelman, Bruce H. Winkelman -- contact@Craig-Winkelman.com -- Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.; Executive Risk Indemnity. Wolkin Curran, Brandt L. Wolkin -- bwolkin@wolkincurran.com -- Jennifer Elowsky, Old Republic Insurance Co. CNA Coverage Litigation Group, Edward J. Tafe -- edward.tafe@cna.com -- Dentons US, M. Keith Moskowitz (Pro Hac Vice), Kristen C. Rodriguez (Pro Hac Vice), Shannon Y. Shin (Pro Hac Vice), The Continental Insurance Co.; National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford; Columbia Casualty Co.; Continental Casualty Co. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Stephen P. Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- Bryce L. Friedman (Pro Hac Vice), Susannah S. Geltman (Pro Hac Vice), Travelers Casualty and Surety Company; St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company. CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Settlement Reached in Rodriguez Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CPI Aerostructures, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2022, that in May 20, 2021, the parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit captioned "Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al.," Case No. 20-cv-01026) reached a settlement. Said action was filed against the company, Douglas McCrosson, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, Vincent Palazzolo, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the two underwriters of the company's October 16, 2018 offering of common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR. The Amended Complaint in the action asserts claims on behalf of two plaintiff classes namely purchasers of the company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the company's offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018 and purchasers of the company's common stock between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in the company's periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief and costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. On February 19, 2021, the company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its entirety. The motion remains pending. CPI Aerostructures Inc. is an aircraft part and auxiliary equipment manufacturer incorporated in New York. CSX CORPORATION: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Pending in DC Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ CSX Corporation 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 it is facing class action lawsuits filed against CSX and three other US-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case in federal court in the District of Columbia. In 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying class certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. The consolidated case is now moving forward without class certification. Although a class was not certified, shippers other than those who brought the original lawsuit in 2007 must decide whether to bring their own individual claim against one or more railroads. Individual shipper claims filed to date have been consolidated into a separate case. CSX Corporation together with its subsidiaries provides rail-based transportation services including traditional rail service, the transport of intermodal containers and trailers, as well as other transportation services such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk commodity operations. DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Burford Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Tony Burford filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled TONY BURFORD v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-00577-JMY, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 5, 2022, the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's federal law claims and declined jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law conversion claim. Plaintiff Tony Burford was arrested on January 15, 2016. An information was filed against him in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas charging Plaintiff with one or more felonies. Bail was initially set at $100,000 and then subsequently reduced to $60,000 for which Plaintiff posted 10% at $6,000. By March 1, 2017, all charges against Plaintiff were either withdrawn, dismissed or he was found not guilty. Despite not being convicted of any crime, the Plaintiff was assessed $3,533.05 in costs which consisted of $2,400 for a "Bail Handling Percent (Delaware)" along with various charges in the amount of $1,133.05. Thus, of the $6,000 Plaintiff posted bail for, he was offered less than 50% back despite not being convicted of any offense. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of Judge Younge's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Tony Burford v. County of Delaware, et al., Case No. 22-1673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 14, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TONY BURFORD, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alan E. Denenberg, Esq. ABRAMSON & DENENBERG 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 546-1345 E-mail: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com - and - Stephen O'Hanlon, Esq. Israel Schwartz, Esq. O'HANLON LAW FIRM 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 546-9066 E-mail: steve@ohanlonlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF DELAWARE; ANGELA L. MARTINEZ, Delaware County Prothonotary, in her Individual and Official Capacities; PATRICIA ORESKOVICH, Director of Court Financial Services, in her Individual and Official Capacities; and PHILIP F. PISANI, Director of Pre-Trial/Bail Services, in Her Individual and Official Capacities, are represented by: Suzanne McDonough, Esq. HOLSTEN ASSOCIATES 115 Jackson Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 627-8307 E-mail: smcdonough@holstenassoc.com DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-03272 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Deutsche Bank -- https://www.db.com/us/ -- is a leading provider of financial services to agencies, corporations, governments, private individuals and institutions in the Americas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Stay Linde Suit Pending Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NORMA LINDE, Plaintiff v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2661-HLT-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay the Case Pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Related Case. The decision to stay discovery and other pretrial proceedings is firmly vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. In exercising this power, the court "must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that "the right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances." Therefore, as a general rule, the District of Kansas does not favor staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion. A stay is not favored because it can delay a timely resolution of the matter. In the case, the Defendants move for a stay of the first-filed case pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss or transfer another case, in another federal district court. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. In deciding their request for stay, the Defendants ask the Court to consider the factors that are typically considered when a party moves for a stay pending a decision regarding transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). In those situations, cases are not automatically stayed when a party moves the JPML for transfer and consolidation, rather courts typically consider three factors in deciding whether to grant a stay: (1) potential prejudice to the nonmoving party if the case is stayed; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) judicial economy, i.e. whether judicial resources would be saved. The Plaintiff asks the Court instead to apply five factors that have been used by courts when deciding whether to stay a civil case while a criminal case is pending: "(1) the interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest." Judge James rejects the five-factor test proposed by the Plaintiff, as not applicable or appropriate to the stay determination in the situation presented, where two "civil" cases are pending at the same time. On the other hand, she finds the three-factor test proposed by the Defendants useful and instructive to the stay determination here, as those cases in which a party moves for a stay pending a decision regarding transfer and consolidation by the JPML are analogous to the situation here. Accordingly, taking into account those factors and the general rule in this District disfavoring stays, Judge James determines that the Defendants have not met their burden to show that the case should be stayed pending another court's decision. The case was filed Dec. 30, 2020 as a putative class and collective action. The Court entered a Phase I Scheduling Order on June 23, 2021. The parties engaged in discovery for about nine months, before the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to Pursue Claims on an Individual Basis on March 15, 2022. In the meantime, on Feb. 24, 2022, Laurie Clark filed what Defendants characterize as a "nearly-identical proposed class and collective action" against Defendant Envision Healthcare Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In Tennessee, Envision moved to dismiss or transfer the case to the District of Kansas based on the first-to-file rule. Neither Plaintiff Linde nor the other two Defendants in this case are parties in the Tennessee case. The Defendants argue that Plaintiff Linde will not be prejudiced by a stay of the matter. They suggest that the Tennessee court will promptly rule their motion in the Tennessee case -- resulting in only a short delay of the case. They also assert that little additional discovery remains in the case, so a brief stay would not unnecessarily delay proceedings. Judge James disagrees with the Defendants. She says, their assumption the Tennessee court will rule promptly on Envision's motion is conclusory. The Court has no way of knowing how quickly or slowly that court will rule the motion. What the Defendants propose is, therefore, a stay of indefinite duration. Additionally, Plaintiff Linde has an interest in proceeding expeditiously with her case. If anything, the fact that little discovery may remain here weighs in favor of continuing with Plaintiff Linde's case. She may be approaching resolution of her case, and if forced to await a decision in another court, in a case in which she is not a party, she may indeed suffer prejudice. The other Defendants and the Court (in keeping with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1), have an interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of the case. The Defendants also argue they will suffer hardship and inequity if this action is not stayed. According to them, they may have to brief summary judgment in the case -- only to have a class and collective action transferred to the District of Kansas, upending the schedule in the case. They cite Wood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., arguing in that case this Court granted a motion to stay proceedings pending decision in a related action because the potential prejudice of pursuing identical claims could be avoided. But, Judge James finds that Wood was a "unique" case and not even remotely similar to this case either factually or procedurally. Again, she disagrees with the Defendants' hardship and inequity arguments. First, the Defendants assume the Tennessee court will transfer the Tennessee case to the Court -- an assumption Judge James views with skepticism. Second, the Defendants appear to assume that if the Tennessee case is ultimately transferred to Kansas, the Court would take the next step and consolidate it with the case -- another assumption that raises serious questions, given the nature and posture of the case. Without these assumptions, the timing of summary judgment briefing and class or collective certification would not matter. These assumptions are based on speculation and do not justify a finding that Defendants will suffer hardship and inequity. Finally, the Defendants contend a stay will conserve judicial resources. They speculate if the Tennessee action is transferred, the parties will seek discovery in that case, which may overlap with summary judgment briefing in this action. This argument also rings hollow -- for largely the same reason Defendants' second argument fails. Judge James holds that even if the Tennessee action is ultimately transferred, there is no guarantee that, as a putative collective and class action, it would be consolidated with this late-stage single-plaintiff case with individual claims. As she noted at the outset, the right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances. No such circumstances exist in the case. Judge James has carefully considered the pertinent factors set out and in her discretion has determined that a stay of the case is not warranted or justified. She simply cannot justify putting Plaintiff Linde's claims on hold to await, for an indefinite and potentially lengthy period of time, the decision of another court that may or may not impact this mature case at all. Judge James exercises discretion and declines to impose a stay. For these reasons, she denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay the Case Pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Related Case. The parties will confer and jointly propose an amended scheduling order to the Court by email within 14 days of the date of this order. After reviewing the proposal, she will either enter an amended scheduling order or reconvene a conference call to discuss the proposed schedule with the parties. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yum5yd2n from Leagle.com. EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY: Taylor-Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episcopal Community Services, et al. The case is styled as Dachelle Taylor-Bennett, individually and on, behalf of all others similarly situated v. Episcopal Community Services, Episcopal Community Services Of San Francisco, The Episcopal Community Services Of The Diocese Of Northern California, Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599268 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 20, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Other Employment)." Episcopal Community Services (ECS) -- https://ecs-sf.org/ -- has provided essential services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness in San Francisco since 1983.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that in January 11, 2022, a consumer settlement of a consolidated action over a 2017 cybersecurity incident became effective. On January 13, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. District Court overseeing centralized pre-trial proceedings for the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and numerous other federal court actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in connection with the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation. The MDL Court entered an amended order granting final approval of the settlement on March 17, 2020. Several objectors appealed the Final Approval Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 3, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit issued an order reversing the MDL Court's grant of incentive awards to class representatives, but affirming all other aspects of the Final Approval Order. Several objectors filed petitions with the Eleventh Circuit seeking a rehearing, and on July 29, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit denied those petitions. On August 12, 2021, the MDL Court made the Eleventh Circuit's mandate the judgment of the MDL Court. Two objectors filed petitions for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and on January 10, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the last remaining petition. On January 11, 2022, the Consumer Settlement became effective. Equifax develops, maintains and enhances secured proprietary information databases through the compilation of consumer specific data, including credit, income, employment, criminal history, asset, liquidity, net worth and spending activity, and business data, including credit and business demographics. EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement Systems Seek to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., FRANK WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS MCGRANE, and SETH BLACKLEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01031-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), Lead Plaintiffs Plymouth County Retirement System and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, ask the Court to enter an order 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing them as Class Representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3); and 3. appointing Lead Counsel Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Evolent Health is a health care company that delivers clinical and administrative solutions to payers and providers. A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQ0aBQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 206-6708 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. Sara DiLeo, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com sdileo@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Sues Over Alleged Inaccurate Consumer Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PENA, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC, and DOES 1 through , inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01255 919-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., April 21, 2022) is a consumer class action based upon Experian's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Experian allegedly deprives consumers of their rights under the FCRA, and CCRAA by refusing to adopt procedures that assure the maximum possible accuracy of the background records it prepares and sells about individual consumers, resulting in inaccurate consumer reports that it then sells to third parties. Specifically, the Defendant violates the FCRA, and CCRAA by improperly associating innocent consumers with terrorists, narcotics traffickers, money launderers, arms dealers, and other 11 criminals subject to U.S. government sanctions. To the extent the Defendant asserts that it is not a consumer reporting agency within the meaning of the FCRA, or CCRAA, the Plaintiff asserts in the alternative that the Defendant's alleged practices constitute are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following Class: -- FCRA Ckass "All natural persons residing in the United States and its Territories about whom Experian furnished a consumer report to a third party that included any OF AC record, during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this matter." -- CCRAA Class "All natural persons residing in the United States and its Territories about whom Experian furnished a consumer report to a third party that included any OF AC record, during the period beginning seven years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this matter." -- UCL Class "All natural persons residing in the United States and its Territories about whom Experian furnished a consumer report to a third party that included any OF AC record, during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this matter." Experian is a consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren K. W. Brennan, Esq. Travis B. Martindale-Jarvis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMil.AS, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirrn.com jsoumilas@consum.erlawfum.com lbrennan@consumerlawfum.com tmartindale@consumerlawiirm.com FARRIOR CORP: Court Seals Settlement Docs in Nooney Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY NOONEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FARRIOR CORPORATION and MARK FARRIOR, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-00146-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Denver of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to File Settlement Documents Under Seal. The Defendants submit that the Parties have reached a settlement of the hybrid FLSA collective action and North Carolina wage and hour class action litigation. The Defendants moved to file the Parties' Settlement and Release Agreement, the Plaintiff's Supplemental Settlement Agreement and Releases, and the Class Notice and Claim Form (collectively, the "Settlement Documents") under seal because a material term of the Parties' Settlement and Release Agreement is that its terms be kept confidential. Judge Denver explains that the Court may seal documents if the public's right of access to documents filed with court is outweighed by the litigants' interests. He has balanced the competing interests in access and finds sealing of the Settlement Documents is justified. Judge Denver says the Settlement Documents contain information related to specific employment relationships and not matters of public concern. The public's interest is nonexistent, or at most slight, where the Plaintiff's allegations and the Defendants' primary defenses to those allegations, which together gave rise to the settlement at issue, are being made publicly available in the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. In addition, confidentiality is a critical factor in support of the public policy encouraging litigants to settle claims without resort to burdensome litigation. There are no alternatives to filing under seal, as the Court must approve the settlement for final adjudication of the FLSA matter. The Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion and do not oppose the documents referred to therein being filed under seal. For these reasons, Judge Denver granted the Defendants' Unopposed Motion and sealed the Settlement Documents. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y537d4u4 from Leagle.com. FASHION NOVA: Offley Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Offley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10603-IT (D. Mass., April 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the world's leading quick-to-market apparel and lifestyle brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 S. Main St., 3rd Flr. West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in OH Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that it is facing two putative class action lawsuits filed in July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020 respectively alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The cases have been consolidated captioned "In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation," (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio). Purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. FirstEnergy is into electric services and is based in Akron, Ohio. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Buldas Suit --------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that in April 11, 2022, FE agreed to a settlement to resolve claims brought about by complainants in the case captioned "Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al.," (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio) filed in July 31, 2020. Plaintiffs are purported customers of FE alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and related state law claims. Said action has been consolidated. FirstEnergy is into electric services and is based in Akron, Ohio. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Emmons Suit --------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that on April 11, 2022, FE agreed to a settlement to resolve claims in case captioned "Emmons v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al." filed in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, OH in August 4, 2020. A purported customer of FirstEnergy filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE alleging several causes of action, including negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive consumer acts or practices. FirstEnergy is into electric services and is based in Akron, Ohio. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached in Smith Suit -------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that in April 11, 2022, FE agreed to a settlement to resolve claims brought about by complainants in the case captioned "Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al.," (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio) filed in July 27, 2020. Plaintiffs are purported customers of FE alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and related state law claims. Said action has been consolidated. FirstEnergy is into electric services and is based in Akron, Ohio. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement Reached on HCCI Suit ------------------------------------------------- Firstenergy Corp. (FE) disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that in April 11, 2022, FE agreed to a settlement to resolve claims brought about by complainants in the case captioned "Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al." (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio) filed in August 5, 2020. Plaintiffs are purported customers of FE alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and related state law claims. Said action has been consolidated. FirstEnergy is into electric services and is based in Akron, Ohio. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Class Deals in Bernardez & Brown Suits OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, ALAN BERNARDEZ, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC d/b/a MEDASSIST, Defendant, and JANA BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC d/b/a MEDASSIST, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 3:17-cv-613-RGJ, 3:20-cv-99-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motions to Settle and Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice the Bernardez Action and the Brown Action. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Bernardez and others similarly situated move unopposed for an order approving the terms of their Settlement Agreement with Defendant Firstsource and to dismiss the Bernardez Action with prejudice. Brown move unopposed for an order approving the terms of her settlement agreement with the Defendant in the Brown Action, a concurrent case also before the Court. The Plaintiffs rely on the same memorandum of law and Declaration in support of the motions to settle and dismiss the cases. The matter is ripe. II. Background The Plaintiffs are former employees who alleged the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. They allege that Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, Team Leads, and other similarly situated employees received work assignments that could not be completed within their 8-hour daily or 40-hour weekly work schedule, yet were prohibited from reporting or clocking in for more than forty hours of work per week. Thus, the Plaintiffs were not paid for time spent working off-the-clock pre-shift, post-shift, and during lunch breaks, which violated the FLSA's overtime requirements. On Sept. 12, 2019, the Court conditionally certified a collective of "all current and former Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist in the Durham, North Carolina and Birmingham, Alabama regions at any time from Oct. 4, 2014 through present." As a result, on Oct. 16, 2019, the claims administrator sent Court-approved notice and consent forms to the approximately 656 collective members. The notice and consent forms informed each putative opt-in Plaintiff that by filing consent forms, they agreed to be bound by any settlement of the case. On March 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add an additional allegation of a "straight-time-for-overtime" violation, claims under California state law, and claims under Nevada state law. The Defendant denies all of the Plaintiffs' material allegations. On Feb. 7, 2020, Jana Brown, a former employee of the same Defendant in Missouri, filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint in this District Court for violating the FLSA and Missouri Minimum Wage Law, MO. REV. STAT. Sections 290.500, et seq. The Brown Complaint alleges the same illegal policies and practices of the Defendant and asserts FLSA collective claims on behalf of "all Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by the Defendant in any regions in the United States other than the Durham, North Carolina and Birmingham, Alabama" regions certified in the Bernardez action. III. Discussion The parties negotiated a settlement to resolve claims asserted in the Bernardez and Brown Actions. The Settlement Agreement obligates the Defendant to pay $470,000 (excluding the employer-side payroll taxes and withholdings due on the back wages). The Plaintiffs constructed a damage estimate based on weekly payroll information for all the Plaintiffs, which the Defendant provided. The parties reached a settlement in principle for $150,000 to be paid to the Plaintiffs. Of that amount, $12,000 will be allocated to service awards, $5,000 will be allocated to release payments, and the remaining $133,000 will be allocated to the Plaintiffs to pay the amount due to each Plaintiff under the Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Shares"). The parties later agreed in principle for $320,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, along with the $150,000 to be paid to the Plaintiffs. Each Plaintiff's Settlement Share has been calculated in the Settlement Agreement, which treats 50% of each Plaintiff's Settlement Share as back wages and 50% as liquidated damages. The Plaintiffs' Counsel calculated the Settlement Shares based on each Plaintiff's payroll information received from the Defendant. The calculation assumed that each Plaintiff worked one hour off the clock on each of their workdays throughout the period and applied discounts for: (i) the likelihood the Defendant would prevail on its "good faith" defense, (ii) the likelihood the Plaintiffs' recovery would be limited to a 2-year statute of limitations, and (iii) the likelihood that Plaintiffs would have their claims dismissed due to decertification. Within 28 days of the Settlement Agreement's effective date, the Defendant or its representative will issue each Plaintiff a check for back wages and a check for liquidated damages. The Settlement Agreement also allows additional payments to Plaintiffs Alan Bernardez and Tawanna Pittman of $5,000 each, and to Plaintiffs Victoria Holland and Sierra Walker of $1,000 each to recognize their efforts and risks in initiating and assisting in the prosecution of the Bernardez Action. The Settlement Agreement provides that in consideration for their Settlement Shares, all the Plaintiffs will release and forever discharge the Defendant and any of its past, present, or future owners from any unpaid wage claims, including unpaid overtime. This release specifically includes a release of all the claims and damages arising under the FLSA and any state or local wage and hour statute or regulation. In exchange, Plaintiffs Alan Bernardez and Tawanna Pittman will each receive payments of $2,500. Other than the Plaintiffs, no collective or class member and/or previously-dismissed opt-in plaintiff will release any claims. Judge Jennings holds that she will approve the Settlement Agreement. She finds that the Plaintiffs have asserted their claims while the Defendant has continued to dispute not only the merits, but their viability as a collective action under the FLSA. The action is undoubtedly based on a bona fide dispute. Additionally, Judge Jennings has found that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. To evaluate its fairness, she reviewed the applicable UAW factors. All the applicable UAW factors indicate that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. Although she does not believe it is required to evaluate the fairness of attorneys' fees in the case, she finds that the attorneys' fees are reasonable under the lodestar method. Therefore, she will approve the Settlement Agreement. IV. Disposition Having thus considered the parties' filings and the applicable law, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, Judge Jennings granted the Plaintiffs' Motions to Settle and Dismiss related to the Bernardez Action and Brown Action. She dismissed with prejudice the Bernardez Action and the Brown Action. