/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220524.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 24, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 97 Headlines A2 MILK: Faces Third Breach Class Action Suit, Appoints New CFO ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Certifies Specific Class in Loschiavo AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ALDI INC: Motion to Dismiss Salmon Sustainability Suit Denied ALL HOURS: Adler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement Class in Erby Conditionally Certified ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought in Hilario ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol's Bid for Class Certification Tossed AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Shareholder Suit for Misusing Customer Data AMAZON.COM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline AMAZON.COM: June 2 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought AMERICAN LANDMARK: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline, Briefing Sched APPLE INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro Models APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Siri Secret Recordings APPLE INC: Must File Opposition to Supplemental Bid by June 24 APPLE INC: Settlement in Maldonado Suit Gets Final Approval ARQIT QUANTUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline ARQIT QUANTUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Loses Prelim Approval Bid of Class Settlement AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline BAKKT HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Collectible Card Games BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Card Pack System BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class CALIFORNIA: FTB Settles Tax Fee Class Action for $22 Million CAPITAL ONE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Bacs CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $1BB Tentative Class Action Settlement Reached CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Class Action Settled for Close to $1 Billion CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to July 2 CLUB 360: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to September 13 COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages COLLECTO INC: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Blair DANIEL LEBOLD: Hoelzer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action DELTA AIR: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Lomas Suit EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz's Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bids to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Nixed EVOLUTION WELL: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations EXCELLUS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Fero Gets Final Nod FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Breach Class Action FEDEX GROUND: Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 11 Deadline FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 11 Deadline FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline GAMESTOP CORP: Worker Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations GEICO INDEMNITY: Must Face Georgia Policyholders' Class Action GEICO: Pimentel Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Nixed GOLUB CORP: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to July 6 GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over DeepMind NHS Patient Data Breach GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL: Smith Loses Bid for Class Certification HALL FERRY: Tierney Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Stay of Class Cert. Briefing HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Seeks to Partially Dismiss Shaw's SAC ILLINOIS: Fling of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2023 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 24 Deadline INT'L BUSINESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 6 Deadline JK ENTERPRISE: Begley Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Part JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Narguess Noohi Seeks Class Certification JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noohi Seeks to File Documents Under Seal LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Vasquez Class Suit LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 20 Deadline LUCID GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 31 Deadline LUCID GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline MADISON COUNTY, IN: Inmates Class Settlement Gets Final Court Okay MATCH GROUP: Must File Class Certification Response by May 25 MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal or with Redactions MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Burgers' False Ads MED-DATA INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 4 MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over Snapchat Lenses Facial Recognition META PLATFORMS: Opposes Facebook Ad Class Action Notice Plan META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs to Get Settlement Payouts in BIPA Suit META PLATFORMS: Settles Class Action in Ill. Over Privacy Claims MILLIMAN INC: Healy Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid MORPHE COSMETICS: Faces Suit Over Eye Makeup Products' False Ads MR. VACUUM: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit NATERA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 27 Deadline NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 27 Deadline NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Class Suit Wants Team to Drop New York from Name NATIONAL SPINE: Seeks to File Confidential Documents Under Seal NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts ONTARIO: Class Action Members Have Until Aug. 6 to File Claim ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in California Court ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in California Court ONTRAK INC: Farhar Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline OSCAR HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 12 Deadline OSCAR HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 11 Deadline OSCAR HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 11 Deadline PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal PERATON INC: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PERMANENT GENERAL: Lancaster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California PLAINS ALL: Settles Oil Spill Class Action in Calif. for $230-MM PLAN BENEFIT: Wasow LLP & Berzon LLP Named as Class Counsel PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 7 Deadline PORK KING GOOD: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROFESSIONAL HEALTH: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees PURE BLISS ORGANICS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Actions in California QUANTUM INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 5 Deadline QUINSTREET INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls R&R RESTAURANTS: Hollis' Conditional Status Bid Granted in Part RAINBOW APPAREL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RANK & STYLE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RECKITT BENCKISER: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sterling Suit REGUS MANAGEMENT: Hilton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 1 RISKIFIED LTD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 1 Deadline ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Matlick Shareholder Suit in CA Court SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumer Suit Targets Defective Refrigerators SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Dunsmore Seeks Provisional Class Status SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming, et al., File Class Certification Bid SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline SIGNATURE CARE: Adolphe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SIREN SNACKS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SLOWTIDE LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOLID VENTURES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SONOMA CREAMERY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPORTS RESEARCH: Seeks