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/44s4anac from Leagle.com. FLINT, MI: Bid to Disqualify Attorney Cuker From Water Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To ALL CASES, Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-WAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied Co-Liaison Counsel Napoli Shkolnik's motion for an order disqualifying attorney Mark Cuker from the Flint Water litigation. I. Background Mr. Cuker and the Napoli Firm represent the individual non-class Plaintiffs in the Flint Water Crisis civil litigation. The Napoli firm is one of two firms that the Court appointed as Co-Liaison Counsel for the individual Plaintiffs, and it represents thousands of individual Plaintiffs. Mr. Cuker represents approximately 980 individual Plaintiffs. On Nov. 10, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a partial settlement resolving claims that were brought by the Napoli firm, Mr. Cuker, and many others, on behalf of their clients against the settling Defendants. Both the Napoli firm and Mr. Cuker registered all of their clients for participation in the partial settlement. Mr. Cuker filed objections to the settlement on behalf of 12 of his clients, but not for his remaining 968 individual clients. When the Court granted final approval to the settlement, it denied the objections that Mr. Cuker filed on behalf of his objecting clients. On Nov. 24, 2021, Mr. Cuker filed a motion for reconsideration of the Final Approval Opinion, which the Court denied. But before the Court addressed the motion for reconsideration, the Napoli firm filed the present motion, arguing that Mr. Cuker created an irreconcilable conflict when he filed objections on behalf of twelve of his clients, but did not do so for his remaining 968 clients. The Napoli firm's position is that these two groups are "directly adverse" to one another because their "financial interests may conflict." In support of its motion to disqualify, the Napoli firm attached a document entitled "Expert Report" from University of Michigan law professor Robert E. Hirshon. Professor Hirshon, whose extensive background and experience in the field of professional legal ethics is unchallenged, opines that the situation creates a classic conflict of interest. Moreover, under the rule there is no way that an attorney can reasonably believe that the joint representation will not be adverse to at least one client. He also opines that it is clear that a conflict still exists under MRPC 1.7(a)(1), since objecting to the settlement flies in the face of the desire of at least one of Attorney Cuker's clients. In his response brief, Mr. Cuker makes three points. First, he argues that the Napoli firm "lacks standing to raise the conflict which it claims to exist." Second, he argues that "there is no conflict," because "every Cuker client's interest would be best served by replacing the current plan of allocation with a fairer, more equitable one." And third, he argues that if there is a conflict, "the root of it was manufactured by the Napoli firm itself." No oral argument was held on the motion to disqualify, and it has been fully briefed. II. Discussion Courts analyzing a motion to disqualify counsel must begin by determining whether an ethical violation occurred. If a violation did occur, the Court must consider whether it warrants the extraordinary remedy of disqualification. A. Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct As to the first inquiry, whether Mr. Cuker's simultaneous representation of objecting and non-objecting clients potentially violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, Judge Levy finds that there is a serious risk that a violation took place under these facts. She says, Mr. Cuker's persistent denial that there was any divergence of interests between his objecting and non-objecting clients does not inspire great confidence that he properly appraised all of his clients of that divergence of interest. Accordingly, it is likely that Mr. Cuker violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. B. Disqualification Although it is likely that Mr. Cuker violated the relevant ethical rules, "a violation of the rules of professional ethics does not automatically necessitate disqualification of an attorney." In this instance, Judge Levy holds that the "extreme sanction of disqualification" is not warranted. The conflict of interest generated by Mr. Cuker's representation of 12 objectors to the settlement was short-lived and did not ultimately affect any of Mr. Cuker's clients. After all, Mr. Cuker's objecting clients' objections were denied, the motion for reconsideration he filed on their behalf was denied, the objectors did not appeal the final approval of the settlement, and have not taken any further actions that would be inconsistent with the interests of Mr. Cuker's non-objecting clients. Indeed, none of Mr. Cuker's clients have brought any complaints to the Court related to his conduct. Nor was Mr. Cuker's conduct so egregious as to warrant disqualification for the purpose of maintaining "the public interest in requiring professional conduct by an attorney." Therefore, disqualification would be an excessive measure to take in the case. III. Conclusion Judge Levy concludes that Mr. Cuker likely violated the rules of professional conduct, but his violation was not so extraordinary as to render disqualification "absolutely necessary." Accordingly, she denied the Napoli firm's motion to disqualify Mr. Cuker. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/24ec3c4s from Leagle.com. FLORIDA FARM: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Yoder FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Dianna Yoder, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit captioned DIANNA YODER, CLINT WALDING, and KELLEY WILLIAMS, individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GROUP, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BURUEA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00070-MW-GRJ, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated insurance agents were not paid any base salary. Instead, the Defendants only paid them commissions, and Plaintiffs labored without any predetermined guaranteed minimum pay per week, and regardless of the number of hours worked. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs or other similarly situated insurance agents an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs now seek a review from the Court's final judgment entered on March 9, 2022, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on independent contractor status; and denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on employee status. The appellate case is captioned as Dianna Yoder, et al. v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 22-11135, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 8, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DIANNA YODER and KELLEY WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Sean M. McCarthy, Esq. WILLIAMS HART BOUNDAS EASTERBY 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600 Houston, TX 77017 Telephone: (713) 230-2200 Facsimile: (713) 643-6226 E-mail: smccarthy@whlaw.com - and - Jason A. Richardson, Esq. Avi Moshenberg, Esq. Nick Lawson, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5580 Facsimile: (713) 337-8850 E-mail: jason.richardson@mhllp.com avi.moshenberg@mhllp.com nick.lawson@mhllp.com - and - Kelly E. Cook, Esq. Warren A. Berlanga, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 1415 N Loop W, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com FORT 709: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Hoffman Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN HOFFMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FORT 709 ASSOCIATES, L.P., Defendant-Respondent, Index No. 160191/17, Appeal No. 15750, Case No. 2021-01864 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department affirmed the order issued by Judge Francis A. Kahn, III, of the Supreme Court, New York County, on March 31, 2021. The Order denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to amend the complaint to assert a claim under General Business Law Section 349. The Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court erred in denying class certification on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to show that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." It finds that Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P. (24 N.Y.3d 382, 383 [2014]) and subsequent cases, such as Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC (34 N.Y.3d 116 [2019]), make it clear that qualified plaintiffs may "utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory rent overcharges against landlords who decontrolled apartments in contravention of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY) Section 26-516(a) while accepting tax benefits under New York City's J-51 tax abatement program." The legislature contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members, citing Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d at 399). In the instant case, as in Borden, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits. Construing the class certification statute liberally, given that the asserted class consists of former and current tenants who lived in the 16 units improperly treated as deregulated after Nov. 15, 2013, the Appellate Division finds that while the Defendant was receiving J-51 tax benefits, it is reasonable to infer that some units in this 49-unit apartment building would have had more than one tenant and several tenants would have moved away, making joinder of all members impracticable. The identity of class members, i.e., which units were treated as deregulated and who leased them during the relevant time period, is within the Defendant's knowledge. The Appellate Division affirmed, without costs, the court's denial of leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim under General Business Law Section 349, but for reasons different than those stated by the motion court. The claim was not a proposed amendment. A review of the original complaint and the marked-up proposed amended complaint reveals that the claim was retained from the original complaint with only minor edits. Thus, leave to assert the claim was not required. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cjbj6a from Leagle.com. Grimble & LoGuidice, LLP, New York (Robert Grimble -- RG@GRIMBLELAW.COM -- of counsel), for the Appellants. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York (Daniel J. Ansell -- anselld@gtlaw.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent. FURNITURE ENT: Sanchez Suit Seeks Stockers' Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABEL RAMIREZ SANCHEZ INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FURNITURE ENT. INC (DBA FURNITURE CENTER) and DANIEL ROZEN (AKA DAN ROZEN), Case No. 1:22-cv-02284 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked, the suit says. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was ostensibly employed as a stocker in Furniture Center located in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 GAMETIME UNITED: Backer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gametime United, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Thomas Backer, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Gametime United, Inc., Does 1 Through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC22599227 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 20, 2022). The case type is stated as "Fraud." Gametime -- https://gametime.co/ -- is a mobile ticket marketplace app developed by San Francisco-based Gametime United Inc., which was founded by Brad Griffith in late 2012.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: khaque@aegislawfirm.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Wants Brief on Staley Settlement Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STALEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California orders the parties to file a joint brief addressing the issues he identified in KPH's motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement with BMS. Judge Chen has reviewed KPH's motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement with BMS. He orders the parties to file a joint brief addressing the issues identified. For some issues, it may be that only one party is called upon to provide a response. If the parties do not agree on an issue, then each may state, in the joint brief, its respective position. The joint brief (including any supporting evidence, if necessary) will be filed within one week of the date of the Order. A. Settlement Class Definition and Release KPH acknowledges that the class definition in the complaint is broader than the settlement class definition. Whereas the class definition in the complaint refers to cART drugs generally, including but not limited to the Defendant brand companies' drugs, the settlement class definition refers to a subset of cART drugs. However, the release in the settlement agreement seems to extend to all cART drugs (i.e., is not limited to the subset of drugs). The parties will address this difference between the settlement class definition and the scope of the release. B. Number of Settlement Class Members The parties will provide additional information on the number of settlement class members. An estimate is acceptable. The Lamb Declaration refers to 73 settlement class members but KPH admits that this is not the entirety of the class. C. Plan of Allocation The Plan of Allocation indicates that the "Plaintiff's expert economist, Dr. Russell Lamb, will calculate each Direct-Purchaser Settlement Class Member's percentage share of the Net BMS Settlement Fund as a function of (a) the amount (measured in units) of each Direct-Purchaser Settlement Class Member's purchases of Atripla, Complera, Evotaz, Reyataz, Sustiva, Stribild, and Truvada and their generic equivalents, (b) the Relevant Share (explained below) assigned to each concerned drug, and (c) a multiplier based on whether a drug is branded or generic (explained below)." The Plan of Allocation also specifies that, with respect to (b), "the relative share allocated to each concerned drug will be based on each drug's share of Extended Units ("EUs") in the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives ('NSP') data from October 2016 through June 2021: Atripla (14%), Complera (5%), Evotaz (1%), Reyataz (7%), Stribild (7%), Sustiva (3%), Truvada (63%)." Judge Chen orders KPH to provide a clearer explanation of what "relative share" means. D. Average Payout KPH indicates that, "based on preliminary estimates of the likely number of claimants, Class Members may receive five-to-six figure settlement payments." However, no further information or explanation is provided. E. Maximum Damages Value and Litigation Risk In its papers, KPH indicates that several of its liability theories against BMS essentially have zero value (e.g., the theories based on the No-Generics Restraint in the Atripla Agreement and based on BMS being part of an overarching conspiracy). Judge Chen finds that if it is correct, it leaves KPH with only the theory based on the No-Generics Restraint in the Evotaz Agreement. The Lamb Declaration states "I estimated B-G damages for Evotaz purchases in the amount of $31.1 million," but there does not appear to be any further information or explanation. So, both parties will address litigation risk in the joint brief. F. Litigation Expenses KPH indicates that it will not seek attorneys' fees from the $10.8 million gross settlement fund but that it will ask for up to $2.5 million in litigation expenses. KPH will provide an estimate as to what its litigation expenses are to date. It would also be helpful for KPH to categorize its litigation expenses so that the Court may make some assessment at this stage as to whether the expenses are reasonable. G. Notice to the Class In addition to direct mail notice, there will be both electronic publication notice and digital notice. The parties will address the following questions: Will the electronic publication notice, like the digital notice, be carried out through the HDA Weekly Digest? How long will the electronic publication notice be posted? How long will the digital notice be posted? Did the parties discuss publication notice (electronic or otherwise) or digital notice through a means other than the HDA Weekly Digest? H. Content of Notices and Claim Form Judge Chen has the following comments re the content of the notices and claim form: 1. Summary Notice/Direct Mail Notice (Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement) a. The first sentence of the summary notice (If you purchased HIV cART drugs directly from the manufacturer, . . .) should be followed by a sentence stating what is the estimated average payout. Like the first sentence, the new sentence should be in the same size font and in bold. b. The paragraph beginning A proposed settlement has been reached . . . refers to the case name but does not provide any case number. The KPH case number should be provided, as well as a reference to main Staley case and case number (as that is where filings have largely been made). 2. Postcard Reminder (Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement): Similar to above, the bolded sentences at the beginning of the reminder should be followed by a sentence (also in bold) stating what is the estimated average payout. 3. Long-Form Notice/Notice Posted on Settlement Website (Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement) a. The first sentence of the long-form notice (If you purchased HIV cART drugs directly from the manufacturer, . . .) should be followed by a sentence stating what is the estimated average payout. Like the first sentence, the new sentence should be in the same size font and in bold. b. The first bullet point should include the KPH case name and case number. It should also refer to the main Staley case and case number. c. Question 1. There should also be a reference to the main Staley case and case number. d. Question 7. There should be a statement regarding the estimated average payout per class member. e. Question 12. The main Staley case and case number should also be specified. f. Question 13. Is it possible for opt-outs to be submitted electronically or online (i.e., not just by mail)? Claim forms can be. 4. Publication Notice (Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement) a. The first sentence of the publication notice (If you purchased HIV cART drugs directly from the manufacturer, . . .) should be followed by a sentence stating what is the estimated average payout. Like the first sentence, the new sentence should be in the same size font and in bold. b. The paragraph beginning A proposed settlement has been reached refers to the case name but does not provide any case number. The KPH case number should be provided, as well as a reference to main Staley case and case number. 5. Blank and Pre-Populated Claim Forms (Exhibits F and G to the Settlement Agreement): The pre-populated claim form (Exhibit G) appears to reference beginning dates and/or end dates (in multiple places) that do not match the class period dates. The parties will explain the basis for the dates if they do not match the class period dates. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxxca95 from Leagle.com. GORTON'S INC: Tilapia Products Not Sustainably Sourced, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY ALAN SPINDEL and KEVIN McCARTHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GORTON'S INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10599-PBS (D. Mass., April 21, 2022) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages against the Defendant regarding the false and deceptive marketing and sale of tilapia products labeled with the phrase "sustainably sourced." According to the complaint, the products are in fact not sustainably sourced but instead are made from tilapia industrially farmed using unsustainable practices that are environmentally destructive and inhumane. Gorton's is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Japanese seafood conglomerate Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd., the second-largest seafood company in the world. Gorton's is the largest producer of fish sticks in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca G. Pontikes, Esq. Bryn A. Sfetsios, Esq. PONTIKES LAW, LLC 10 Tremont Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 357-1888 Facsimile: (857) 488-4020 E-mail: rpontikes@pontikeslawllc.com bsfetsios@pontikeslawllc.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. Jay R. Shooster, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 Facsimile: (718) 705-4579 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com jshooster@richmanlawpolicy.com GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Si Fan Suit Over 37.3% Drop of Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- SI FAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAB HOLDINGS LIMITED, ANTHONY TAN, and PETER OEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03277 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements about Grab's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Grab securities at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2021 and March 3, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Grab had overstated its post-business combination business and financial prospects; (2) that, notwithstanding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Grab's financial projections failed to take into account the pandemic's broad consequences, which included increased driver supply demand; (3) that Grab's driver supply declined during the third quarter; (4) that, as a result, Grab continued to invest heavily in driver and consumer incentives to "preemptively recalibrate driver supply"; (5) that, as a result, the company's financial results would be adversely impacted, including, among other things, a significant decline in revenue; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. When the truth emerged, Grab's stock price fell $1.95, or 37.3 percent, to close at $3.28 per share on March 3, 2022, damaging investors. Grab Holdings Limited is a technology holding company, with its principal executive offices located in Singapore. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Appeals Discrimination Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Riki O'Hailpin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, and RONALD LUM, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Civil No. 22-00007 JAO-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu. The putative class action concerns Defendant Hawaiian Air's denial of religious and/or medical exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccine policy, which requires employees to get vaccinated or face termination. The Plaintiffs allege that Hawaiian Air's denial of their requests for medical and/or religious exemptions was discriminatory and retaliatory, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII. On Aug. 9, 2021, Hawaiian Air informed its employees that effective Nov. 1, 2021, it would require all U.S.-based employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, i.e., employees had to have received the full dosage of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine unless they had a reasonable accommodation for a disability under the ADA or a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with receiving the vaccine. Hawaiian Air published its vaccine policy on Sept. 17, 2021. Hawaiian Air then implemented a Transition Period Testing Program ("TPTP"), which enabled employees who remained unvaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021 to continue working through Jan. 4, 2022, subject to temporary COVID-19 testing procedures. The TPTP was designed in part to give unvaccinated employees time to decide whether to be vaccinated. It also offered a 12-month unpaid leave of absence ("LOA"), beginning Jan. 5, 2022, for employees who declined to get vaccinated. Employees had to apply for participation in the TPTP by Oct. 24, 2021. As of Jan. 1, 2022, 95% of Hawaiian Air's employees were vaccinated. Several hundred employees whose RA requests were denied remain unvaccinated. The employees who received exemptions are not guest-facing and can socially distance and wear masks. By Jan. 5, 2022, unvaccinated employees without an approved accommodation or exemption, or who were not on an LOA, were subject to termination proceedings. Unvaccinated employees who were granted an LOA maintain health insurance through the end of the month they begin their leave. Unvaccinated union employees who did not request an LOA are in held out of service ("HOS") status while they await hearings for their union grievances, and they maintain health benefits. Unvaccinated union employees who are members of the Airline Pilots Association and the Association of Flight Attendants additionally maintain travel benefits and pay. Non-union unvaccinated employees without an LOA were separated as of Jan. 5, 2022. The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Jan. 5, 2022, asserting the following claims: (i) Counts I and II: religious discrimination in violation of Title VII - failure to accommodate and retaliation (all Plaintiffs); and (ii) Counts III and IV: disability discrimination in violation of the ADA - failure to accommodate and retaliation (O'Hailpin, Arizumi, and Lum). On Jan. 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Application for Temporary Restraining Order. Hawaiian Air filed an Opposition on Jan. 21, 2022 and the Plaintiffs filed a Reply on Jan. 25, 2022. On Jan. 28, 2022, Hawaiian Air filed its Application to Strike the Declaration of Frederick Reed Bates, II. The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on Jan. 31, 2022. On March 18, 2022, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for stay of district court proceedings pending interlocutory appeal, and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Riki O'Hailpin, et al. v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15558, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Nina Arizumi, Puanani Badiang, Robert Espinosa, Sabrina Franks, Ronald Lum, Riki O'Hailpin and Erwin Young Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 21, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 13, 2022; -- Transcript is due on June 13, 2022; -- Appellants Nina Arizumi, Puanani Badiang, Robert Espinosa, Sabrina Franks, Ronald Lum, Riki O'Hailpin and Erwin Young opening brief is due on July 22, 2022; -- Appellees Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. answering brief is due on August 22, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, and RONALD LUM, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James Hochberg, Jr., Esq. JAMES HOCHBERG, A.A.L. Bishop Street Tower 700 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813-3812 Telephone: (808) 256-7382 - and - John Clay Sullivan, Esq. SL LAW, PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC. are represented by: Paul D. Alston, Esq. Nickolas Alexander Kacprowski, Esq. Corianne W. Lau, Esq. John S. Rhee, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-1800 E-mail: paul.alston@dentons.com nick.kacprowski@dentons.com cori.lau@dentons.com john.rhee@dentons.com HOME DEPOT: Illegally Profits From Returned Goods, Collins Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00847 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, consumer fraud and deceit, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraudulent manipulation of product returns in order to illegally and unfairly profit on all returned merchandise without paper receipts. Buyers from the Defendant's stores could not be reimbursed for the original price of the returned goods if they did not have an original paper receipt even though the Defendant had possession of the original purchase receipt in its electronic system. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers have suffered financial loss. Home Depot U.S.A. is a home improvement retailer headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@garycarlinlaw.com HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Giguere ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giguere v. Homeworks Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-30015 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order on motion for extension of time: -- Class Certification: July 22,2022 -- Opposition to Class August 22, 2022 Certification Motion: -- Reply to Opposition: September 12, 2022 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. HomeWorks is an environmental services company in Boston.[CC] HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Faces Quan Suit Over Cyberattack & Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDSEY QUAN, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01531-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 21, 2022) arises out of the recent cyberattack and data breach at Horizon Actuarial that targeted the information of consumers and other groups who used HAS for actuarial services (the "Data Breach"). The alleged Data Breach resulted in unauthorized access to the sensitive data of consumers that used HAS's services. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and the present and substantial risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, including their name, date of birth, and Social Security number, and health plan information (hereinafter, the "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII"). HAS's Data Breach occurred on November 10th and 11th of 2021. But HAS sat on the information for over two months -- failing to send data breach consumer notifications until January 13, 2022; and then to individuals nearly two months after that on or about March 9, 2022. When a data set that includes this type of PII is breached, every moment is precious to ensure that that data is not weaponized against the rightful owner through identity theft. Sitting on this information allowed HAS to dodge responsibility and worsen the Data Breach victims' chances at weathering the storm that HAS created by not providing adequate protection, says the suit. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed and unnecessarily exposed to a heightened present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members have and may continue to incur out-of-pocket costs, for example, through purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, or other protective measures to reasonably deter and detect identity theft. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy those harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose PII was unlawfully accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. As such, Plaintiff brings this Action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) violations of California's Consumer Privacy Act, (iv) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and (v) declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff Lindsey Quan is a citizen of Oregon, is a plan participant of an entity that utilizes Defendant's services located in California where she lived and worked at the time she was associated with that entity, and received the Notice of Data Breach from Defendant dated March 23, 2022 on or about that date. Horizon Actuarial is a consulting firm that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to multiemployer benefit plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 320-9979 Facsimile: (404) 320-9978 - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz,Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com HOT SPRING COUNTY, AR: Mike Cash Seeks to Extend Response Time -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA EASLEY and TERRY EASLEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TERESA HOWELL in her official capacity as PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR / HOT SPRING COUNTY, MIKE CASH in his official capacity as HOT SPRING COUNTY SHERIFF, Case No. 6:21-cv-06125-SOH (W.D. Ark.), Sheriff Mike Cash ask the Court to extend his time for responding to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until and including April 28, 2022, and for all other relief to which he may be entitled. Hot Spring County is located in the U.S. state of Arkansas. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MqMp0b at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for Hot Spring County, Arkansas, is: George Hopkins, Esq. Post Office Box 913 Malvern, AR 72104 Telephone: (501) 318-5998 E-mail: georgeh@swatco.com The Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Mike Cash, are: Joseph W. Price, II, Esq. S. Katie Calvert, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 Facsimile: (501) 379-1701 E-mail: jprice@qgtlaw.com kcalvert@qgtlaw.com HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Court Denies Class Certification in Brown Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied class certification in the case, Zelia Brown, Plaintiff v. Houston Community College, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-20-2186 (S.D. Tex.). I. Background The lawsuit is an employment discrimination case against Houston Community College. Brown, a former employee, sued for herself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated black employees. She says the College enacted a policy to displace black employees with white and hispanic employees. In 2015, the Chancellor approved a transformation plan to incorporate the College's satellite schools. Brown says this plan was a plot to give preferential treatment to hispanics. She says 90% of black executives and professionals-have been fired or forced out from their jobs. This statistic is disputed. Ms. Brown sued the College for violating: (a) Section 1981 based on race and retaliation; (b) the Texas Labor Code; (c) the First Amendment; and (d) the Texas Whistleblower Act. The Court has dismissed the First Amendment claim. On July 27, 2020, the College moved to strike the class certification. II. Discussion In Brown's amended complaint, she seeks a class of: (a) all black Americans who were or continue to be employed by the College from Jan. 1, 2016, through the filing date of the original petition in the litigation and (b) who have had an adverse employment action imposed upon them by the College in violation of Section 1981. The College says the proposed class does not meet the requirements of Rule 23. When the motion to strike the class was initially filed, Brown wanted more discovery for the class claim. Since then, the Court has ordered significant discovery to decide whether the class should be certified, including records of hispanic employees. Brown also deposed Janet May, the human resources director of the University. Based on this evidence, Judge Hughes rejects the class. The College says that black employees have remained the largest group of its employees since 2016. It has charts and graphs that show minor changes in the distribution of black employees over a five-year period. It shows that the Chancellor's executive council of 14 members has six black workers. The College denies Brown's assertion that the transformation plan was disguised as a displacement plan that discriminated against black workers. On the contrary, Judge Hughes finds that black employees have filled vacancies at twice the rate of hispanics at pay scale 10 and above. Brown insists the data are incomplete. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to deny the class certification because the members lack commonality, Judge Hughes holds. She opines that Brown needs more than a list of disgruntled current and former employees of the same race to make a class. Based on the pleading, multiple dissimilarities exist within the class. The claims do not share commonality based on an overarching displacement plan. It is also unclear whether the employee's experiences were caused by the displacement plan. Brown has an email by the director of the College that suggests hispanics will have preferential treatment. Yet her class includes black employees displaced by races other than hispanics. Any employee fired on the basis of race would have a valid claim; however, the commonality element also fails when the grand displacement plan that gives hispanics preferential treatment does not actually replace a black employee with a hispanic. The displacement plan is not enough to tie every individual claim. Indeed, many reasons may have contributed to a person's adverse employment decision such as poor performance. The College's employment decisions are too personalized to meet commonality among the class members. It fails. III. Disposition Judge Hughes denied the class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vc627yc from Leagle.com. HP HOOD: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Latoyia Kimii Brown, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HP HOOD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00318020 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 8, 2022), is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment practices, including but not limited to, failing to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against individuals who worked for Defendant. The Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked, failing to reimburse business expenses, failing to pay meal and rest period premium pay at the regular rate of pay, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to its employees in the State of California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Relief Worker from about March 25, 2019, to October 25, 2021. The Defendant operates as a dairy processor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 INTEGON NATIONAL: Moors Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Victoria Moors, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Integon National Insurance Company, Case No. 220301730 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01516 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Integon National Insurance Company -- https://nationalgeneral.com/massauto/ -- operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH 1801 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6633 Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - John P. Goodrich, Esq. 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 261-4663 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway, Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 232-6300 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark J. Levin, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Phone: (215) 864-8235 Email: levinm@ballardspahr.com - and - Brittany M. Wilson, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, Ste. 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 864-8218 Fax: (215) 864-8999 Email: wilsonbm@ballardspahr.com INTERNATIONAL SPORTS: Barnett Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL SPORTS SCIENCES ASSOCIATION LLC, Case No. CACE-22-005889 (Fla., Cir., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022) alleges that Defendant violates Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On April 19, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff. The First Communication was a communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The First Communication was sent from billing@issaonline and delivered to Plaintiffs personal e-mail address. The First Communication advised that, 'This is a reminder that a payment for $76.74 ( $76.74 + $0.00 Taxes) is due on April 22, 2022. Accordingly, the Defendant has sent thousands electronic mail communication to Florida consumers between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM, whereby such electronic mail communication(s) violate 559.72(17), says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Patti, Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com J WALES HOME: Loses Bids to Toss Starling Suit, Strike Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMBERLY STARLING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J WALES HOME SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01261-O (N.D. Tex.), Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, denied the Defendant's: -- Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed Feb. 25, 2022; -- Motion for Leave to Amend the Motion to Dismiss; and -- Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's Class Allegations. I. Background Defendant J Wales offers roofing repair services in Texas. The Defendant operates a telemarketing campaign to raise business. The callers offer to schedule complementary roofing inspections and recommend Defendant for repairs if damage is found. The Plaintiff received such a call on May 10, 2021. When she asked who was calling her, the caller refused to give a company name. The Plaintiff then agreed to an appointment. The next day, the Plaintiff received a call from an employee of the Defendant. Again, the Plaintiff did not receive the Defendant's company name. Eventually, two of the Defendant's employees showed up at the Plaintiff's residence for the inspection. The Plaintiff told them she was not interested in an inspection. She did not consent to the calls and has been on the national do-not-call registry since 2004. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging three causes of action. First, she claims Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for each call it made to someone on the national do-not-call registry. Second, she claims the Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) by failing to record or honor "do not call" requests and by failing to comply with the identification and disclosure requirements of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d)(4). Third, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's telemarketing calls violated section 305.053 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. The Plaintiff also seeks certification of three classes aligning with the three causes of action. The Plaintiff requests damages and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and the putative classes. The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and strike the proposed classes. II. Analysis Before addressing the merits of the motion to dismiss, Jduuge O'Connor must dispose of the Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend the Motion to Dismiss, filed March 17, 2022. The Defendant moved to amend its motion to dismiss 20 days after filing it, and 18 days after the deadline to respond to the complaint. The Defendant invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in support of its motion for leave to amend. But Rule 15 concerns amendment of "pleadings," not motions—it does not grant parties twenty-one days to supplement their motions as a matter of course. Rather, because the Defendant moves to respond to the complaint after the deadline to do so, the proper standard is "good cause" under Rule 6(b). The Defendant provides no reason why the Court should permit another extension to respond to the complaint, let alone "good cause" for an extension. Judge O'Connor thus denies the Motion for Leave to Amend the Motion to Dismiss. A. Motion to Dismiss First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing because she has not pleaded an injury in fact. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff must allege a concrete injury such as incurred charges, a reduction in usable minutes, occupation of her phone line, or harassment. Judge O'Connor holds that the Defendant misreads the Plaintiff's complaint, which explicitly alleges that she and the putative class members "suffered concrete harm" in the form of "time tending to the Defendant's unwanted calls," as well as "nuisance and an invasion of their privacy." The Plaintiff's allegations satisfy the Defendant's criteria. More importantly, they satisfy the Fifth Circuit's criteria, as "the text of the TCPA shows Congress determined that nuisance arising out of unsolicited telemarketing constitutes a cognizable injury." Judge O'Connor thus denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Second, the Defendant raises several arguments that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. First, it argues that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a TCPA claim. Second, it argues that the Plaintiff has failed to plead the elements of a claim under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) because she has not alleged that Defendant used an automatic dialing system. Third, it argues that the Plaintiff has failed to allege an agency relationship between Defendant and the telemarketers. Fourth, the Defendant argues that it had an established business relationship with the Plaintiff. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Judge O'Connor opines that (i) the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the Defendant was responsible for the calls; (ii) the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded claims under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200; (iii) a reasonable factfinder could infer from the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant's representatives or agents were placing the calls; (iv) the facts, viewed in the Plaintiff's favor, indicate that she did not have an established business relationship with the Defendant; and (v) because the Plaintiff states a claim under federal law, she also states a claim under its state-law counterpart For these reasons, Judge O'Connor denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. B. Motion to strike class action The Defendant also moves to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. It argues that the Plaintiff is not a member of the proposed class and cannot prove the class requirements under Rule 23. Judge O'Connor opines that the Defendant has not shown that the Plaintiff's class allegations are facially meritless. As an initial matter, the Defendant continues to argue about automatic dialing systems, demonstrating once again that it misapprehends the Plaintiff's complaint. In addition, courts have certified classes like the ones the Plaintiff seeks to certify. The Plaintiff has at this early stage satisfied the class pleading requirements. The Defendant's arguments to the contrary (1) recycle arguments that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim; (2) misapprehend the Plaintiff's allegations; or (3) require factual development. Regardless, the Defendant's arguments do not warrant the rare remedy of dismissing or striking the Plaintiff's class allegations. Judge O'Connor thus denies the Defendant's motion to strike. III. Conclusion In sum, Judge O'Connor denied the Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend and its Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pwrumrr from Leagle.com. JOHN MATZ: Long Seeks to Certify Class of Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter J. Long v. John F. Matz, Todd D. Christie, Michael J. Lichtensteiger, Amber T. Rozek, Jason H. Durrant, Travis R. Viergutz, John Doe, and Jane Doe, Case No. 2:21-cv-01210-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff Long asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the class of plaintiffs: and 2. appointing counsel to represent the certified class. The plaintiff request permission from the Court to amend his federal complaint to make it a class action lawsuit under Rule 23, F.R.C.P., and the certified class would be the 150+ WCJ inmates who were negligently exposed to, and tested positive for, COVID-19 during the months of September, October, November, and December 2020, due to the Defendants' deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and negligence for their failure to prevent COVID-19 from entering the WCF by not testing their deputies and other employees, by [not] complying with the protocols and guidelines of the CDC. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCev1J at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN MATZ: Long's Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER J. LONG v. JOHN F. MATZ, TODD D. CHRISTIE, MICHAEL J. LICHTENSTEIGER, AMBER T. ROZEK, JASON H. DURRANT, TRAVIS R. VIERGUTZ, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01210-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbachentered an order: 1. dismissing with prejudice Long's federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and his state law claims; and 2. denying as moot Long's motion to certify a class and appoint counsel. The Court said, "Long fails to state a retaliation claim because he does not allege that he suffered a deprivation likely to deter him from engaging in protected activity. Long explains that after his supervised release was revoked, he was moved to the top of the transfer list and immediately transferred from the jail to a state prison. But the Seventh Circuit has explained that there is no "blanket rule that any transfer motivated by the plaintiff's First Amendment activity is sufficiently adverse to constitute retaliation. Long has not offered any allegations regarding the conditions at Dodge compared to those at the jail. His amended complaint is clear, however, that he was not satisfied with the conditions at the jail. In any event, as Long concedes, because his supervised release was revoked, his transfer from the jail to Dodge was a certainty. The mere timing of when that transfer occurred does not by itself make the transfer adverse. Finally, Long purports to assert state law claims, but because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claims, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Long wants to pursue those claims, he may do so in state court." A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OImYJI at no extra charge.[CC] JORDAN NICHOLAS: Fails to Pay Sufficient Wages Under FLSA, FMWA --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WILES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JORDAN NICHOLAS ELLIOTT, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00932 (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from February of 2018 until August of 2019. The Plaintiff worked at multiple restaurants owned by the Defendant, and Defendant's employment policies, practices and procedures were the same at each location where Plaintiff worked. The Defendant owns and operates Papa John's franchises in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, PA Wells Fargo Building 631 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (844) 722-7567 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com JOSEPH FINANCIAL: O'Neal Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Financial, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcia O'Neal, David Siu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joseph Financial, Inc., Joseph Financial Investment Advisors, LLC, Robert Joseph Armijo, Case No. 8:22-cv-00939-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Securities Fraud. Joseph Financial, Inc. -- https://www.josephfinancialpartners.com/ -- is a financial institution in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Fax: (786) 298-5737 Email: adams@moskowitz-law.com adam@moskowitz-law.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 279-1100 Fax: (602) 279-1199 Email: afriedman@bffb.com fbalint@bffb.com - and - Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 238-1811 Fax: (619) 544-9532 Email: gmb@cglaw.com - and - Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq. HARKE, CLASBY & BUSHMAN, LLP 9699 NE 2nd Ave Miami Shores, FL 33138 Phone: (305) 536-8220 Fax: (305) 536-8229 Email: howard@moskowitz-law.com - and - Jeffrey Roger Sonn, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP PA 19495 Biscyane Blvd Ste 607 Aventura, FL 33180-2320 Phone: (305) 912-3000 Fax: (786) 485-1501 Email: jsonn@sonnlaw.com JT/SG ENTERPRISES: Prelim Pretrial Order Entered in Ocampo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZULEIMA OCAMPO, v. JT/SG ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00185-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be May 5, 2022 filed by: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings June 30, 2022 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- The motion for conditional class Sept. 9, 2022 certification shall be filed by: Responses due: Oct. 10, 2022 -- Initial conditional certification April 15, 2022 written discovery requests shall be issued by: -- Any proposed protective order or April 29, 2022 clawback agreement shall be filed with the Court by: -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement June 17, 2022 demand by: The Defendants shall respond by: July 1, 2022 The Plaintiff's complaint alleges one cause of action and presents a jury demand. Count One of Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for allegedly failing to pay overtime compensation and maintain appropriate time records. The Defendants deny these allegations and deny that class treatment is appropriate in this case. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDv1CO at no extra charge.[CC] KE HOLDINGS: Faces Chin Shareholder Suit in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------- KE Holdings 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 19, 2022, that the company, certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned "Chin v. KE Holdings Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-11196 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York). The case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in its SEC filings and public disclosure documents, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. KE Holdings Inc. is a real estate agent/manager based in Beijing. KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Brayman ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RACHEL BRAYMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00550-WJM-NRN, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado-Denver. The Plaintiff brings the action against KeyPoint for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and violations of California law. The Plaintiff's FLSA and California law claims concern KeyPoint's alleged failure to properly compensate a certain class of employees known as "Investigators" for overtime hours worked, as well as other employment and wage violations. KeyPoint moved to compel arbitration of California state law claims and strike related Rule 23 class action allegations. On Feb. 4, 2021, KeyPoint's request that the Court compel the California Plaintiffs to arbitrate their state law claims, strike Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Class allegations as to the arbitration agreement signatories, and stay the remaining proceedings pending arbitration was denied. KeyPoint filed a motion for decertification. In its Motion for Decertification, KeyPoint demonstrated that employees understood nationwide that KeyPoint required them to record all time worked. It argued that the Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence of an unwritten KeyPoint policy preventing or even discouraging them from reporting their hours accurately. KeyPoint also demonstrated that Plaintiffs' disparate explanations for why they individually chose to allegedly work off the clock preclude class treatment. Similarly, the California class overtime claims should not be certified under Rule 23, KeyPoint asserted. On April 14, 2022, Judge William J. Martinez entered an order denying KeyPoint's motion for reconsideration. The Defendant now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc. v. Brayman, et al., Case No. 22-702, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Thomas W. Carroll, Esq. Jennifer Harpole, Esq. Margaret Parnell Hogan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 - and - Jacqueline Elise Kalk, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 80 South Eighth Street IDS Center, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 630-1000 Plaintiffs-Respondents RACHEL BRAYMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; ADRIANA PONCE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; and DANA MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Caroline Elizabeth Bressman, Esq. Helen Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP-MINNEAPOLIS 80 South 8th Street IDS Center Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242 Telephone: (612) 256-3264 - and - Daniel Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 - and - Kelly Anne Burgy, Esq. Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. George Edward Swegman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 KRAFT HEINZ: Rodgers Sues Over False Content Labeling of Cannisters ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMARCUS RODGERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00504-AMM (N.D. Ala., April 21, 2022) stems from Kraft Heinz' alleged false labelling, and deceptive trade practices concerning its 19 oz cannisters of Country Time lemonade and pink lemonade powder drink mixes, which purport to make eight quarts of lemonade per cannister. The Plaintiff's alleged claims are for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices. The Plaintiff purchased these cannisters from Walmart and the Tarrant Food Outlet in Jefferson County, Alabama. Had Kraft Heinz not made false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have been economically injured, says the suit. Kraft Heinz advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its 19 oz cannisters of Country Time lemonade and pink lemonade powder drink mixes in its distributors' stores, in Alabama and throughout the country, and through online vendors who also sell and deliver to Alabama and throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd W. Gathings, Esq. Honora M. Gathings, Esq. Kimberly B. Massey, Esq. GATHINGS LAW 2140 11th Avenue South, Suite 210 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 322-1201 Facsimile: (205) 322-1202 E-mail: lgathings@gathingslaw.com hgathings@gathingslaw.com kmassey@gathingslaw.com KRUEGER PIZZA: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Wiles Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WILES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRUEGER PIZZA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00933 (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver from August 2019 until January 2020. Krueger Pizza, LLC is an owner and operator of Papa John's franchises located at 5308 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, PA Wells Fargo Building 631 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (844) 722-7567 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and – Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LABOR SOURCE: Partial Dismissal of Speight Suit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BILLY SPEIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-112-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, issued an order: a. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2); and b. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify conditionally this case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 203, et seq. ("FLSA") without prejudice. I. Background The Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, a staffing agency, commenced the action on Aug. 12, 2021, asserting claims on behalf of himself and an almost nationwide collective of the Defendant's current and former employees under the FLSA, and claims on behalf of himself and a statewide class of the Defendant's current and former employees under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 95-25.1 et seq., pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay him and other employees the required wages. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, certification of a FLSA collective and a Rule 23 class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Shortly after initiating suit, the Plaintiff moved to certify conditionally a FLSA collective defined as "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees including, but not limited to, laborers, non-exempt team leads, non-commercial drivers, technicians, carpenters, apprentices, cleaning crew, plumbers, welders, and other laborers with similar job duties employed by Defendant throughout the United States (except for the State of Minnesota), within the three years preceding the filing of the action until final resolution of the case." The Plaintiff also moved for notice to issue to potential collective members. He also moved to toll the statute of limitations on putative collective-members' FLSA claims. In support of the motion, the Plaintiff relies on: declarations of Plaintiff Nikia Maye, and Deantwone Norris, former employees of the Defendant, as well as William Hogg, an associate attorney at the Plaintiff's counsel's law firm, and deposition testimony from a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota entitled Murphy v. Labor Source, LLC, No. 19-CV-01929-ECW, of Marcquise Murphy, one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The Plaintiff also appends to his motion proposed notice, reminder, and opt-in forms related to the putative collective, should the motion be granted. The Defendant's partial motion to dismiss for the Court's lack of personal jurisdiction is directed at claims brought on behalf of any putative member of the collective who is not a resident of North Carolina or did not work for the Defendant in North Carolina. The Defendant relies upon declaration of Robert Reese, its COO, in furtherance of its motion to dismiss, and, again, in its opposition to conditional certification. II. Analysis A. Defendant's Motion The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's FLSA claims brought on behalf of putative collective members who worked for the Defendant outside of North Carolina or who are not residents of North Carolina must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Flanagan agrees in part. In sum, she finds that the Defendant's motion must be granted in that part relating to FLSA claims brought on behalf of putative collective members who did not work in North Carolina, were not hired in North Carolina, or whose employment by defendant was not otherwise related to North Carolina. The Plaintiff raises a number of arguments contesting the conclusion, which are unavailing. The Plaintiff argues that personal jurisdiction is only analyzed at level of the suit as a whole, and, relatedly, in the context of FLSA collective actions, that independent bases for exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as to opt-in Plaintiffs are not required. He further contends that even if personal jurisdiction questions are raised by the putative opt-in Plaintiffs' claims, the analysis is controlled by the Fifth Amendment and related principles, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment and its related minimum-contacts standard. Finally, the Plaintiff rests on the purported policies undergirding the FLSA as demanding a different conclusion. First, Judge Flanagan holds that the Plaintiff's proffered suit/claim dichotomy as it relates to the personal jurisdiction inquiry is unavailing, and fails to provide a reason to ignore Bristol-Myers's clear commands, especially given the Court's statement therein that "what is needed" for specific personal jurisdiction "and what was missing there, is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." The specific claims at issue are those of the putative opt-in Plaintiffs against the Defendant, specifically, those arising from work outside of or otherwise unrelated to North Carolina. Second, Judge Flanagan finds that the foregoing principles of law combine to the counsel that FLSA opt-in plaintiffs' claims against a defendant must present independent, sufficient bases for exercise of the court's specific personal jurisdiction over that claim in reference to the Defendant. Therefore, Bristol-Myers, to the extent its holding was anything but application of "settled principles regarding specific jurisdiction," requires that the Court dismisses the claims in the Plaintiff's complaint on behalf of putative Plaintiffs that opt-in to the collective action to the extent those putative Plaintiffs did work in states other than North Carolina or whose employment with the Defendant otherwise had no connection to this state. Third, there were compelling historical and practical reasons why the new Fourteenth Amendment doctrine quickly came to be applied in the federal courts as well. On the Plaintiff's theory, the Court's jurisdictional reach over these new claims against the Defendant would constrained only by the Fifth Amendment's more permissive requirements, which have only been applied in the context of nationwide service statutes and Rule 4(k)(2) by the Fourth Circuit. Judge Flanagan will not read such a loophole into an important limitation on the Court's permissible exercise of jurisdiction. Finally, the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by the Court would be proper as it relates to claims on the putative opt-in Plaintiffs' behalf based on their work with no relation to the forum state. Thus, grant, in part, of the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss is proper. The Plaintiff contends that this determination is premature, but he has brought the issue to head by seeking contemporaneous certification of a collective that would include such putative opt-in Plaintiffs. Judge Flanagan will not engage in the futile exercise of certifying a nationwide collective and authorizing notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs who would shortly thereafter have their claims dismissed upon the Court's rationale. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's claims on behalf of a collective that would include opt-in Plaintiffs who did not work in North Carolina on the Defendant's behalf or otherwise have the requisite connection to the state are dismissed without prejudice. B. Plaintiff's Motion Given disposition of the Defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Flanagan correspondingly denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify conditionally the proposed FLSA collective where it would include "non-exempt manual laborers of the Defendant who were employed by it in the United States" generally. Hence, the Plaintiff's arguments regarding tolling are not addressed. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss, as described. She denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify conditionally the case as a FLSA collective action without prejudice. Per the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 order, the parties will file a supplement to their joint report and plan within 21 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/589s5xy8 from Leagle.com. LIVINGSTON PARISH: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Firefighters --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVINGSTON PARISH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 5, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00261-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated firefighters overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a firefighter from approximately 2014 until February 6, 2022. Livingston Parish Fire Protection District 5 is a political entity, located at 8098 Florida Boulevard, Denham Springs, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com LUCKIN COFFEE: Court Stays Banoon Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Luckin Coffee Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the class action filed by Martin Banoon has been stayed at the request of Banoon. On or about April 14, 2020, an Application for Authorization to Bring a Class Action was filed against Luckin Coffee Inc. by Martin Banoon in the Superior Court of Quebec, file no. 500-06-001058-201. The Applicant seeks authorization to institute a class action on behalf of the proposed class members composed of holders of the Company's ADS, as a result of Fabricated Transactions. At the request of Banoon, the Superior Court of Quebec issued an order staying proceedings pending the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in an unrelated class action that is expected to address jurisdictional defenses similar to those that Luckin Coffee Inc. may raise in the Banoon class action. Luckin Coffee Inc. is a coffee network based in China. LUCKIN COFFEE: Faces Shareholder Actions in New York Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------- Luckin Coffee Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing putative securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York on February 13, 2020, April 2, 2020, April 8, 2020 and on April 10, 2020, against the company, certain of its current and former directors and executives, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and follow-on offering. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York, under the caption "In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:20-cv-01293 (S.D.N.Y.)" On June 12, 2020, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ordered the lawsuits consolidated. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on September 24, 2020 that alleges, among other things, that the company made false and misleading statements and material omissions in its prior registration statements and other public statements by failing to disclose the Fabricated Transactions disclosed in the company's April 2, 2020 announcement, and the impact of those Fabricated Transactions on the company's financial statements. The consolidated class action complaint variously alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act for a putative class of ADS holders in the period between May 17, 2019 and April 1, 2020. The company filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the claims on November 24, 2020. On March 5, 2021, the court entered an Order provisionally certifying the class for settlement purposes. On March 30, 2021, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued an order in the Chapter 15 Case recognizing the proceeding in the Cayman Court with proceeding number FSD 157 of 2020 as a foreign main proceeding. This order also imposed an automatic stay of litigation in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. against Luckin and its assets in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., to the extent provided in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and for the duration of the Chapter 15 Case. The Chapter 15 Case was closed at the request of the JPLs, in coordination with the company on April 8, 2022. On July 6, 2021, the court entered an order regarding dissemination of class notice. Notice was disseminated to the class and the deadline to opt out of the class action was September 17, 2021. Luckin Coffee Inc. is a coffee network based in China. LUCKIN COFFEE: Settlement of Class Suits Subject to Negotiation --------------------------------------------------------------- Luckin Coffee Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the settlement for the class action lawsuit remains subject to negotiation and execution of a stipulation of settlement. On May 26, 2020, June 18, 2020, and June 23, 2020, putative securities class actions complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executives, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and follow-on offering. The lawsuits variously alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and material omissions in its prior registration statements and other public statements by failing to disclose the Fabricated Transactions disclosed in the Company's April 2, 2020 announcement, and the impact of those Fabricated Transactions on the Company's financial statements, in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act. On October 16, 2020, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and consolidated the lawsuits under the caption "In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation, 651939/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)" A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2020, adding claims against investment vehicles owned by former officers and directors of the Company and the Company's agent for service of process, Cogency Global Inc. The amended complaint also asserted claims under the Securities Act on behalf of a class of purchasers of convertible senior notes issued by Luckin in January 2020. On March 30, 2021, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued an order in the Chapter 15 Case recognizing the Company's Cayman Proceeding as a foreign main proceeding. This order also imposed an automatic stay of litigation in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. against Luckin and its assets in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., to the extent provided in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and for the duration of the Chapter 15 Case. The Chapter 15 Case was closed, at the request of the JPLs, in coordination with the company on April 8, 2022. On January 9, 2022, the company reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in the State Class Action to resolve claims that have been or could be filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Notes who did not release their claims in connection with the Scheme. The settlement remains subject to negotiation and execution of a stipulation of settlement, as well as approval from the State Court. Luckin Coffee Inc. is a coffee network based in China. M & DK CONTRACTORS: Santos Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO ANTONIO SANTOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. M & DK CONTRACTORS, INC. and EDWIN SANTOS, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-01619-SEG (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a painter. From the start of Plaintiff's employment in 2005 to August 30, 2021, the Plaintiff received no overtime wages whatsoever despite working excess of 40 hours each week, says the suit. As a painter, Plaintiff's job duties included: painting the walls of commercial properties, cleaning up worksites, and traveling to various worksites to perform work. On average, Plaintiff worked 60 hours each week, but on occasion worked as many as 75 hours in a single week. The Defendant own and operate a contracting company, which paints and provides contractor services, such as laying down flooring and providing industrial coating for surfaces in commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shenk Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHENK v. MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00145 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion to certify class and appoint Lead Counsel. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Mallinckrodt is an American-Irish domiciled manufacturer of specialty pharmaceuticals, generic drugs and imaging agents. In 2017 it generated 90% of its sales from the U.S. healthcare system.[CC] MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Ruderman Sues Over Coercive Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEKSEY RUDERMAN, JASON CLARKE, JAHAT EVELYN, BASARU ASOLO, JAMES FORERO, and CHRIS POCKNELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCHENRY COUNTY and BILL PRIM, SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-50115 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2022) is a putative class action complaint arising from the Defendants' violations of the forced labor provisions in the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are current and former civilly-detained immigrants who were subjected to forced labor while housed at the McHenry Detention Center in Woodstock, Illinois. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs were forced to perform various janitorial and maintenance services without compensation and against their will. According to the complaint, McHenry County's detention facility unlawfully forced civil immigrant detainees to perform uncompensated labor to clean and maintain the premises. The civilly-detained immigrants received no compensation whatsoever to perform their cleaning duties, which are mandatory. When immigrants, including Plaintiffs, refused to clean, they were punished by being locked in their cells or sent to solitary confinement, also known as the "hole," notes the complaint. According to the complaint, while not paying the immigrant detainees a dime and forcing them to work on the threat of solitary confinement, McHenry County has reaped tens of millions from contracts with federal agencies that pay McHenry to house the immigrants. From just 2016 to 2020 alone, the Defendants netted more than $41 million in revenue, adds the suit. Defendant McHenry County is a public entity, operating under the laws of the State of Illinois, which is responsible for all of the acts and omissions of the McHenry County Sheriff and all of the Sheriff's deputies, agents and employees, including those named herein, and McHenry County Jail.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay Kumar, Esq. JAY KUMAR LAW 73 W. Monroe St., #100 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 767-7903 E-mail: Jay@JayKumarLaw.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. Adam Pollock, Esq. Agatha Cole, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 60 Broad St., 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: Rafi@PollockCohen.com Adam@PollockCohen.com Agatha@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob S. Briskman, Esq. A. Ross Cassingham, Esq. 2054 N. California Ave. Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (312) 945-6207 E-mail: Jacob.Briskman@gmail.com A.Ross.Cassingham@gmail.com MDL 2244: 3 Cases Consolidated in Hip Implant Liability Row ----------------------------------------------------------- In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2244, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James E. Kinkeade for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The action shares factual questions arising from alleged injuries from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants. Plaintiffs in three District of New Jersey actions moved to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No. 2244, arguing principally that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases, while Defendants opposed the motions. The panel held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer. A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3y1qc4O MDL 2670: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: End Payer Plaintiffs Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs. Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. TriUnion Seafoods LLC, et al., 3:15-cv-02787-JLS-MDD Bashas' Inc., et al. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., 3:17-cv02487 Fareway Stores Inc. et al v. TriUnion Seafoods, LLC et al., 3:16-cv-02765 Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., 3:16-cv00046 McLane Company, Inc. et al v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al., 3:16-cv-00047 Western Family Foods, Inc. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al., 3:16-cv-00025 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:16-cv00017-JLS-MDD Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:18-cv-01014-JLS-MDD CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:17-cv02154-JLS-MDD SpartanNash Company v. TriUnion Seafoods, LLC, et al., 3:18-cv-02366-JLS-MDD Kroger Co., et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:16-cv00051-JLS-MDD Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:16-cv-00264-JLS-MDD Publix Super Markets, Inc. et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:16-cv-00247-JLS-MDD SuperValu Inc., et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:17-cv0951-JLS-MDD Krasdale Foods, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:17-cv1748-JLS-MDD Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, et al., 3:16-cv-0398-JLSMDD Super Store Industries v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., 3:17-cv0950-JLS-MDD Moran Foods, LLC v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:17-cv1745-JLS-MDD Dollar General Corporation, et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., 3:17-cv-1744-JLS-MDD W. Lee Flowers & Co., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; et al., 3:16-cv-01226(JLS), Case No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment against the Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs"), the Indirect Purchaser End Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs"), and Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs ("CFPs"). I. Introduction Pending before the Court in the multidistrict litigation is a partial motion for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants StarKist Co. and its current owner Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd. ("DWI"), Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International ("COSI") and its current owner Thai Union Group PCL, and Bumble Bee Foods LLC, request partial summary judgment on the ground that the Plaintiffs cannot show a "cognizable injury due to the Defendants' decisions not to market branded products based on fishing gear type (the 'Gear-Type Marketing Decisions')." The Plaintiffs filed an opposition and some but not all of the Defendants filed a reply. II. Background In 2011, Greenpeace launched a campaign seeking to pressure tuna manufacturers to label their products according to the method (or gear) by which fish are caught. The initiative was aimed at eliminating the use of a particular type of fishing gear known as fish aggregating devices ("FADs"), which are "manmade floating objects that create a gathering of fish similar to aggregations created by floating natural debris, such as logs." Used in conjunction with "purse-seine" (large drawstring) nets, Greenpeace complained that the indiscriminate nature of this type of fishing is environmentally irresponsible because of its potential to capture large numbers of fish other than tuna, so-called "bycatch," and urged the tuna industry to stop using FADs and convert all tuna products to "FAD-free." The Defendants disagreed and mounted a campaign against Greenpeace, leading to their Gear-Type Marketing Decisions in which they agreed not to market their branded packaged tuna products as FAD-free. Defendants StarKist, Bumble Bee, and COSI all participate in the National Fisheries Institute ("NFI"), a not-for-profit organization, which facilitates work in the seafood industry through legislative and regulatory policies. Housed within the NFI is the Tuna Council, an entity which "speaks for the tuna industry on numerous issues, including food safety, labeling, sustainability, nutrition education and product marketing." StarKist, Bumble Bee, and COSI are all represented by the Tuna Council. In addition, these Defendants are founding members of, and participate in, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation ("ISSF"), a not-for-profit organization formed in 2009, "to undertake and facilitate science-based initiatives for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of global tuna stocks, reducing bycatch and promoting tuna ecosystem health." The NFI, ISSF, and Tuna Council all disagreed with Greenpeace's proposition that FAD-free fishing was preferable for environmental or sustainability purposes and believed Greenpeace's position was unsupported by scientific evidence. This disagreement came in the form of public statements from the NFI, which argued that doing away with FADs would require "more engines burning more fuel for more time, enough bait to decimate stocks of bait fish, and a massive new carbon footprint." NFI further argued, contrary to Greenpeace, that "tuna bycatch rates have never been lower" because of FAD-fishing. Despite growing vendor interest in FAD-free products, StarKist, Bumble Bee, and COSI communicated with each other and decided they would not label or market any of their branded products by making any reference to gear type or "FAD-free" tuna. Because seine fishing vessels employed both FAD and FAD-free (i.e. free school) fishing methods on the same expedition, members of the Tuna Council stated that any marketing strategies aimed at identifying gear-type could potentially mislead and confuse consumers. Thereafter, in early 2012, the Defendants decided that none would label or market any of their branded tuna products by making any reference to FAD-free or gear-type. The Defendants argue their FAD-free agreement was made in good faith and supported by NFI, ISSF and the Tuna Council. As noted, they argue the Plaintiffs have not shown a cognizable injury due to their FAD-free agreement and therefore they are entitled to summary judgment regarding "whether Defendants violated the antitrust laws in deciding not to market branded products referring to gear type." The Plaintiffs assign ill motives to the Defendants' FAD-free agreement and argue that it was another orchestrated step by the Defendants to stifle competition and fix prices. They argue that the Defendants attempt impermissibly to parse their price fixing conspiracy into discrete components and that there are numerous triable issues of fact "whether the Defendants' joint refusal to offer branded FAD-free tuna effectuated the purpose of their price-fixing conspiracy and assisted Defendants in maintaining their conspiracy." III. Discussion The crux of the Defendants' argument is that the Plaintiffs' "damages models cannot demonstrate any injury attributable to the Defendants' decisions to refrain from labeling packaged tuna products based on fishing gear type." The Plaintiffs argue that if a price fixing conspiracy is based on a number of overt acts, as is the case now, it is improper to focus on one aspect of the conspiracy and require an injury (or damages) solely attributable to the isolated conspiratorial act -- in the case, Defendants' Gear-Type Marketing Decisions. Judge Sabraw agrees with the Plaintiffs. Based on the evidence and expert testimony, she finds that the Plaintiffs have raised triable questions of fact "as to the existence and scope" of the Defendants' alleged agreement to fix and maintain packaged tuna prices in the American market, to include the Defendants' alleged agreement on Gear-Type Marketing Decisions. The evidence of the Defendants' FAD-free agreement is inextricably intertwined with and bound up in the alleged multifaceted price fixing conspiracy. Although the Defendants have pleaded guilty to a price-fixing conspiracy, the trier of fact is entitled to evaluate all of its alleged component parts to determine the scope of the conspiracy -- collusion on list and net prices, can downsizing, promotional activities and marketing -- and the injury to the marketplace caused by that conspiracy. The Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs' various experts admit that their injury and damages analyses do not purport to account for any alleged harm flowing from their decisions not to label their branded products based on gear-type." Because the price fixing conspiracy is viewed in its entirety and must not be "dismembered," Judge Sabraw holds that the Plaintiffs need not show injury or damages solely attributable to the Defendants' FAD-free agreement. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sabraw denied the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Gear-Type Claims. The Parties will file unredacted versions of their briefs, and identify these documents on the docket as "unredacted" versions of their prior filings, and in each instance reference the docket number of the previous "redacted" version. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvrmdj23 from Leagle.com. MDL 2816: Heater-Cooler System Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In "In Re: Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System Products Liability Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 2816, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring the case captioned Napier v. Livanova Deutschland GmbH, et al. (C.A. No. 1:21−00739) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and assigned to the Honorable Christopher C. Conner for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff Napier claims that that LivaNova's Sorin 3T heatercooler system contains defects that leave the device susceptible to bacterial colonization, resulting in some patients' exposure to nontuberculous mycobacterium during surgery. Plaintiff initially moved to vacate, arguing that removal of their action was improper, and the transferor court should decide their motion for remand to state court. However, the panel held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3vJ9Rz5 MDL 2873: Marathon Suit Consolidated in AFFF Product Liability Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring the case captioned Marathon Petroleum Company LP v. 3M Company, et al., (C.A. No. 2:22−10117) to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and assigning it to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Marathon Petroleum Company initially moved to vacate said transfer order that conditionally transferred their case to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873, primarily arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over these actions is lacking, and that their pending motions for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. Defendants 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products, LP, Chemguard, Inc. and Hayden & Company opposed the motion. In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water. The panel finds that the said actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs, the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3KgLwFW MDL 2945: Equipmentshare.com v. Ahern Transferred to W.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the Ahern Rentals trade secret litigation, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals Inc., et al., (C.A. No. 2:21−01916, D. Nev.) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Beth Phillips for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. This action involves questions arising out of allegations of a nationwide scheme by common defendant EquipmentShare to capture market share in the equipment rental business from common plaintiff, Ahern, by "luring away its employees and customers and using Ahern's confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets." After considering the argument of counsel, the panel contended that a transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/395WfpW MDL 3025: Aerosol Product Liability Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned "In re: Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers three cases to the Southern District of Ohio and assigning them to Judge Michael H. Watson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the alleged contamination of P&G aerosol body spray products with benzene, a known human carcinogen that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The products at issue in this litigation are P&G aerosol antiperspirant and deodorant products mainly, Secret and Old Spice branded products, that were voluntarily recalled in November 2021. Additionally, certain P&G aerosol dry shampoo and aerosol dry conditioner products recalled in December 2021 are it issue in four potential tag-along actions. The common factual questions include whether the alleged P&G body spray products contained benzene and, if so, at what concentration, whether the benzene levels allegedly detected in the products posed a safety risk to consumers or made the products unfit for sale whether P&G knew or should have known that the products contained benzene, whether P&G was negligent in labeling, marketing, manufacturing, and selling the allegedly contaminated products and the contract manufacturer's alleged role in the contamination. Considering the common factual questions involving these different categories of P&G body spray products, the panel has determined that the centralized proceedings should include the potential tag-along actions involving P&G aerosol shampoo and conditioner products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The panel concluded that the Southern District of Ohio is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant P&G has its headquarters in this district, and represents that the contract manufacturer involved in making the recalled products is located in Indiana and Illinois. Thus, common witnesses and other evidence likely will be located in or near this district. Eight actions, including potential tag-along actions, are pending there. A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/36ITVEv MICHIGAN: Suit Seeks to Certify Medicaid Beneficiary Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.B. by mother, Next Friend, and guardian T.B., et al., v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, et a., Case No. 1:18-cv-11795-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs and the unnamed class members are all Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 who have been diagnosed with developmental disabilities, serious emotional disturbances ("SED"), and/or mental illness and are entitled to medically necessary Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment ("EPSDT") services under the Medicaid Act. The Medicaid program was "designed to provide medical assistance to persons whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary care and services." State participation in the Medicaid program is not compulsory, but, once a state agrees to participate, it must comply with the requirements imposed by the Social Security Act. The Plaintiffs have raised the following common claims against all Defendants, which claims are capable of class-wide resolution that will advance the litigation: (a) Failure to provide or arrange for home and community-based services and establish policies and procedures that facilitate access to these services as required under 42 U.S.C. section 1396a(a)(43)(C) and 42 U.S.C. section 1396d(r)(5); (b) Failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard after denying requests for services, reducing, suspending, or terminating services, and failing to provide services timely, in violation of due process under the United States Constitution and the Medicaid Act; and (c) Failure to operate and oversee the behavioral health managed care program consistent with Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing regulations under 42 C.F.R. Part 438. The Defendants are responsible for providing or arranging for these services under federal law but have failed to do so. This systemic failure and violation of federal law has harmed the Plaintiffs and unnamed class members, who seek injunctive and declaratory relief, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs include D.D., by his parent and Next Friend B.N.; G.P., by her parent and Next Friend A.P.; G.G., by his mother and Next Friend M.G.; M.M., by his parent and Next Friend C.C.; L.G., by her parent and Next Friend T.G.; S.W., by his parent and Next Friend C.W.; and K.M., by his parent and guardian L.M. The Defendants include MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ELIZABETH HERTEL, Director of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, in her official capacity. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v9g4oU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dave Honigman, Esq. Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Theresamarie Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1361 E Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com gmantese@manteselaw.com tmantese@manteselaw.com - and - Kyle M. Williams, Esq. Nicholas A. Gable, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS MICHIGAN 4095 Legacy Parkway Lansing, MI 48911 Telephone: (517) 487-1755 E-mail: kwilliams@drmich.org ngable@drmich.org - and - Kimberly Lewis, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 750 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (919) 968-6308 E-mail: lewis@healthlaw.org - and - John J. Conway, Esq. JOHN J. CONWAY PC Woodward Ave. Ste. 225 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (313) 961-6525 E-mail: jj@jjconwaylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie M. Service, Esq. Kathleen A. Halloran, Esq. Mark Donnelly, Esq. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Health, Education & Family Services Division P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 335-8703 E-mail: ServiceS3@michigan.gov HalloranK1@michigan.gov Donnellym@michigan.gov MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMMEL AMANSEC, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-08798-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Midland Credit provides debt recovery solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k3zF3E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel. & Fax: (201) 273-7117 - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM LLC 1400 S. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21230 Telephone: (650) 740-6228 MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of Williams-Hopkins, Toft Suits Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant-Respondent. CAMILLA TOFT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, ASSET ACCEPTANCE CAPITAL CORP., and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants-Respondents, Case Nos. A-4468-19, A-4470-19 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirms the June 29, 2020 Law Division orders dismissing Plaintiffs Rosa M. Williams-Hopkins and Camilla Toft's class action complaints as barred by the entire controversy doctrine. In these back-to-back appeals, which the Appellate Division consolidates for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, the Plaintiffs appeal from the June 29, 2020 Law Division orders dismissing their class action complaints as barred by the entire controversy doctrine. Reviewing "de novo the trial court's determination of the motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e)," the Appellate Division affirms substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Keith E. Lynott's thoughtful and comprehensive written decision. As described in Judge Lynott's statement of reasons addressing the Plaintiffs' 2019 complaints, the Plaintiffs asserted in separate actions "improper consumer debt collection activity without required licenses," in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA), N.J.S.A. 17:11C-1 to -49, and sought "to void prior judgments obtained against them in other courts." The complaints identified Defendant Midland Funding LLC (MF) and Defendants Asset Acceptance, LLC, Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., and Midland Credit Management, Inc. (collectively, the AA Defendants), as limited liability companies "in the business of 'purchasing and taking assignment of defaulted credit agreements originally extended by other creditors, which they then enforce against the borrowers through collection letters, lawsuits, and post-judgment collection efforts.'" The Williams-Hopkins complaint alleged that after acquiring a defaulted debt extended to Williams-Hopkins by HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., to collect the debt, Defendant MF filed a lawsuit against Williams-Hopkins and obtained a default judgment against her on Sept. 11, 2012. The Toft complaint alleged that after acquiring a defaulted debt extended to Toft by Citifinancial, the AA Defendants filed a lawsuit against Toft to collect the debt and obtained a default judgment against her on Dec. 11, 2013. Both complaints alleged that the collection lawsuits were void ab initio due to the failure of the respective Defendants to have obtained the required licenses to pursue the collection activity at issue. The complaints asserted claims for violations of the CFLA and the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -210, and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Relying on the entire controversy doctrine and other grounds, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The entire controversy doctrine "embodies the principle that the adjudication of a legal controversy should occur in one litigation in only one court; accordingly, all parties involved in a litigation should at the very least present in that proceeding all of their claims and defenses that are related to the underlying controversy." Applying the governing legal principles, Judge Lynott concluded both actions were barred by the entire controversy doctrine and granted the Defendants' motions. The judge observed that the Plaintiffs could have challenged the Defendants' debt collection activity, the validity of the assignments, and the Defendants' rights to institute and prosecute collection claims in a New Jersey court in defense of the prior collections lawsuits. They could have raised all the legal theories asserted in the present case as defenses/counterclaims in the prior collection lawsuits. There can be no doubt that the factual circumstances giving rise to the controversy itself in the prior collection lawsuits and the present case are identical. It is this identity of transactional facts that gives rise to the applicability of the entire controversy doctrine, Judge Lynott held. The Appellate Division discerns no abuse of discretion in Judge Lynott's sound decision and no legal or factual basis to intervene. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88mz5a from Leagle.com. Scott C. Borison (Borison Firm LLC) of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and California bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for the Appellants (Kim Law Firm LLC, and Scott C. Borison, attorneys; Yongmoon Kim and Scott C. Borison, on the briefs). Han Sheng Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- argued the cause for the Respondents (Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, attorneys; Han Sheng Beh, on the briefs). MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Amended Baysal Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALP BAYSAL, THOMAS MAXIM and SANDRA ITALIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-394-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing. I. Introduction In the class action, Plaintiffs Alp Baysal, Thomas Maxim and Sandra Italiano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, claim that the Defendants violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721 et seq. ("DPPA"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants allowed a data breach resulting in a risk of future financial harm and identity theft to themselves and putative class members. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. II. Background On May 13, 2021, the named Plaintiffs each received a letter from Midvale regarding an "Unauthorized Data Disclosure." Within each letter was a notification that driver's license numbers may have been "compromised" by the Unauthorized Data Disclosure. Generally, hackers with only basic, identifying information were allegedly able to prompt an "instant quote feature" offered by the Defendants to auto-fill other, personal information about that individual, including a person's driver's license number. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants' disclosure of this personal information was both negligent and a violation of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724. As for injury, they allege the data breach resulted in an "increased risk of fraud and identity theft." III. Opinion As alluded to, the Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint on two bases. First, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' lack of an "injury-in-fact" denies them standing to bring these claims and the Court subject-matter jurisdiction to hear their claims under Rule 12(b)(1). Second, in the alternative, the Defendants argue dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Plaintiffs' allegations do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Judge Conley agrees that the Plaintiffs lack standing, he needs only reach -- and indeed must only reach -- the first challenge under Rule 12(b)(1). The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs fail to allege any concrete injury; rather, they argue the Plaintiffs allege injuries too speculative to confer standing. Specifically, they argue that in order for the injury of future harm to satisfy the standing requirements in a data-breach case like this one, the data at issue needs to be highly sensitive such as "social security numbers or payment card information." More specifically, where the plaintiffs claim a risk of future harm by virtue of a data breach -- whether identity theft or fraud -- the Seventh Circuit requires that there must be an "'objectively reasonable likelihood' that an injury will occur." In response, the Plaintiffs offer several responses; however, none of which have much traction. First, the Plaintiffs repeat that the Defendants' failure to protect their personal information resulted in a risk of future identity theft and harm, pointing to a list of harms alleged in their complaint that could happen when driver's license information is disclosed, including having that information sold on the dark web, the creation of synthetic identities and the ability to access more personal information. Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the loss of time and expense that must now be incurred to monitor their credit reports for the threat of future harm by virtue of the Defendants' possible release of their driver's license numbers constitutes a distinct injury sufficient to establish standing. Third, in their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs attempt to strengthen the allegations as to standing by alleging specific instances of identity theft. Fourth, and finally, the Plaintiffs allege that disclosure of their personal information resulted in anxiety and emotional distress. Judge Conley opines that (i) all of the injuries are speculative, things that could happen but have not happened; (ii) the Plaintiffs are left to speculate as to a potential harm that could occur due to the disclosure of their driver's license information, rather than allege an actual harm; (iii) the Plaintiffs have again failed to plausibly allege that Maxim's instances of identity theft can be traced to the disclosure at issue; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have failed to plead a concrete, non-emotional harm, along with these emotional harms, that resulted from the disclosure of their driver's license information. IV. Order Having failed to allege an injury-in-fact in their original complaint nor in their amended complaint, Judge Conley has no choice but to dismiss both their state and federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8w6tua from Leagle.com. MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Brinkley Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-LL-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following Class from October 15, 2012 through February 28, 2018 (the Class Period): "All persons who made one or more telephone calls with the Defendant while using a "cellular radio telephone" as such term is defined in Cal. Penal Code section 632.7(c)(l), during the Class Period and did not receive notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone conversation may be recorded or monitored (the "Class")"; 2. certifying the following sub-classes, which are defined as subsets of the Class as follows: "All persons who received one or more telephone calls from the Defendant during the Class Period that were recorded and did not receive notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone conversation may be recorded or monitored (the "Persons Who Received Calls from Defendant Sub-Class"); 3. appointing her as the class representative for the Class and sub-classes; and 4. appointing Patrick N. Keegan of Keegan & Baker, LLP, as Counsel for the Class and sub-classes. Monterey is a full service receivables management and finance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/391lvh0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com MS. WINE SHOP: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE BARRERA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MS. WINE SHOP INC. d/b/a BEST BUY WINE & SPIRITS and JUAN LOPEZ, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02178 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper overtime and minimum wages, failed to provide spread of hours compensation, and failed to furnish wage statements and wage written notices as required by law. The Plaintiff was employed by Ms. Wine Shop as a delivery worker, helper and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from February 2009 until January 2022. Ms. Wine Shop Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 NABORS COMPLETION: Court Enters Judgment in Favor of Gibson ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TODD GIBSON, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:21-cv-08450 DDP (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered Judgment against Nabors. On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Brandyn Ridgeway, and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action"). On June 29, 2015 NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section 2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Gibson, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. Gibson's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Rosalyn Chapman (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award on Aug. 13, 2021 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Oct. 22, 2021, in favor of Gibson ("the Final Award"). On Oct. 26, 2021, Gibson filed the instant action and Jan. 17, 2022 filed a Motion to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On April 11, 2022, the Court granted Gibson's motion and confirmed the JAMS Final Award, issued on Oct. 22, 2021, in Gibson's Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220059000 and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. Therefore, Judge Pregerson ordered that Gibson will recover against Respondent NABORS in the following amounts: The amount of $88,608 in unpaid wages, $68,678 in statutory interest through May 31, 2021, and continuing at $24.28 per day, $23,582.94 in statutory penalties under California Labor Code Section 203(a), $3,450 in penalties for wage statement violations under California Labor Code Section 226(e), $320,342.76 in attorneys' fees and $5,246.50 in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator. Further, Gibson will recover post-award attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,959 and for costs in the amount of $400. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ne8hmhf from Leagle.com. Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas -- skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, in Tustin, California. NATURA MANAGEMENT: Chapman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natura Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Patricia A. Chapman, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Natura Management LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00318053-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Natura Management -- https://www.natura.io/ -- is a groundbreaking operating and management system for the cannabis industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Kelsey A Webber, Esq. WEBBER LAW GROUP, P.C. 1215 K St., Fl. 17 Sacramento, CA 95814-3954 Phone: 916-588-0683 Email: kelsey.webber@webberlawgroup.com NAVER CORP: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss Ji Suit Continued to May 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Sydney Ji, June Abe, Lee Shubert, Kira Tomlinson, Ranela Sunga, and Stefanie Bonner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVER CORPORATION, a corporation; NAVER CLOUD CORPORATION, a corporation; NAVER CLOUD AMERICA INC. f/k/a NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM AMERICA INC., a corporation; SNOW CORPORATION, a corporation; SNOW INC., corporation; Z HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a corporation; LINE CORPORATION, a corporation; LINE PLUS CORPORATION, a corporation; and LINE EURO-AMERICAS CORPORATION, a corporation. Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-05143-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California continued the hearing on the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss to May 12, 2022. The hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, in Oakland, California. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wmxdvfh7 from Leagle.com. ND PAPER: Maxwell Sues Over Retaliatory Discharge, Defamation ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MAXWELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ND PAPER, INC., KENNETH LI, and CHAODAN ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 2022LA000363 (Ill. Cir., 18th Jud., Dupage Cty., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for retaliatory discharge, defamation, and violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act and the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for his complaints regarding ND Paper's fraudulent accounting practices. Moreover, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously published false statements regarding the Plaintiff and his job performance to discredit him and justify his termination. As a result of the Defendants' retaliatory conduct, the Plaintiff's career has been derailed and irreparably damaged. He has also suffered financial loss and severe emotional distress. Mr. Maxwell worked for ND Paper as its corporate controller from July 6, 2021 until November 5, 2021. ND Paper, Inc. is a corporation that manufactures and sells pulp and paper products, headquartered in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60565 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com docketing@fishlawfirm.com - and – Patrick Cowlin, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com powlin@fishlawfirm.com NEVADA PROPERTY: Final OK of Collective Action Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEON MERCED, an individual; SERTHA EVANS, an individual; and each of them on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC d/b/a THE COSMOPOLITAN LAS VEGAS; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00920-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.), the Parties file their joint motion for final approval of collective action settlement, including the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs. -- The Scope Of The Collective And Relevant Time Periods The scope of the FLSA Collective is "the approximately 38 Slot Guest Service Representatives who worked for Defendant during the Relevant Time Period and the approximately Cage Cashiers who worked in the High Limit Slots cage for Defendant during the Relevant Time Period." The relevant time period for the settlement is March 23, 2018 (the date that the amended Section 3(m) went into effect) through October 25, 2020 (the date that Defendant ceased allowing ASMs to participate in the tip pool). -- The Monetary Recovery The Settlement provides for a maximum settlement amount of $863,040.00 (the "Settlement Fund"). The following approximate amounts will be set up from the Settlement Fund: 1. A maximum amount up to $608,290.00 for Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims (the "FLSA Opt-In Fund"); 2. $15,000.00 each to Plaintiff Deon Merced and Sertha Evans as a service award for their participation in the lawsuit, and in exchange for their execution of General Releases; 3. $215,760.00 for Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees and $8,000.00 costs (the "Fees and Costs Fund"). The case arises from the Plaintiffs' employment with The Cosmopolitan, a hotel and casino on the Las Vegas strip with a variety of gaming operations, including slot machines. The Plaintiffs worked as Guest Services Representatives ("GSRs") in Defendant's Slot Department. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a collective and class action Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that, during their employment, they and other similarly-situated GSRs were required to participate in the Slot Department tip pool with management in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege that Assistant Slot Shift Managers ("ASMs"), who both contributed and withdrew amounts from the Slot Department tip pool, were "managers" for purposes of Section 3(m), and thus should not have been allowed to participate in the tip pool with GSRs. Nevada Property 1 LLC operates hotel and motels. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36JZHpA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean K. Claggett, Esq. William T. Sykes, Esq. Joseph N. Mott, Esq. CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM 4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NE 89107 Telephone: (702) 655-2346 Facsimile: (702) 655-3763 E-mail: sclaggett@claggettlaw.com wsykes@claggettlaw.com joey@claggettlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lisa A. McClane, Esq. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1500 Las Vegas, NE 89101 NEWARK, NJ: Court Refuses to Enter Aziz's Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MALIKUL AZIZ, RONNIE CRUZ, and RUDAN RAMSAHAI, individually and on behalf of all of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEWARK, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-10309 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the parties' request to enter their proposed order for class certification. I. Background The Plaintiffs are Newark police officers. As part of their training, the Plaintiffs and the other putative class members were required to attend the New Jersey State Police Academy in Sea Girt, New Jersey, which they did in either August to December of 2017 or August to December of 2018. While there, the Plaintiffs were employed as cadets. The Defendant required the Plaintiffs to waive their right to overtime and were paid $17.50 per hour. The Plaintiffs allege that they were required to work over 40 hours but were not paid for any overtime because of their waivers. They maintain that "similarly situated members of both the 2017 and 2018 class were subject to the same schedules and the same withholdings of their overtime wages," meaning that the Plaintiffs and each putative class member are entitled to the same amount of unpaid overtime. The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on Aug. 11, 2020, asserting three claims: One for violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.; and two for violations of New Jersey wage laws. They seek to recover unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and reasonable fees and costs and an order prohibiting the Defendants "from continuing to maintain its illegal policy, practice or customs in violation of federal and state wage and hour laws." The Complaint asserts an FLSA collective action as well as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The parties filed a joint letter with a proposed order for class certification. The proposed order indicates that the Plaintiffs would prosecute their three claims as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), referencing only equitable relief. The Plaintiffs never moved in connection with a collective action or a Rule 23(b)(3) class. Upon review, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to submit letters addressing their basis for proceeding as a Rule 23(b)(2) class and describing the proposed class notice. The Plaintiffs responded. D.E. 230; D.E. 231. The Court then convened a telephone conference, explaining its concerns and ordering the Plaintiffs to submit a further letter addressing those concerns. The Plaintiffs then filed the letter. II. Discussion Judge Vazquez has considered the proposed order and the Plaintiffs' letters in support of the order. He opines that the Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to suffer future harm from the Defendant's conduct. All of the harm they complain of occurred in the past -- in 2017 or 2018. Although the Plaintiffs contend that "monetary damages would be of little consolation if the Defendant is permitted to go on violating the law with impunity," this is plainly not true for the named Plaintiffs, according to Judge Vazquez. It appears that such Plaintiffs will receive no benefit from a change to the overtime policy at this time or going forward. Instead, the only apparent relief available to such Plaintiffs is to be compensated for the overtime that they did not receive in 2017 and 2018. In other words, even if the monetary relief the Plaintiffs seeks is "incidental" to declaratory relief, Judge Vazquez holds that because they cannot pursue declaratory relief in the first place (for lack of standing) because they will not benefit from such relief, their argument falls short. Because the Plaintiffs can only seek unpaid overtime, the Plaintiffs can seemingly proceed either by means of the FLSA's collective-action mechanism or under Rule 23(b)(3). As a result, he declines to enter the proposed consent order. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, Judge Vazquez denied the parties' request that the Court enters the proposed order for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7rhxdc from Leagle.com. NYP HOLDINGS: Violates Video Privacy Protection Act, Ring Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NYP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03312 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022) is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons with Facebook accounts who watched videos on nypost.com. The Defendant allegedly violated the VPPA by knowingly transmitting Plaintiff's and the putative class's personally identifiable information to unrelated third parties. NYP Holdings owns and operates nypost.com ("New York Post"), which offers, among other things, "videos about New York, sports, business, entertainment, opinion, real estate, culture, fashion, and more." Defendant knowingly collects and discloses its subscribers' personally identifiable information—including a record of every video they watch -- to Facebook without consent. The United States Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") in 1988, seeking to confer onto consumers the power to "maintain control over personal information divulged and generated in exchange for receiving services from video tape service providers." The origins of the VPPA begin with President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court. During the confirmation process, a movie rental store disclosed the nominee's rental history to the Washington City Paper which then published that history. Congress responded by passing the VPPA, with an eye toward the digital future. Facebook is the largest social networking site on the planet, touting 2.9 billion monthly active users. Facebook describes itself as a "real identity platform," meaning users are allowed only one account and must share "the name they go by in everyday life." The Defendant is a video tape service provider. For the majority of its stories, Defendant creates and embeds videos. Usually, these appear at the top of each article.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Seeks OK of Class Status Renewed Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anita C. Deselms, et al, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00243-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting their renewed motion for class certification; 2. designating Anita C. Deselms, John C. Eklund, Jr., Justin W. and Brandi J. Miller, Ron Rabou, and Russell I. Williams, Jr. as the representatives of the Class; 3. appointing Robert P. Schuster of Robert P. Schuster, P.C. as lead counsel for the Class. Occidental Petroleum is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and Colombia as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United States, Canada, and Chile. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4EaRH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Booke, Esq. Robert P. Schuster, Esq. Adelaide P. Myers, Esq. ROBERT P. SCHUSTER, P.C. 250 Veronica Lane, Suite 204 P.O. Box 13160 Jackson, Wyoming 83002 Telephone: (307) 732-7800 E-mail: bob@bobschuster.com brad@bobschuster.com adelaide@bobschuster.com - and - Thomas N. Long, Esq. Kris C. Koski, Esq. Aaron J. Lyttle, Esq. Kaylee A. Harmon, Esq. LONG REIMER WINEGAR LLP 2120 Carey Ave., Suite 300 Cheyenne, WY 82001 P.O. Box 87 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Telephone: (307) 635-0710 E-mail: tlong@lrw-law.com kkoski@lrw-law.com alyttle@lrw-law.com kharmon@lrw-law.com - and - J.N. Murdock, Esq. MURDOCK LAW FIRM, LLC 104 South Wolcott Street, Suite 800 Casper, Wyoming 82601 Telephone: (307) 235-0480 E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com - and - Laurence O. Masson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAURENCE O. MASSON 2625 Alcatraz Avenue, # 206 Berkeley, CA 94705-2702 Telephone: 510.735.9691 E-mail: lomlex@gmail.com - and - Cody L. Balzer, Esq. BALZER LAW FIRM, P.C. 1302 Cleveland Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 Telephone: (970) 2030-1515 E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com - and - Samuel Issacharoff, Esq. 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6580 E-mail: si13@nyu.edu ONEOK FIELD: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Dinsmore ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN B. DINSMORE, et al., v. ONEOK FIELD SERVICES COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 4:22-cv-00073-GKF-CDL (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frezzell entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motions for leave to amend or add Aug. 24, 2022 additional parties: -- Documents previously produced by March 20, 2023 parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: -- Class Certification Motion filed April 24, 2023 with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: -- Class Certification Response filed June 23, 2023 with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: -- Class Certification Reply filed July 25, 2023 with any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: -- Class Certification Discovery July 25, 2023 Cutoff: Oneok provides energy services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xP7kpG at no extra charge.[CC] ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in CA Court ---------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, 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 it is facing a purported securities class action filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County on February 28, 2022, entitled "Braun v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 22STCV07174. The plaintiff filed this action purportedly on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the 9.50% Series A Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock of Ontrak pursuant to Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with Ontrak's August 21, 2020 initial public stock offering, its September 2020 through December 2020 "at market" offering, and its December 16, 2020 follow-on stock offering. The plaintiff brings this action against the company, its officers: Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, and Christopher Shirley; its board members: Richard A. Berman, Sharon Gabrielson, Gustavo Giraldo, Katherine B. Quinn, Robert Rebak, Diane Seloff, Michael Sherman, and Edward Zecchini and the investment banking firms that acted as underwriters for the offerings: B. Riley Securities, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., William Blair & Company, LLC, Aegis Capital Corp., Insperex LLC (f/k/a Incapital LLC), The Benchmark Company, LLC, Boenning & Scatteredgood, Inc., Colliers Securities, LLC, Kingswood Capital Markets and ThinkEquity. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that these filings failed to disclose and misrepresented that Ontrak's relationships with two of its largest customers, Aetna and Cigna, were materially impaired due to a lack of confidence in Ontrak's value proposition and billing practices, Aetna had turned off the data feed of customer records to Ontrak by May 2020, citing dissatisfaction with the company's value proposition and billing practices and thus submitted a corrective action plan which Ontrak's senior executives were unable to effectively respond to, and the alleged failures in Ontrak's ability to ensure insurance coverage and resulting billing problems affected all of its relationships with large health insurance provider clients weakening its business metrics and financial prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages in an indeterminate amount. In April 4, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation extending defendants time to respond to the initial complaint until May 6, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the Court issued an order determining the case to be complex and staying the case pending an initial status conference. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure, which result in high medical costs. ONTRAK INC: Faces Farhar Shareholder Suit in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, 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 it is facing a purported securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 3, 2021, entitled "Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. Plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleges that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan. Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants misrepresented to investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors, failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP and failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The motion is fully briefed and has been taken under submission, with no oral argument. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure, which result in high medical costs. ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------ Ontrak, 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 it is facing a purported securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2021, entitled "Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-02460. Plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleges that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan. Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants misrepresented to investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors, failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP and failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The motion is fully briefed and has been taken under submission, with no oral argument. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure, which result in high medical costs. ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Anderson Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, 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 its Executive Chairman and largest stockholder, Terren S. Peizer, is facing a purported stockholder derivative complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in August 6, 2021, entitled "Anderson v. Peizer," Case No. 2:21-cv-07998, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing or causing the company to violate the federal securities laws and seek damages. On December 7, 2021, the court in the Central District of California stayed the action pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On March 21, 2022 the Court in the District of Delaware granted plaintiff's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for Central District of California in the interest of judicial efficiency due to the Consolidated Class Action and Consolidated Derivative Action already pending in that district, and that same day the case was transferred into the United States District Court for Central District of California and given the new Case No. 2:22-cv-01873-CAS-AS. On April 8, 2022, defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the case pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the consolidated class action. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure, which result in high medical costs. ONTRAK INC: Stockholder Faces Aptor Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ Ontrak, 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 its Executive Chairman and largest stockholder, Terren S. Peizer, is facing a purported stockholder derivative complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in August 6, 2021, entitled "Aptor v. Peizer," Case No. 2:21-cv-06371, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing or causing the company to violate the federal securities laws and seek damages. On December 7, 2021, the court in the Central District of California stayed the action pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On March 21, 2022 the Court in the District of Delaware granted plaintiff's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for Central District of California in the interest of judicial efficiency due to the Consolidated Class Action and Consolidated Derivative Action already pending in that district, and that same day the case was transferred into the United States District Court for Central District of California and given the new Case No. 2:22-cv-01873-CAS-AS. On April 8, 2022, defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the case pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the consolidated class action. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure, which result in high medical costs. ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Certiorari Petition Filed in Ahlman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Don Barnes, Sheriff, Orange County, California, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled DON BARNES, SHERIFF AND ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, PETITIONERS v. MELISSA AHLMAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, Case No. 21-1351. Response is due on May 16, 2022. The Defendants petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don Barnes, et al., Case Nos. 20-55568, 20-55668, dated December 10, 2021. The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by several inmates in Orange County jails against the County and the sheriff for alleged failure to combat COVID-19. The question presented is: Whether a preliminary injunction issued under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and stayed by this Honorable Court shall evade appellate review due to the PLRA's 90-day expiration provision. On April 30, 2020, 10 inmates at the Orange County Jail, filed this putative class action against Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Don Barnes and the County of Orange for their alleged failure to combat COVID-19. On May 26, 2020, the District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiffs' provisional class certification and issued a preliminary injunction under the PLRA, which required the Defendants to issue protective measures that (1) exceeded the then existing CDC guidance for correctional facilities; (2) jeopardized the Plaintiffs' ability to safely manage and secure the Orange County Jail; and (3) increased the likelihood of transmission of COVID-19 in the Orange County jail. The District Court denied a stay pending appeal, as did the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit sua sponte issued an immediate remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether changed circumstances warranted modification or dissolution of the preliminary injunction. On June 26, 2020, the District Court on remand did not dissolve the preliminary injunction and instead granted Defendants' request for expedited discovery. On July 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a new appeal of the District Court's orders on remand in case number 20-556681, and sought another emergency stay, which the Ninth Circuit denied on July 4, 2020. On July 21, 2020, 42 Plaintiffs filed an emergency application for stay of injunctive relief pending appeal before this Honorable Court. On August 5, 2020, the emergency application was granted, staying the preliminary injunction "pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought." On August 25, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, which Plaintiffs opposed on September 4, 2020. The Ninth Circuit did not rule on Defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal as moot before oral argument. On August 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their opening brief. On September 28, 2020, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs' opening brief, and on October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Oral argument was held on September 1, 2020, and on December 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit ruled that under the PLRA, the preliminary injunction expired 90 days after its issuance, despite this Court's stay order issued on August 5, thus rendering the appeal moot. The Ninth Circuit held that "because the PLRA provides that any preliminary injunction automatically expires 90 days after being issued (absent further finalization), the injunction and provisional class certification were no longer in effect and the appeal was moot." The Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court's emergency stay of the preliminary injunction saved this appeal from mootness, as the stay "did not toll the 90-day limit unambiguously detailed in the PLRA."[BN] Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners Don Barnes, Sheriff and Orange County, California, is represented by: Donald Kevin Dunn, Esq. Leon J. Page, Esq. Laura D. Knapp, Esq. Rebecca S. Leeds, Esq. Kayla N. Watson, Esq. ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE 333 West Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 407 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1379 Telephone: (714) 834-3300 Facsimile: (714) 834-2359 Email: kevin.dunn@coco.ocgov.com OSP INC: Nolley Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliatory Discharge ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHASTITY NOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSP, INC., KEITH KRUEGER, LEON PINE RIDGE, LLC, and ERIC LEON, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00256 (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers appropriate wages, including overtime, and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from approximately February of 2021 until August of 2021. OSP, Inc. is an owner and operator of Papa John's franchises located at 5308 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, PA Wells Fargo Building 631 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (844) 722-7567 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and – Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PATZERIA FAMILY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Bocel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICARDO BOCEL, Plaintiff, v. PATZERIA FAMILY & FRIENDS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 7384 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. I. Background Plaintiff Bocel asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law (the "NYLL") on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who have worked as bussers, cashiers, cooks, dishwashers, delivery persons, food runners and/or servers who were employed by Defendants at any time in the past six years. Defendants are Patzeria Family & Friends ("Patzeria F&F") and Patzeria Perfect, two Italian restaurants, and their owners Defendants Joseph Azzolino and Shkelzen Ulaj. As related to the FLSA collective, the First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") alleges that the Defendants willfully violated FLSA's overtime requirements. From in or around 2014 until in or around Feb. 2, 2020, the Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and delivery person at Patzeria F&F and Patzeria Perfect. His job responsibilities included washing dishes, delivering food orders to the Defendants' customers, cleaning the kitchen, and delivering ingredients from Patzeria F&F to Patzeria Perfect. The Plaintiff regularly worked six days per week: Mondays from approximately 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m.; and Wednesdays through Sundays from approximately 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m, for a total of approximately 62 hours per week. The Plaintiff was not given meal or rest breaks and was not paid overtime wages when he worked more than 40 hours per week or spread of hours supplement when he worked more than 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff was paid a fixed weekly salary, starting at approximately $480 per week in 2014, and ending at approximately $640 per week beginning in January 2020, until the end of his employment. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff via cash on Monday nights and Plaintiff was never given a pay stub. In his declaration, the Plaintiff names approximately 14 other employees who worked similar schedules to him as cooks, servers, cashiers, food runners, dishwashers, and bussers, who worked for the Defendants within the last three years and were paid flat weekly amounts regardless of the number of hours they worked. II. Discussion A. Conditional Certification The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of, and Court-authorized notice to, a FLSA collective consisting of "All 'Bussers,' 'Cashiers,' 'Cooks,' 'Dishwashers,' 'Delivery Persons,' 'Food Runners,' and/or 'Servers' who were employed by the Defendants at any time in the past six years." The Plaintiff has made the necessary showing that he is similarly situated to these employees. Having reviewed the Complaint, the record, and the Plaintiffs' Motion, Judge Schofield finds that the Plaintiffs have made a "modest factual showing" sufficient to grant conditional certification. The Plaintiff, whose responsibilities included washing dishes, delivering food orders to the Defendants' customers, cleaning the kitchen, and delivering ingredients from Patzeria F&F to Patzeria Perfect, was "paid a fixed weekly salary, regardless of the number of hours he worked per week" and "was not given meal or rest breaks." At least 15 other employees -- who worked as cooks, servers, cashiers, food runners, dishwashers, and bussers and who performed the same duties as the Plaintiff -- were subject to the same policies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made the necessary modest factual showing that all delivery workers were subject to the policies alleged. Hence, conditional certification of a collective as to Plaintiff Bocel and the Defendants' employees who worked as "Bussers," "Cashiers," "Cooks," "Dishwashers," "Delivery Persons," "Food Runners," and/or "Servers" is proper. B. Notice Period The Plaintiff requests that the Court authorizes notice for employees who worked for Defendants for six years prior to the Court's order on conditional certification because they also have asserted claims under the NYLL, which has a six-year statute of limitations. The Defendants argue that the six-year proposed notice period exceeds the statute of limitations under the FLSA. Judge Schofield holds that the Plaintiff alleges willfulness in his Complaint, and neither party disputes the three-year notice period for the FLSA claims at this stage. To the extent that the Plaintiff requests certification of a FLSA collective longer than three years, that request is denied. The Plaintiff's request for a six-year notice period is granted because the Complaint also includes NYLL claims. When a plaintiff's complaint also includes NYLL claims, courts in this District routinely deny requests to limit the Notice time period to three years, as even where claims are untimely under FLSA, they may shed light on the appropriateness of certifying a class action under the NYLL. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for six years of names and contact information is appropriate. C. Equitable Tolling The Plaintiff requests that the statute of limitations be tolled "from the date on which this motion is filed until such time that Plaintiff is able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." The case was filed in September 2021 and the Motion is being decided six weeks after being fully briefed on March 4, 2022. The Plaintiff has not shown extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify tolling. D. Form of Notice The Plaintiff submitted a proposed notice and proposed reminder with his motion, and a revised version of the notice and reminder with his reply. The Defendants object on two grounds: (1) any opt-in notice should be limited to regular U.S. mail and should not include posting at Defendant Patzeria Pizzera, which has closed, and (2) the notice should inform opt-ins that they may be required to testify. Judge Schofield opines that the content of the proposed notice and reminder filed at Dkt. Nos. 65-1 and 65-2 is appropriate. Accordingly, she authorizes, and the Defendants are ordered to permit, the Plaintiff to post the Notice and Opt-In Form in a common, non-public employee space of Defendant Patzeria F&F where they will be easily visible to employees, possibly including former employees of Defendant Patzeria Pizzera. The Plaintiff also is permitted to disseminate the Notice and Reminder by email, text message, and social media messaging. E. Expedited Disclosure The request for expedited disclosure is granted in part. Judge Schofield directed the Defendants to produce a list in electronic format to the Plaintiff's counsel for all individuals who worked for Defendants in the role of "Busser," "Cashier," "Cook," "Dishwasher," "Delivery Person," "Food Runner," and/or "Server" during the past six years, their names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, titles, compensation rates, and hours worked per week by May 17, 2022. The Defendants are not required to produce social media handles. The Plaintiff will publish the notice by no later than May 24, 2022. Individuals will have 60 days to join the collective, or until July 25, 2022. By Aug. 8, 2022, the parties will file a proposed case management plan setting the close of discovery for the parties and setting the close of discovery for individuals who opt into the collective. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, conditional certification of the collective is granted, the Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling is denied, and the proposed form and manner of notice are approved. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 56. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/46v6w5em from Leagle.com. PERFECT BAR: Consumer Food Products Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MEHVA ROFFMAN and LISA CHONG, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. PERFECT BAR, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02479-LB (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2022) is a class action against Perfect Bar to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its consumer food products. Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers seek foods high in protein. To capitalize on this trend, Defendant prominently labels its consumer food products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as "15G PROTEIN" on the front of the Perfect Bar in Dark Chocolate Chip Peanut Butter flavor and "7G PROTEIN" on the front of the Perfect Peanut Butter Cups Dark Chocolate flavor. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will actually provide the amount of protein per serving claimed on the front of the product package in a form that can be used by the body as protein. Protein claims on the front of all of Defendant's products -- such as "15G PROTEIN" -- are misleading because they are stated in the form of a quantitative amount appearing alone, without any information about protein quality. FDA regulations prohibit a manufacturer from stating "the amount or percentage of a nutrient" on the front label if it is "false or misleading in any respect," the lawsuit says The Defendant's alleged unlawful and misleading protein claims caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class to pay a price premium for the products. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells a variety of protein products in the United States under the brand name "Perfect Bar." These products, including protein bars and peanut butter cups, have packaging that predominately, uniformly, and consistently states on the principal display panel of the product labels that they contain and provide a certain amount of protein per serving.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 PHILLIPS 66: Scheduling Order Entered in Dinsmore Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN B. DINSMORE, et al., v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00073-GKF-CDL (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motions for leave to amend or add May 24, 2022 additional parties: -- Documents previously produced by Dec. 19, 2022 parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: -- Class Certification Motion filed Jan. 23, 2023 with all supporting evidence including expert disclosures: -- Class Certification Response filed March 23, 2023 with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: -- Class Certification Reply filed April 24, 2023 with any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: -- Class Certification Discovery April 24, 2023 Cutoff: The Phillips 66 Company is an American multinational energy company headquartered in Westchase, Houston, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K51BPf at no extra charge.[CC] PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Panaligan Suit Over False Reference Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA PANALIGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIER 1 IMPORTS (U.S.), INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02544-GW-AS (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) seeks monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its own deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its e-commerce website, pier1.com, where it sells home furnishings, decor, and other related items, in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more products through pier1.com that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false reference price. She 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. She also seeks to enjoin Defendant from using false and misleading misrepresentations regarding former price comparisons in its labeling, marketing, and advertising permanently. Furthermore, 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 Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of its sales offered at an alleged false discount. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. operates as a retail store. The Company offers fragrant candles, furniture, lanterns, rugs and curtains, mirrors, wall decor, dinnerware, lighting, bedroom furniture, textiles, drinkware, wall frames, and handmade gifts. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 PIERCE COUNTY, WA: August 19 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE LEE LEMMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a Washington municipality, Case No. 3:21-cv-05390-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Parties agree and stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be extended to August 19, 2022. On October 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order setting April 15, 2022, as Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification. Although the parties have been actively engaged in discovery, the parties agree that additional time is needed to complete discovery, depositions, and investigations on issues relevant to class certification before they can brief class certification. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rLpViH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Eric R. Nusser, Esq. Sarah E. Smith, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103‐8869 Telephone: (206) 816‐6603 Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com eric@terrellmarshall.com ssmith@terrellmarshall.com - and - Breanne Schuster, Esq. Julia Mizutani, Esq. E-mail: bschuster@aclu‐wa.org jmizutani@aclu‐wa.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111‐2728 Telephone: (206) 624‐2184 Facsimile: (206) 624‐2190 The Defendant is represented by: Fred B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Email: fredburnside@dwt.com 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 757‐8016 Facsimile: (206) 757‐7016 - and - Breanne Schuster, Esq. Julia Mizutani, Esq. E-mail: bschuster@aclu‐wa.org jmizutani@aclu‐wa.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, Washington 98111‐2728 Telephone: (206) 624‐2184 Facsimile: (206) 624‐2190 - and - Daniel R. Hamilton, Esq. Joshua R. Drye, Esq. PIERCE COUNTY PROSECUTOR / CIVIL 955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 798‐7746 Facsimile: (253) 798‐6713 E-mail: dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.gov josh.drye@piercecountywa.gov PREHIRED LLC: Reid Sues Over Illegal Income Share Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------- ELAINA REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREHIRED, LLC, MERATAS, INC, and JOSHUA JORDAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00072-TOR (E.D. Wash., April 15, 2022) arises from the Defendants' fraudulent scheme by which it provided prospective students, including Plaintiff, with misleading and deceptive testimonials, endorsements and other information about Prehired's training program through an illegal income share agreement (ISA) in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Prehired, Meratas, and Jordan violated the law by designing and implementing ISAs and then inducing students like Ms. Reid to enter into ISAs to fund the Prehired training program without ensuring that the students had exhausted all federal aid options and had been denied noninstitutional private commercial loan products. Because Prehired, Jordan, and Meratas's alleged conduct violates Washington law, Ms. Reid seeks to void her contract and the contracts of other Washington residents who financed their Prehired training through an illegal ISA. Ms. Reid also seeks reimbursement for the amounts she and others have paid to Prehired and Meratas under the ISAs as well as treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs as available under Washington law. Ms. Reid was close to receiving her associates degree at a local community college and thinking about applying to a program to become a surgery technician when she learned about Prehired LLC. Prehired's online program was supposed to give her the training she needed to make money as a software sales representative, says the suit. Prehired is a "private vocational school" under Wash. Rev. Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816‐6603 Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450 E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419‐1008 Facsimile: (312) 419‐1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Asencio Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicole Asencio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-11212 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 21, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02017-MHW-CMV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aobergfell@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Sarah Ullman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5662 Email: eullman@cov.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernsee Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Norma Bernsee, Abby Nelson, Shirley Thiele, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-06725 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 21, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02015-MHW-CMV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (847) 208-4585 Email: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Ann Kenedy John William Klinker, Esq. LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 443-0377 Email: jkenedy@lockelord.com jklinker@robbins-schwartz.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Delcid Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Otto Delcid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-09454 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01999-MHW-CMV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: mroberts@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Sarah Ullman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5662 Email: eullman@cov.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dethrow Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Dethrow, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-01723 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01997-MHW-CMV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., Ste. 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: pgeske@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin D. Kelly, Esq. 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 443-0217 Fax: (312) 896-6507 Email: kkelly@lockelord.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00080 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01994-MHW-CMV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Insurance Contract. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Poulin, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com paul@j-dlaw.com roy@akimlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Foster, Jr., Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1330 Lady Street PO Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211-1070 PROGRESS GLASS: Alvarenga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Glass Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ricardo Antonio Alvarenga, individually and on, behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progess Glass Co., Inc., Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599072 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Progress Glass Co., Inc. -- http://www.progressglass.com/-- is a Northern California Glazing Contractor serving the Greater San Francisco Bay Area for over 60 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com PROGRESSIVE CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pryce Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Progressive Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit captioned as CECELIA PRYCE suing individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION; PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01467-RJD-RER, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class action defined as: "All 'Eligible Injured Persons' as that term is defined by 11 NYCRR sections 65-1.1-65-1.3 covered under a policy of insurance issued by PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE, PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE DIRECT COMPANY and subject to the provisions of Insurance Law section 5102, who had actual monthly wages in excess of two thousand dollars per month, who have submitted First Party Benefit claims to, and received payment from, one or more of these defendants for First Party Benefits that included claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at least one month of First Party wage benefits, the defendants claim coverage had fully exhausted on or after March 13, 2013;" Excluded from the Class are the defendant companies; any entity that has a controlling interest in one or more of the defendant companies; current or former directors, officers and counsel of the defendant companies; and any class member who has already received full compensation of his or her lost wages under the applicable insurance policy; 2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative, and the undersigned as class counsel. 3. directing the parties to submit to the Court proposed forms and schedules for providing notice to the class. 4. establishing a schedule for notice, fact discovery, future motions practice, and trial. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages resulting from Defendants' improper calculation of Basic Economic Loss and First Party Benefits as each relates to wage benefits under Insurance Law Section 5102 of New York's Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act. Throughout the class period, says the complaint, defendants have improperly reduced the Insurance Law Section 5102(a)(2) Basic Economic Loss coverage limits for wages by more than the "two thousand dollars per month" cap set forth in Section 5102(a)(2) for "covered persons," including PRYCE, who earn actual wages in excess of "two thousand dollars per month." As a result of the Defendants' alleged actions, the Plaintiff and all other "covered persons" earning actual wages in excess of two thousand dollars per month, have been denied First Party Benefits because of the premature exhaustion of Basic Economic Loss resulting in injuries from the improper application of Insurance Law to policyholders, their assignees, and all other "covered persons" entitled to receive First Party Benefits, the complaint asserts. On March 31, 2022, Judge Raymond J. Dearie entered an Order adopting a Report and Recommendations dated February 17, 2022, wherein Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was granted as modified; and Defendants Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive Corporation were dismissed from the case. The Defendants are now seeking a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Pryce v. Progressive Corporation, Case No. 22-813, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 14, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Progressive Corporation, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Progressive Direct Insurance Company, are represented by: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5000 E-mail: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com Plaintiff-Respondent Cecelia Pryce, suing individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, is represented by: John K. Weston, Esq. SACKS & WESTON 114 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 925-8200 E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Williams Files Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Direct Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jasmyn Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00510-UNA (D. Del., April 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is an American insurance company, the third largest insurance carrier and the No. 1 commercial auto insurer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Felice, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Red Clay Center at Little Falls 2961 Centerville Road Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: (302) 504-6333 Fax: (302) 504-6334 Email: dfelice@baileyglasser.com RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERI LEA EVENSON-CHILDS, DANIEL O'TOOLE, RICHARD CHURCHILL, and KEITH LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAVALLI COUNTY; STEPHEN HOLTON, in his official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY SHERIFF; JENNIFER RAY, in her official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; JIM BAILEY, in his official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; HOWARD RECHT, in his official capacity as DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT; and JENNIFER LINT, in her official capacity as DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Case No. 9:21-cv-00089-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying classes and subclasses: -- Main Damages Class "All persons (within the statute of limitations) who are or have been: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on the Jail Diversion Program, and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted for the crime for which the Jail Diversion Program was ordered." -- Indigent Damages Subclass "All indigent persons (within the statute of limitations) who are or have been: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on the Jail Diversion Program, and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted for the crime for which the Jail Diversion Program was ordered;" -- Main Injunctive (and Declaratory) Class "All persons who are or will be: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on the Jail Diversion Program, and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted for the crime for which the Jail Diversion Program was ordered;" and -- Indigent Injunctive (and Declaratory) Subclass "All indigent persons who are or will be: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on the Jail Diversion Program, and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted for the crime for which the Jail Diversion Program was ordered." Ravalli County is a county in the southwestern part of the U.S. state of Montana. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFMw5A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. Natasha Baker, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org nbaker@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Constance Van Kley, Esq. Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Esq. UPPER SEVEN LAW P.O. Box 31 Helena, MT 59624 Telephone: (406) 306-0330 E-mail: constance@uppersevenlaw.com rylee@uppersevenlaw.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Ferris Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Ferris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P. and LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10536-PBS (D. Mass., April 11, 2022), is brought for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of New Jersey consumers arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices. On November 1, 2021 and November 2, 2021 Resurgent, on behalf of LVNV, sent the Plaintiff letters regarding the alleged debt owed. The first letter states, "we have received a recent inquiry regarding the account and have enclosed the account summary which provides verification of the debt." The second letter states that the defendants have initiated a review of the inquiry we recently received and references another collection agency Ratchford Law Group. The second letter further states, "Unless you notify us within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it, we will assume this debt is valid." The second letter concludes, "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector." The letters from Defendants are confusing and deceptive. The first letter states that her validation rights have concluded. The second letter leads Plaintiff to believe that her account is again under review and that she does not need to dispute the debt, but the thirty-day dispute notice suggests the opposite by stating that she has thirty days to dispute the debt. In addition, if Defendants already validated the debt, it was confusing or deceptive for Defendants to state "Unless you notify us within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it, we will assume this debt is valid". This language confused Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not want the debt to be assumed valid and, according to the language in the letter, was required to dispute the debt again. It appears to Plaintiff that additional steps are necessary to dispute the debt. The statements in the letters are therefore deceptive and confusing as to Plaintiff's rights and what additional actions Plaintiff must take, if any, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk. The Defendant Resurgent is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Bernstein, Esq. SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 103 Eisenhower Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (203) 246-2887 Email: scott@skolnicklegalgroup.com RHM RESTAURANT: Faces Machecha Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA MACHECHA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHM RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Rolfs and ROBERT H. MAISANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03253 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the minimum wage, failing to pay overtime premium pay, failing to pay spread-of-hours pay, failing to provide wage notice, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from October 29, 2019 to January 13, 2020 and from November 3, 2021 to December 29, 2021. RHM Restaurant Corp., doing business as Rolfs, is an operator of a German restaurant located at 281 Third Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Pletsch Balks at Unpaid OT Under FLSA, IMWA ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHERIE PLETSCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS INC. and ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, d/b/a MARIANO'S, Case No. 1:22-cv-02084 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and the current and former Deli Managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles employed by the Defendants in the United States and other current and former Hot Foods Managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles employed by Defendants in the United States, worked more than 40 hours in any given workweek, from three years before the date this Complaint was filed until entry of judgment in this matter. The Plaintiff was employed by and was permitted to work for Defendants as a Deli Manager from 2016 through June 2019 and as a Hot Foods Manager from June 2019 through July 2019 at multiple Mariano's locations. According to its website, Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. is a "leading grocer in the Midwest" and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the publicly-traded Kroger Co., located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. operates over 150 retail grocery stores, including over 40 Mariano's locations throughout the Chicagoland area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Telephone: (404) 924-4151 Facsimile: (404) 796-7338 E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Mohadeb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman, LLC. The case is styled as Sara Mohadeb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02243 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rubin & Rothman, LLC -- https://www.rubinrothman.com/ -- is a New York and New Jersey creditor's rights law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (540) 907-8248 Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com SAFELITE GROUP: Bid to Remand Alvarez Suit to State Court Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDMOND ALVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07874-ODW (ASx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court. I. Background Plaintiffs Edmond Alvarez and Thomas Newell initiated the putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against their former employer, Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., and Safelite Glass Corporation (together, "Safelite"). The Plaintiffs seek to represent "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for" Safelite in California any time after June 25, 2017, through a final judgment in the action." The Plaintiffs assert ten causes of action, for failure to: (1) pay overtime wages; (2) provide meal period premiums; (3) provide rest period premiums; (4) pay minimum wages; (5) timely pay wages upon separation of employment; (6) timely pay wages during employment; (7) provide accurate wage statements; (8) keep requisite payroll records; (9) reimburse business expenses; and (10) maintain fair business practices. Safelite removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiffs now move to remand. II. Discussion The Plaintiffs argue that Safelite fails to satisfy CAFA's numerosity and amount-in-controversy requirements because Safelite relies on unreasonable assumptions and fails to submit sufficient summary judgment type evidence. A. Number of Class Members In its Notice of Removal, Safelite asserted that the Proposed Class as the Plaintiffs define it contains "approximately 1,765" members, which is well over the 100-member numerosity requirement. Safelite's Senior Payroll Manager, Troy Hannum, submitted declaration testimony that he calculated this figure based on his review of Safelite's employment, payroll, and compensation records, from the beginning of the Class Period until shortly before removal. In response to the Plaintiffs' Motion, Safelite retained econometrics expert Brendan Burke to review Safelite's business records and calculate the number of class members and amount-in-controversy. Burke determined "the data contained weekly pay data for 1,686 non-exempt California employees." The Plaintiffs challenge Burke's methodology as "imperfect," but any inaccuracy in Burke's methodology would be in the Plaintiffs' favor, as Burke erred on the side of excluding non-exempt employees, rather than including exempt employees. Thus, Judge Wright finds that any error would only reduce the total number of class members. Regardless, with a total of 1,686 putative class members, Safelite would have had to misclassify 1,587 employees for the CAFA numerosity requirement to go unsatisfied. He therefore finds that Safelite has sufficiently established the Proposed Class has at least 100 members. B. Reasonable Assumptions The Plaintiffs also argue that Safelite's amount-in-controversy calculations are based on speculative and unreasonable assumptions. Judge Wright agrees with the many courts that have found violation rates ranging from 25% to 60% reasonable when a plaintiff alleges a "pattern and practice" of violations, as the Plaintiffs have in the action. Safelite was entitled to rely on the Plaintiffs' allegations to form reasonable assumptions and calculate the amount-in-controversy. Further, applying the most conservative violation rate of 25% to only Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement for CAFA, so the Court need not determine whether higher violation rates are reasonable. C. Preponderance of the Evidence Finally, the Plaintiffs contend Safelite failed to support its removal with adequate evidence. They argue Safelite failed to provide sufficient competent evidence to support its amount-in-controversy allegations. However, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the factual truth of Safelite's jurisdictional allegations, nor do they submit any evidence challenging jurisdiction. Thus, they assert only a facial challenge to Safelite's removal. Accordingly, Safelite must establish the amount-in-controversy by a preponderance of the evidence and may do so with a declaration or affidavit. In response to the Plaintiffs' Motion, Safelite submits Burke's declaration in which he explains what business records he analyzed and how he determined that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million. From his calculations, Burke determined that the potential damages for meal break violations totaled $3,047,261, and the potential damages for rest break violations totaled $3,212,878. Therefore, the conservatively estimated potential damages for these two claims alone amount to $6,260,139, and thus satisfy the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement. Accordingly, Judge Wright need not consider the remaining claims. As the Plaintiffs have only facially challenged Safelite's asserted amount-in-controversy and submit no evidence to contest Safelite's alleged facts, Burke's declaration testimony and Safelite's other supporting declarations are sufficient to establish the amount-in-controversy is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, Judge Wright finds Safelite has met its burden for purposes of removal under CAFA. III. Conclusion For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bde6ae7s from Leagle.com. SAFEPOINT INSURANCE: Rosales Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FSLA, FMWA ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA ROSALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY and 88RR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00934-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. 88RR owns and operates a temporary placement company which places insurance adjusters with insurance agencies. Safepoint is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, PA Wells Fargo Building 631 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (844) 722-7567 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Hoffower Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Identity ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATE HOFFOWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAMLESS CONTACTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02079 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Illinois' Right of Publicity Act and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant used the identities of the Plaintiff and Class members, including their names, contact information, job titles, places of work, cities of residence, and other personal information, to promote its subscription products. Seamless advertises subscriptions by publicly displaying profiles of the Plaintiff and Class Members without obtaining prior written consent. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury through the unlawful taking of their valuable intellectual property. SEAMLESS CONTACTS INC. is an owner and operator of the website www.seamless.ai, with its headquarters in Worthington, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com brittanyr@turkestrauss.com - and – Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com - and – 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 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com SHIRLEY HILL: Settlement in McCann Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MCCANN v. SHIRLEY S. HILL, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-06435-NLH-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement as follows: 1. Counts I-V are hereby certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of the following Class: "All participants in the InterArch, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan at any time between March 6, 2018 to the present (except those who terminated without vesting) and the beneficiaries of any such participants;" Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants, (2) any fiduciaries of the Plan, who are alleged to have engaged in prohibited transactions or breaches of fiduciary duties, or who had decision-making or administrative authority relating to the administration, investment allocation, modification, funding, or interpretation of the Plan, (3) any beneficiaries of the foregoing as well as any members of their immediate families and (4) any of their successors, executors, or assigns. 2. The Court finds that Counts I-V satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) as follows: a. The Class consists of at least 26-51 individual Plan Participants and their beneficiaries. Weighing judicial economy, the claimants' ability and motivation to litigate as joined plaintiffs, the financial resources of class members, and the fact that the claims are for injunctive relief, joinder of all Class members would be impracticable. b. Each claim raises common questions of law and fact. The issues of liability on each count are common to all members of the Class and are capable of common answers as those issues primarily focus on defendants’ acts (or failure to act). The common issues include whether the fiduciary defendants breached various fiduciary duties to the Plan, whether Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions, whether the Plan suffered losses as a result of the fiduciary breaches and other violations, and what is the appropriate relief for Defendants’ violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37DSEis at no extra charge.[CC] SKYLINE CAPITAL: Stahl Sues Over "Bait and Switch" Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ KRAIG STAHL and GREGORY LOY, on behalf of themselves and all of those similarly situated, K.D. STAHL CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs v. SKYLINE CAPITAL BUILDERS LLC; SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00528-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) arises from the Defendants' fraudulent "bait and switch" business tactics and practices, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, the Cartwright Act, the Sherman Act, and California's Labor Code. According to the complaint, throughout early 2020 until November 2020, Skyline, which touts itself as an investor in commercial real estate and construction services firms, searched for a foothold in the local San Diego construction market. To gain such access to the lucrative San Diego construction market, Skyline fraudulently induced both Plaintiffs to accept employment at Skyline and to share their entity K.D. Stahl's confidential business information, including contacts, business opportunities, as well as assets including but not limited to employees. Reasonably relying on Skyline's multiple misrepresentations, Stahl and Loy accepted employment with Skyline. As Skyline had required, they also turned over their personal and their entity K.D. Stahl's valuable business assets, including but not limited to, customer information or accounts, employees, and other competitively sensitive information. And as Skyline had required, Stahl and Loy also signed employment agreements with facially unlawful restrictive covenants. After Skyline had obtained Plaintiff's valuable assets, Skyline abruptly terminated their employment without as much as notice or an opportunity to address any alleged issues that Skyline claims were the reason for their termination, leaving them empty-handed and unable to solicit their own employees back, asserts the complaint. At its core, this alleged dispute involves an oppressive scheme which . . . was masterminded by Skyline, Plaintiffs' former employer, in which Skyline sought to harm Plaintiffs and other competitors in the construction industry, adds the complaint. Skyline hires construction industry professionals throughout the United States, and markets and sells products and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Nicholas Kawuka, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 1117 S. California Ave., Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 645-9000 Facsimile: (619) 235-0398 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@procopio.com nicholas.kawuka@procopio.com SODEXO INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHARNEE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SODEXO, INC.; SODEXO MANAGEMENT, INC.; and SODEXO OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00984-PX (D. Md., April 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Sodexo to the Plaintiff and Sodexo's other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Sodexo's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack, in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act. Like many other companies across the United States, Sodexo's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Sodexo's organization. As a result, Sodexo'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, the suit says. Sharnee Smith is one such worker for Sodexo. Sodexo 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, Sodexo used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, added the suit. Sodexo pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Sodexo 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. Sodexo is a French food services and facilities management company headquartered in the Paris suburb of Issy-les-Moulineaux.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4761 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: GTriantis@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law STONEGATE SENIOR: Fails to Pay OT After Kronos Hack, Sanchez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STONEGATE SENIOR LIVING, LLC and STONEGATE SENIOR CARE MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00864-E (N.D. Tex., April 17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Stonegate to Plaintiff and other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the "Kronos hack" but Stonegate's decision to make its own non-exempt employees bear the economic burden for the hack. According to the complaint, Stonegate's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many other companies across the United States. As a result, Stonegate's workers who were not exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor 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 hack, says the suit. Ms. Sanchez has worked for Stonegate since January 2019. Stonegate operates a network of nursing and rehabilitation centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8581 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5352 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com STRIDE INC: Ahmed Suit vs Corporate Officer Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Stride, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that derivative lawsuit captioned "Wajid Ahmed v. Aida M. Alvarez, et al," Case No. 1:21-cv-00618, (April 30, 2021, D. Del.) is currently stayed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Aida M. Alvarez is on the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiffs in the Shemen case filed a complaint against the company, one of its current officers, and one of its former officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. By stipulation of the parties on May 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the Shemen Case under the caption "In re Stride Inc. Derivative Litigation," Case No. 20-01731 and designated as operative the complaint filed in the Ahmed Case. The operative complaint purports to assert claims on the company's behalf against certain of its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. The consolidated derivative action is stayed pending resolution of another consolidated securities class action appeal. Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. In December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to Stride, Inc. STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Stride, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it faced putative securities class action lawsuits captioned "Yun Chau Lee v. K12 Inc., et al," Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 (November 19, 2021, E.D. Va.) which was consolidated into a case captioned "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:20-cv-01419, February 17, 2021. The suit has been dismissed. Said case was filed against the company, one of its current officers, and one of its former officers purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 5, 2021, alleging violations by the company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted, without prejudice, on September 16, 2021. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, but appealed the District Court's dismissal decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021. Briefing in that appeal concluded March 10, 2022, and a decision from the Court of Appeals remains outstanding. Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. In December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to Stride, Inc. STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Stride, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the case captioned "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 was dismissed. Said case was filed against the company, one of its current officers, and one of its former officers purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 5, 2021, alleging violations by the company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted, without prejudice, on September 16, 2021. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, but appealed the District Court's dismissal decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021. Briefing in that appeal concluded March 10, 2022, and a decision from the Court of Appeals remains outstanding. Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. In December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to Stride, Inc. STRIDE INC: Shemen Suit vs Corporate Officer Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Stride, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the derivative lawsuit captioned "Larry Shemen, et al v. Aida M. Alvarez, et al," Case No. 1:20-cv-01731, (December 21, 2020, D. Del.) is currently stayed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Aida M. Alvarez is on the company's Board of Directors The plaintiffs in the Shemen case filed a complaint against the company, one of its current officers, and one of its former officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. By stipulation of the parties on May 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the Shemen Case under the caption "In re Stride Inc. Derivative Litigation," Case No. 20-01731 and designated as operative the complaint filed in the Ahmed Case. The operative complaint purports to assert claims on the company's behalf against certain of its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. The consolidated derivative action is stayed pending resolution of another consolidated securities class action appeal. Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. In December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to Stride, Inc. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Union Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Synchrony Financial disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that on February 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case captioned "Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al.," its claims and all of the claims under the Exchange Act with the exception of a claim relating to a single statement on January 19, 2018, regarding whether Synchrony was receiving pushback on credit from its retail partners. On November 2, 2018, said action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the company and two of its officers. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning the company's underwriting practices and private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with statements in the offering materials for the company's December 1, 2017 note offering. The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired company bonds in or traceable to the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional Company officers, the company's board of directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering. The amended complaint was captioned "Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al." On March 26, 2020, the District Court re-captioned the case "In re Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation" and on March 31, 2020, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Act claims and all of the claims under the Exchange Act with the exception of a claim relating to a single statement on January 19, 2018 regarding whether Synchrony was receiving pushback on credit from its retail partners. Synchrony Financial is into financial services and is based in Stamford CT. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Former Officer Faces Aldridge Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that its former Executive Chair of the Board of Directors, Margaret Keane, is facing a purported shareholder derivative action captioned "Aldridge v. Keane, et al." filed in March 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and that the defendants made materially misleading statements and/or omitted material information in violation of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks a declaration that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the company, unspecified monetary damages with interest, restitution, a direction that the defendants take all necessary actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys' and experts' fees. In March 26, 2020, the District Court re-captioned/consolidated the case as "In re Synchrony Financial Derivative Litigation." Synchrony Financial is into finance services and is based in Stamford CT. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Former Officer Faces Gilbert Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2022, that its former Executive Chair of the Board of Directors, Margaret Keane, is facing a purported shareholder derivative action captioned "Gilbert v. Keane, et al.," filed in January 28, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and that the defendants made materially misleading statements and/or omitted material information in violation of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks a declaration that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the company, unspecified monetary damages with interest, restitution, a direction that the defendants take all necessary actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys' and experts' fees. In March 26, 2020, the District Court re-captioned/consolidated the case as "In re Synchrony Financial Derivative Litigation." Synchrony Financial is into finance services and is based in Stamford CT. TEP ROCKY: Jolley Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Owners ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLLEY POTTER RANCHES ENERGY CO., LLC, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00495-DDD-GPG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff Class defined as follows: "The class of all royalty owners under oil and gas leases (and their successors and assigns) who received royalty payments for one or more production months during the period August, 2011 to December, 2020 from non-federal oil and gas leases in Garfield County, Colorado, which, as of December 31, 2020, were owned in whole or part by TEP Rocky Mountain LLC, and whose production was gathered on the Grand Valley Gathering System; excluding from such class (1) NYSE or NASDAQ listed entities (together with their subsidiaries and affiliates) engaged in oil and gas exploration and production, and (2) any person or entity to the extent that their interest is derived from the following leases: (A) that certain Oil and Gas Lease, dated July 20, 2005 with Mary Anne Bosely, et al, as lessors, whose memorandum is recorded at Reception No. 680846 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado; and (B) that certain Oil and Gas Lease, May 9, 2006, with Jonathon H. Wellendorf et ux, as lessors, whose memorandum is recorded at Reception No. 697889 in such records." Jolley owns royalty interests in five TEP oil and gas leases that are the subject of this action. As required by C.R.S. section 34-60-118.5(2)(a), TEP accounts to Jolley and other members of the Putative Plaintiff Class for gas produced and marketed from their leaseholds on a monthly basis, as set forth on the checks it sends to them. TEP makes monthly royalty payments to Jolley and to other members of the Putative Plaintiff Class. From August 2011 to December 2020, TEP produced, gathered, and sold the production from natural gas wells (the Class Wells) located on the leaseholds (the Class Leases) connected to the Grand Valley Gathering System (GVGS). TEP Rocky is a private exploration and production company that operates the piceance basin assets acquired by Terra Energy Partners. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LeoQHY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan A. Keever, Esq. 744 Horizon Court, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Telephone: (970) 241-5500 E-mail: keever@dwmk.com - and - G.R. Miller, Esq. G.R. MILLER, P.C. 1040 Main Avenue Durango, CO 81302 Telephone: (970) 247-1113 - and - David G. Seely, Esq. FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, L.L.C. 301 N. Main, Suite 1900 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 267-7361 E-mail: dseely@fleeson.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq. John F. Shepherd, Esq. HOLLAND & HART, LLP 555 17th Street, Ste. 3200 P.O. Box 8749 Denver, CO 80201-8749 E-mail: cachrisman@hollandhart.com jshepherd@hollandhart.com TESLA INC: Talley Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Service Assistants --------------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRICE TALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV13332 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a service assistant from October 2018 until May 2021. Tesla, Inc., doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc., an electric vehicle manufacturer based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com TEXAS: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of J.A. v. TEA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, J.A. B/N/F ALREDO ALVAREZ and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-921-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that: a. the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Add Parties, filed Sept. 22, 2021, be denied; b. the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Sept. 28, 2021, be denied; and c. Defendant Texas Education Agency ("TEA")'s Second Amended Motion To Dismiss, filed Oct. 19, 2021, be granted. I. Background The Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") to ensure that all children with disabilities have access to public education, including special education and related services. The IDEA requires school districts in states receiving designated federal funds to implement policies and procedures to assure that each disabled student residing in the state between the ages of 3 and 21 receives a "free appropriate public education," or "FAPE." Because the State of Texas receives federal education funding, "all school districts within its borders must comply with the IDEA." Relevant in the case, under the IDEA, parents have authority to enforce their child's rights under the statute, but that authority transfers to the child when he or she turns 18 years old, "except for a child with a disability who has been determined to be incompetent under State law." A parent does not have the capacity to file suit on behalf of a child who has turned 18 unless the parent obtains a state court order appointing the parent as the child's guardian. J.A. is a student in the Corpus Christi Independent School District ("CCISD") who has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, learning disabilities, fetal alcohol syndrome, and significant cognitive impairments. J.A.'s impairments made him eligible to receive special education services under the IDEA. J.A.'s IEP permitted his father, Alfredo Alvarez, to make decisions on J.A.'s behalf and participate in his regularly scheduled Admission, Review & Dismissal ("ARD") Committee Meetings, even after J.A. turned 18 years old. On May 14, 2019, when J.A. was 18 years old, Alvarez filed a request for a due process hearing with the TEA, arguing that CCISD failed to provide J.A. with a FAPE. Alvarez also asked to be appointed as J.A.'s next friend under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 44. CCISD filed a motion to dismiss the due process proceeding, arguing that Alvarez did not have the legal authority or standing to prosecute the action because J.A. had turned 18 and only J.A. had the authority to bring such an action. The TEA Special Education Hearing Officer ("SEHO") agreed with CCISD and dismissed the proceeding for lack of standing. The SEHO also denied Alvarez's request to be appointed as J.A.'s next friend. Alvarez did not file an administrative appeal and argues that such an appeal would have been futile because the SEHO "does not have the jurisdiction to address a class action and provide the relief requested." Mr. Alvarez, on behalf of J.A. and a proposed unnamed class of similarly situated individuals (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), sued the TEA on Sept. 19, 2019. Alvarez alleges that the TEA failed to provide the Plaintiffs a FAPE and excluded them from participation in its services because of their disabilities, in violation of the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs allege that J.A. and members of the proposed class "who have turned 18 years old and do not have the mental capacity to make their own decisions or provide informed consent or complete a viable power of attorney" are being denied the benefits, services, and programs provided by the TEA under the IDEA. "That is because the TEA has never implemented or developed a rule, a practice, process, policy or directive whereby such a cognitively impaired young adult could have someone represent them to assure they continue to receive FAPE and the ability to implement and enforce the procedural safeguards, even after their 18th birthday." The Plaintiffs further allege that "the only legal relationship the TEA recognizes for such persons is where a legal guardian has been appointed by a court," which "is time consuming, costly and beyond the financial reach of many, many families here in Texas." They further allege that the failure to adopt the Special Rule "conflicts with the State's duty to insure that students receive a Free Appropriate Public Education." The Plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive relief, including a request to order the TEA to "immediately permit a parent, who has been representing their child in all educational matters before they reached the age of majority, to continue doing so after they have reached the age of majority, absent a guardianship proceeding that states otherwise." They also seek nominal damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On Dec. 18, 2019, the TEA moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On June 21, 2020, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the District Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983 but denies the Motion as to all other claims. The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on Sept. 3, 2020. On Oct. 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). On Dec. 9, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued a Report and Recommendation that the District Court denies the Motion to Certify, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof to show that class certification was proper under Rule 23. The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on Jan. 9, 2021. On March 12, 2021, a bill was filed in the Texas Senate to enact the IDEA's Special Rule provision. According to the Plaintiffs, if the Texas Legislature had passed Senate Bill 2105, it would have "cured the problems the Plaintiffs noted in their Original Complaint and reiterated repeatedly." The District Court abated the case while the Legislature considered the bill, which died in committee. The Plaintiffs now seek to add more two plaintiffs and move for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The TEA opposes the motions and has filed a Second Amended Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs oppose the motion to dismiss. II. Discussion A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Parties The Plaintiffs seek to add H.L. and the Coalition of Texans With Disabilities as plaintiffs in the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The TEA argues that the Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because they have failed to meet the two-prong test for joinder of parties under Rule 20 and are not proper parties to this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs did not file a reply brief and thus did not respond to these arguments. H.L. is a 19-year-old resident of Cameron County, Texas who is eligible to receive special education services under the IDEA until he turns 21. The Plaintiffs allege that H.L. needs "a person to handle him in his day-to-day legal concerns, needs a person to represent him at his annual ARD Committee Meetings and needs a person to handle a complaint process for him if FAPE is not provided." H.L.'s due process hearing was dismissed on Jan. 20, 2021. Judge Hightower would exercise discretion to deny joinder because H.L.'s potential claims under the IDEA are time-barred. Under the IDEA's implementing regulations, "the party bringing the action will have 90 days from the date of the decision of the hearing officer or, if applicable, the decision of the State review official, to file a civil action." H.L.'s due process hearing was dismissed on Jan.20, 2021, so he had until April 20, 2021 to file suit under the IDEA. Because H.L. did not do so, any potential claims under the IDEA are time-barred. Accordingly, H.L. should not be permitted to join the action as a plaintiff. The Coalition of Texans With Disabilities is a Texas-based disability advocacy organization. The Plaintiffs assert that the Coalition "protects and benefits Texans with disabilities, their families, service providers and communities," and that "the Board of Directors and staff take a special interest in Special Education Services for Children With Disabilities." Judge Hightower holds that the Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that the Coalition's claims arise out of "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" as their claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Coalition should be added as a party. For these reasons, Judge Hightower recommends that the Plaintiff's Motion to Add Parties be denied. B. TEA's Second Amended Motion to Dismiss The TEA argues that the Plaintiffs' suit should dismissed because: (1) the Court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction under the abstention doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943); (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are moot; (3) the Court cannot order the TEA to engage in rulemaking; and (4) the Legislature, not the TEA, has the ability and authority to redress the Plaintiffs' alleged harm by amending the Texas Education Code. Because the TEA's mootness argument goes to the Court's jurisdiction, Judge Hightower must address that argument first. On Feb. 7, 2020, five months after the Plaintiffs filed the action, the District Court granted Alvarez's motion to appoint him as "J.A.'s next friend for this lawsuit against Defendant Texas Education Agency." The TEA argues that the "Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims because their claims are moot -- J.A.'s father has been appointed `next friend' and, accordingly, is capable of representing and making decisions on behalf of J.A. at administrative hearings pertaining to J.A.'s education." Judge Hightower finds that the appointment of Alvarez moots the Plaintiffs' claim asking the Court to order the TEA to cease excluding J.A. "from participation in or being denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities that are provided by the TEA." But it does not moot the Plaintiffs' request to order the TEA to enact the Special Rule. Accordingly, the TEA's mootness argument lacks merit, and Judge Hightower recommends against dismissing the case as moot. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the relief they request is redressable by the TEA. Judge Hightower therefore finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the case. Although she previously determined that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the case, she holds that the parties' briefing of the instant motions and the introduction and failure of Senate Bill 2105 persuade her that the Plaintiffs' pending requests for relief are not redressable. Because the TEA has no power to redress the injuries alleged, the Plaintiffs have no case or controversy with the TEA that will permit them to maintain this action in federal court. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. III. Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Judge Hightower recommended that the District Court: (1) denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Parties; (2) denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) grants the Defendant's Second Amended Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The case will be removed from the Magistrate Court's docket and returned to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. IV. Warnings The parties may file objections to the Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in the Report within 14 days after the party is served with a copy of the Report will bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds of plain error, will bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxuk8yr from Leagle.com. TILT HOLDINGS: Settlement in in Securities Suit Gets Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- TILT Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2022, that an Ontario Court approved a settlement of a claim against it and certain of its former directors and officers filed in July 14, 2020. The plaintiff claimed and sought to claim on behalf of a proposed class, an unspecified amount of damages for alleged misrepresentations made by the company and former directors and officers about its business in its public disclosure during the proposed class period of October 12, 2018 to May 1, 2019. Prior to any hearings in the matter, the parties reached a settlement of the proposed class action. The settlement was approved by the Ontario Court, on behalf of a defined certified class of investors, by Order dated November 29, 2021. The plan for the distribution of the settlement funds is ongoing. TILT is a global provider of cannabis business solutions that include inhalation technologies, cultivation, manufacturing, processing, brand development and retail. TILT operates through two business divisions: Inhalation Technology and Cannabis. TRUIST BANK: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truist Bank. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Truist Bank, Case No. 1:22-cv-03273 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Truist Financial Corporation -- https://www.truist.com/ -- is an American bank holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal TUMI INC: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tumi, Inc. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tumi, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02403-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tumi Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.tumi.com/ -- is a manufacturer of high-end suitcases and bags for travel based in Edison, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com UNION RAILROAD: Stouffer Appeals Job Discrimination Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Scott Stouffer filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Charles Marsh, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC, TRANSTAR, LLC, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION and SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00133-RJC, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act arising from the Plaintiff's improper termination. The Defendants initiated a pretextual scheme to terminate Union Railroad employees over age 40, the Plaintiff asserts. Among other things, the Defendants' scheme included forcing many Senior Employees to sign "last chance" agreements intended for employees with substance abuse problems, then manipulating Union Railroad's demerits policy to issue a disproportionate number of demerits to Senior Employees so they could be fired for cause. Conversely, younger employees alleged to have committed the same or comparable offenses as the Plaintiff and other Senior Employees routinely received no demerits, substantially less demerits or were given an opportunity to expunge demerits from their records over time, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff and 90 similarly situated former Union Railroad employees were victims of a discriminatory pattern and practice designed to weed out Senior Employees on the basis of their age, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for nearly 12 years as a brakeman and, most recently, a conductor/remote control operator and was improperly terminated at the age of 57. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court' Order and Judgment dated March 14, 2022, and Order dated March 30, 2021, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court held that the motion is DENIED regarding the challenge to the Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1) and regarding the challenge to the sufficiency of the joint employment and collective action allegations; it is GRANTED for failure to prosecute as to Charles Marsh, and his claims were dismissed with prejudice; and it is GRANTED for failure to state a claim under the ADEA at Counts I and II pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court DISMISSED the case in its entirety with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Scott Stouffer v. Union Railroad Co, et al., Case No. 22-1680, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 14, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SCOTT STOUFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Mark A. Grace, Esq. Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. COHEN & GRACE 105 Braunlich Drive, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Telephone: (412) 847-0300 E-mail: ssugiura@edgarsnyder.com Defendants-Appellees UNION RAILROAD CO., TRANSTAR LLC, UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., and SMART TRANSPORTATION DIVISION are represented by: Courtney C. Brennan, Esq. Thomas M. Pohl, Esq. Mary-Jo Rebelo, Esq. BURNS WHITE 48 26th Street Burns White Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 995-3151 E-mail: ccbrennan@burnswhite.com tmpohl@burnswhite.com mjrebelo@burnswhite.com - and - Kevin C. Brodar, Esq. Erika A. Diehl-Gibbons, Esq. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION 24950 Country Club Boulevard, Suite 340 North Olmsted, OH 44070 Telephone: (216) 228-9400 E-mail: k_brodar@utu.org ediehl@smart-union.org - and - Michael J. Healey, Esq. HEALEY & HORNACK 247 Fort Pitt Boulevard, 4th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 391-7711 E-mail: mike@unionlawyers.net UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Bahuche Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Protection Service, LP. The case is styled as Tibari Bahuche, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Protection Service, LP, Case No. 34-2022-00318136-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Scramento Cty., April 11, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Universal Protection Service doing business as Allied Universal Security Services -- https://www.aus.com/ -- is a private security company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607-5009 Phone: (510) 709-5839 Fax: 510-891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com VALE SA: Faces Indigenous Community Suit Over Salobo Mine --------------------------------------------------------- Vale S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F 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 against Vale, Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and the Federal Indigenous Agency before a federal court in the city of Maraba seeking the suspension of the environmental permitting process of the company's Salobo mine. Said action was filed in July 2018 by associations representing the indigenous community of "Xikrin do Catete." The company has appealed to the court's decision on the inclusion of the indigenous community of "Xikrin do Bacaja" in the scope of the studies. The associations contend that FUNAI and IBAMA have failed to conduct the appropriate studies regarding the affected indigenous communities during the environmental permitting process and contends that the operations would be contaminating the water of the Itacaiunas River and consequently that the indigenous groups affected by this mine have not provided the required consent. The plaintiffs also requested a monthly payment for each association until the defendants conclude the studies. In July 2019, the court partially granted an injunction requested by the Indigenous Associations, ordering Vale and Salobo to prepare the Indigenous Component Study of the Salobo Mine project, but rejected all other requests filed by the plaintiff, including the request to shut down the project. A recent decision of the court determined the inclusion of the Indigenous community of Xikrin do Bacaja in the scope of the studies. The company has appealed and a decision is pending. Vale S.A. is a metal and mining company based on market capitalization in Brazil. VALE SA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Dam Project ------------------------------------------------ Vale S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that the company is defending itself in a putative class action brought before a Federal Court in New York and filed by holders of securities (American Depositary Receipts or ADR) issued by Vale. The lead plaintiff alleges that Vale made false and misleading statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the risks of the operations of Dam I in the Corrego de Feijao mine and the adequacy of the related programs and procedures. Following the decision of the court, in May 2020, that denied the motion to dismiss presented by the company, the discovery phase has started and is expected to be concluded in 2022. Vale S.A. is a metal and mining company based on market capitalization in Brazil. VALE SA: Shareholder Action in New York Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Vale S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that a collective action in the New York Federal Court against Samarco, Vale, BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton PLC and BHP Brasil Ltda. based on the U.S. Federal Securities laws, filed in March 2017 by the holders of securities issued by Samarco Mineracao S.A. was dismissed in June 2021. Vale S.A. is a metal and mining company based on market capitalization in Brazil. VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Verus International, 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 in November 9, 2021 it has settled a class action lawsuit against the company filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in April 23, 2021 that alleged various violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Verus is an international supplier of consumer food products. VOLTA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in CA Court --------------------------------------------- Volta 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 15, 2022, that in March 30, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against the company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations and prospects. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased Volta securities between August 2, 2021 and March 28, 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Volta Inc. is a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiaries, Volta Charging Industries, LLC, Volta Charging, LLC, Volta Charging Services, LLC, Volta Canada Inc., Volta Charging Germany GmbH, Volta France SARL, Volta Rakko B.V., Rakko Holding B.V., and Volta Media, LLC (inactive). Its mission is to create an electric vehicle charging network that capitalizes on and catalyzes the shift from gas cars to electric cars. WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Suitable Seating, Nava-Morales Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAYRA NAVA-MORALES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13376 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to provide suitable seating for employees who work in the pharmacy departments of Walgreen's stores in California in violation of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff has worked as a pharmacy technician in the pharmacy departments of Walgreen's stores in California since August 2020. Walgreen Co. is an operator of a pharmacy store chain in the U.S., headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq. Dennis F. Moss, Esq. Ari E. Moss, Esq. Jorge A. Flores, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (818) 963-5954 E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com dennis@mossbollinger.com ari@mossbollinger.com anthony@mossbollinger.com WALMART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CARLOS, as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00294-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: A. Certifying the Follow Class: -- Unreimbursed Cell Phone Expense Claims Theory (Cell Phone Subclass): "All persons who were employed by the Defendant in California as nonexempt employees at any time from three years year prior to the date of filing of this action through the date of signed order certifying the class and subjected to policies. procedures or practices of having to use its personal cell phone to download a cell phone application for work purposes without reimbursement; and -- Unreimbursed Face Masks Expense Claims (Face Masks Subclass): "All persons who were employed by Defendant in California as nonexempt employees at any time from three years year prior to the date of filing of this action through the date of signed order certifying the class and subjected to policies. procedures or practices of having to purchase face masks and use them for work purposes without reimbursement; B. Appointing Plaintiff Nico Carlos as representative for the proposed subclasses; and C. Appointing Jackson Law, APC as Class Counsel for the proposes subclasses. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mp9XTh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armond M. Jackson, Esq. Andrea M. Fernandez-Jackson, Esq. JACKSON LAW, APC 2 Venture Plaza, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 281-6857 Facsimile: (949) 777-6218 E-mail: ajackson@jacksonapc.com afernandez@jacksonapc.com WALMART INC: Joint Bid to Stay Discovery OK'd in Hellige Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hellige, et al., v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting joint motion to stay discovery: The parties have jointly requested an order staying discovery and Defendants response to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification until 30 days after this Court issues a ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. The nature of suit states contract product liability. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[CC] WELLNESS BRANDS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellness Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wellness Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03274-MKV (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wellness Brands is a wellness center in Covington, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Busch Sues Over Alleged Common Stock Split ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN H. BUSCH and LINDSEY LABATE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1994, AMONG MR. PENNY, MR. SIMON AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PENNY FAMILY AND THE SIMON FAMILY, ROBERT C. PENNY III, ROBERT W. FOSKETT, KIRK BRANNOCK, SCOTT CHANDLER, TIMOTHY DUITSMAN, CARY WOOD, MARK ZORKO, and PATRICK J. MCDONOUGH, JR., Case No. 2022-0346-MTZ (Del. Ch., April 22, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of the Class against the Defendants in connection with a reverse/forward stock split of the Company's Class A and Class B common stock. On July 6, 2020, the Board of Directors of Westell approved a financially unfair plan to effectuate a reverse/forward stock split of the Company's Class A and Class B common stock (the "Transaction"). The Board proposed to effect a 1-for-1,000 reverse stock split of the Company's Class A and Class B common stock, followed immediately by a 1,000-for-1 forward stock split. In the Transaction, Westell stockholders owning fewer than 1,000 shares were to receive the unfair price of $1.48 in cash for each share held by them (the "Buyout Price"), after which they would no longer be Westell stockholders. The forward stock split was then to convert the total number of shares back to the same number existing before the Transaction. The total cost of the Proposed 2Transaction was then estimated to be $8.1 million. After the Transaction, Westell proposed to terminate the registration of the Company's Class A common stock and then delist the Class A common stock from the NASDAQ. In a Proxy Statement filed on August 11, 2020, with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Company admitted that "[Westell is] effectively under the control of Messrs, Penny, Foskett and McDonough, Jr., as trustees [of the Penny Trust], who can effectively control the election of all of the directors, the Transaction and determine the outcome of most corporate transactions or other matters submitted to the stockholders for approval -- including the Transaction." Also on September 29, 2020, the Company filed amendments to its amended and restated certificate of incorporation to effect the 1-for -1,000 reverse stock split of the Company's Class A and Class B Common Stock, followed immediately by a 1,000-for-1 forward stock split. The effective date of the Transaction was October 1, 2020. As a result of the Transaction, the Company paid $7.2 million to repurchase approximately 4.9 million shares of the Class A Common Stock at a purchase price of $1.48 per share. In October 2020, the Company filed a Form 25 and Form 15 with the SEC to delist and deregister the Class A Common Stock. As a result, the Class A Common Stock is no longer listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, says the suit. All members of the Class, including LaBate, who owned fewer than 1,000 shares of Westell at the time of the Transaction (the "LaBate Subclass" and together with the Busch Subclass, the "Subclass"), received $1.48 in cash for each share held by them and are no longer Westell stockholders. The Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the Class for Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transaction. Defendant Penny, Melvin Simon, and certain members of the Penny family and the Simon family. The Trustees of the Penny Trust are Defendants Penny, Foskett, and McDonough. Prior to the Transaction, the Penny Trust had the power to vote 49.3% of Westell's common stock. After the Transaction, as of May 14, 2021, Defendants Penny, Foskett and McDonough, as trustees of the Penny Trust, have the exclusive control over 65.2% of the stock vote. Consequently, according to the Company's 2021 10-K, Westell is "effectively under the control of Messrs. Penny, Foskett and McDonough, Jr., as trustees, who can effectively control the election of all of the directors and determine the outcome of most corporate transactions or other matters submitted to the stockholders for approval." The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Andrew R. Ralli, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com aralli@coochtaylor.com WESTERN STATES: Court Dismisses Dominguez's Claims With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEPHEN DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07319-RGK-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the Plaintiff's claims in the action are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. Based on the Plaintiff Stephen Dominguez and Defendant Western State Fire Protection Company's Joint Stipulation re Dismissal, the Court rules that: 1. Plaintiff Stephen Dominguez's claims in the action are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice; 2. The class action claims in the action are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice; and 3. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4n5wy44p from Leagle.com. XEROX CORPORATION: Vollmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN VOLLMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. XEROX CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL CARE PLAN FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES, XEROX DENTAL CARE PLAN, XEROX CORPORATION 1986 ENHANCED EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM, Case No. 6:20-cv-06979-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a. certifying a class of: "All former Xerox employees who elected to retire pursuant to an Enhanced Early Retirement Program (ERP), set forth in a letter and attachments dated October 17, 1986, from D.M. Reid, Senior Vice President, Personnel and Senior Staff Officer of Xerox, and their spouses, who were receiving or eligible to receive retiree health benefits from Xerox as of December 31, 2018;" b. certifying Paul and Marilyn Vollmer as Class representatives; and c. appointing Tybe A. Brett and Joel R. Hurt, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, and David R. Pfalzgraf, Jr., Esq. and Matthew D. Miller, Esq., Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC as Class Counsel. Xerox is an American corporation that sells print and digital document products and services in more than 160 countries. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k4ZPTy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tybe A. Brett, Esq. Joel R. Hurt, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 E-mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com jhurt@fdpklaw.com - and - David R. Pfalzgraf, Jr., Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main St. Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: miller@ruppbaase.com pfalzgraf@ruppbaase.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 ***