Reconsideration of April 15 Order ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Rescheduled to May 24 STAPLES THE OFFICE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 29 STRATA SKIN: Faces Class Suit in California Court STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline SUGAR FREEDOM: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUPER CARE INC: Stephanski Files Suit in C.D. California SUPER CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal, Health Info SWEET JULY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SWIFT TRANS: Bouissey, et al., Seek to Certify Truck Driver Class TAPESTRY INC: Settlement in Ornelas Suit Wins Final Nod TARGET CORP: Must Face Class Action Over iTunes Gift Cards TEAM HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Schilder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TERRAFORM LABS: Luna Fiasco Escalates Into Class Action By Victims TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: To Pay Damages Over Defective Vehicles TOYOTETSU NORTH AMERICA: Phelps Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky TRANSFORCE INC: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Modified in Lim Suit TRITERRAS INC: Settles Class Action Over Securities Violations UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Residency Cert. Suit UPSTART HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 12 Deadline UPSTART HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 12 Deadline UPSTART HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action UPSTART HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline UPSTART HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action VIMPELCOM LTD: Appointment Bids for Lead Plaintiff Tossed VISION SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of Calta Class Action VMK INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Reeves Class Suit WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class WALMART INC: Flores Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20, 2023 WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Disneyland Dream Key Annual Passes WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Manipulation of Retro Game Prices WELCH FOODS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Clevenger Suit WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Breach of Contract Suit Ongoing WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending WINMARK CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York YASSO INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York Z SUPPLY LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York [*] Class Actions v. FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10% in 2021, Research Shows [*] Malaysia Needs to Set Up Class Action Framework ********* A2 MILK: Faces Third Breach Class Action Suit, Appoints New CFO --------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Berry at foodanddrinkbusiness.com.au reports that Thorn Law has lodged a class action proceeding against a2 Milk in the High Court of New Zealand with similar allegations to the two filed in Australia. In FY21 it recorded a 77.6 per cent EBITDA fall to NZ$123m, with revenue down 30.3 per cent to NZ$1.21 billion. Class actions were launched by Shine Lawyers and Slater and Gordon, which alleged the company may have breached the Corporations Act through misleading or deceptive conduct. In November 2021, Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp said, "Our claim alleges that a2 Milk had predicted its baby formula would have a high sales performance in FY21, contributing to a 30 per cent boost to its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation, but the forecast was misleading and caused our clients significant financial loss." A2 Milk said it would defend the class action and considered it had complied with disclosure obligations at all times. It denied any liability and would vigorously defend proceedings, it said. New CFO A2 Milk Company has announced its new CFO David Muscat, after the resignation of Race Strauss. Strauss joined the company in xx and had overseen the company's performance and response to Covid. CEO and managing director David Bortolussi said Strauss had plays a key role in the the company's turnaround as well as implementing a new ERP system. Muscat is currently CFO of DIM Brands International, formerly Hanes Europe Innerwear. Prior to that he was CFO of Hanes Australasia. [GN] ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Certifies Specific Class in Loschiavo -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronnie Loschiavo, et al., v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio ), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order certifying a class for only the eight locations at which the Plaintiffs and Declarants worked. Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiffs and Defendant to confer and propose a mutually agreeable definition of the class. As a starting point for the discussion, the Court proposes the following definition: "All current and former hourly employees of Advanced Drainage Systems who (a) worked as a machine/line operator or yard loader; (b) whose payroll records reflect that they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the instant Motion and continuing to the present; and (c) worked at one of the following facilities: London, Ohio; Wooster, Ohio; Owosso, Michigan; Clifford, Michigan; Muncy, Pennsylvania; Hamilton, Ohio; Logan Township, New Jersey; North Salt Lake, Utah. The parties are also ordered to confer and propose a mutually agreeable notice and consent to join form and method of delivery. Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby sue Advanced Drainage under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous state laws for failure to properly pay overtime wages. Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures and markets polypropylene and polyethylene pipes, plastic leach field chambers and systems, septic tanks and accessories, storm retention/detention and septic chambers, polyvinyl chloride drainage structures, fittings, and water filters and water separators. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sGL4uM at no extra charge.[CC] AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duryea, et al., v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al., (RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION) Case No. 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB (D. Minn.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action for the following "Class" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 since the case fulfills all of Rule 23's requirements: "All persons and entities who directly purchased one or more of the following types of pork, or products derived from the following types of pork, from Defendants, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United States from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018: fresh or frozen loins, shoulders, ribs, bellies, bacon, or hams. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic or as no antibiotics ever (NAE); any product that is fully cooked or breaded; any product other than bacon that is marinated, flavored, cured, or smoked; and ready-to-eat bacon." Excluded from this Class are the Defendants, the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded from this Class are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action, and any Co-Conspirator identified in this action. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Agri Stats, Inc. was founded in 1985. The company's line of business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wnbV1n at no extra charge.[CC] Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, are: The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Stephen M. Owen, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com smowen@locklaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Daniel Warshaw, Esq. Thomas J. Nolan, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq. Neil Swartzberg, Esq. Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 92403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com tnolan@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com bsimon@pswlaw.com bshiftan@pswlaw.com nswartzberg@pswlaw.com mweiner@pswlaw.com ALDI INC: Motion to Dismiss Salmon Sustainability Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Blank at seafoodsource.com reports that Aldi's motion to dismiss a seafood sustainability false claims class-action lawsuit has been rejected for a second time. On May 17, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Aldi's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit brought by Jessica Rawson in May 2021 alleging the retailer made deceptive sustainability marketing claims about its fresh Atlantic salmon products. Rawson is represented by Richman Law and Policy, which has brought several similar lawsuits against seafood suppliers, including Cooke and Red Lobster. Rawson has alleged Aldi's Atlantic salmon is sourced, at least in part, from Chile, which has an "avoid" recommendation from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch sustainability ratings system, Richman Law said in a press release. Chile's net-pen aquaculture systems grow thousands of fish in cages in natural waterways, which Richman Law claimed is an ecologically dangerous practice. "Because net pens are directly connected to the broader marine environment, pollutants, diseases and escaped salmon may spread from the farms into the environment. As cited in the complaint, one scientific paper notes that the 'risks of damage to wild salmon populations, ecosystems, and society are large'," Richman said. The court's decision found Rawson's claim that Aldi's use of "sustainable" was misleading to be plausible, even though Aldi's fresh Atlantic salmon has Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification. Representatives for Richman Law did not immediately respond to a request for comment from SeafoodSource. A representative of the Global Seafood Alliance, which operates the BAP program, said the organization had no comment. In February 2022, a separate court rejected Aldi's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by GMO/Toxin Free USA alleging Aldi was deceptive in its claims of sustainability for its fresh Atlantic salmon products. Filed in January 2021, that lawsuit alleges Aldi's use of the phrase "Simple. Sustainable. Seafood." on its Atlantic salmon products "leads consumers to believe that the salmon was farmed in accordance with high environmental and animal welfare standards, but in reality, the salmon are sourced unsustainably," GMO/Toxin Free USA said in a press release. Separately, a judge in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has not yet ruled on Red Lobster's motion to dismiss in a similar lawsuit brought by Richman Law. Filed in June 2021, the class-action complaint alleges that Red Lobster's farmed shrimp and Maine lobster are not sustainably sourced, as the company claims they are. Instead, the restaurant chain's shrimp is sourced from "industrial shrimp farms that do not employ the highest environmental or animal welfare standards," the complaint stated, and the restaurant chain's Maine lobster is sourced from suppliers that use environmentally destructive practices that threaten endangered populations of North American right whales, according to the complaint. The judge in that case has extended the Red Lobster's motion to dismiss until later in May. [GN] ALL HOURS: Adler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. All Hours Plumbing Drain Cleaning, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class with respect to her claims for the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227 ("TCPA"); 2. designating the Plaintiff as class representative; and 3. designating the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following proposed Class: "All persons in the United States who on or about February 22, 2021 were delivered the following prerecorded voice call by the Defendant through the VoiceShot platform: "Hi, Steve here with All Hours Plumbing Heating and Air. With the changing temperatures, have you found yourself being a thermostat disc jockey with no audience? We wanna stop playing twist and shout with the thermostat and help you make that tax refund that you may have received last for years by investing in your biggest purchase: your home. Now is perfect time to update your home's furnace and air conditioning. This week only we have a special offer for our premium clients. The first 50 furnace and AC combo installations scheduled and completed will receive a PlayStation 5. So call us today to learn more and book your appointment today at 801-997-9591. That's 801-997-9591, and you have an awesome, great day." The total number of putative Class members is 3,347." All Hours is a full-service plumber & HVAC contractor serving Salt Lake County, Utah County, Davis County and Park City. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38tc5ex at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com Telephone: (786) 496-4469 The Defendant is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: 954-400-4713 - and - Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 801-845-2581 E-mail: matt@oremlawoffice.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement Class in Erby Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ERBY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04944-PBT (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Petrese B. Tucker entered an order that: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons who submitted a private-passenger auto physical damage claim for a leased vehicle under an Allstate Pennsylvania policy during the Class Period whose claim was adjusted by Allstate as a total-loss claim, and whose claim resulted in a Total Loss Claim Payment by Allstate, and who were not paid Full Sales Tax." 2. The Plaintiff Michael Erby is an adequate Class Representative for the Settlement Class. 3. The Plaintiff's Counsel are adequate Class Counsel. 4. The Court approves the Class Notice of Settlement. 5. The Court also approves the Notice Program as set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement. 6. If the Settlement Agreement is terminated or not consummated for any reason whatsoever, the conditional certification of the Settlement Class shall be void. The Plaintiff reserves all of his rights, including the right to continue with the litigation pending at the time of the Settlement should the Settlement Agreement not be consummated. 7. Counsel for the Class (Class Counsel) are as follows: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 Telephone: 412-281-7229 - and - Jason Medure, Esq. MEDURE BONNER BELLISSIMO, LLC 713 Wilmington Avenue New Castle, PA 16101 Telephone: 724-653-7855 - and - Larry Weisberg, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Stephen P. Gunther, Esq. MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Telephone: 717-238-5707 8. The Class Notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement as filed with the Court is hereby found to be the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Pennsylvania and all other applicable laws. The Notices are accurate, objective, informative and provide Class members with all of the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the Settlement and its fairness. 9. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, so that it is received by the Claims Administrator at the address indicated in the Notice on or before the close of the opt out period. 10. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person objected to the Settlement and whether or not such person made a claim upon, or participated in, the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. 11. A hearing on the Settlement is scheduled to be held before this Court on May 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. 12. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must be filed no later than 45 days from the Notice Date. 13. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one Class Member, counsel must identify each such Class Member and each Class Member must have complied with the requirements of this Order. These documents must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the following address: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Office of the Clerk of Court James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse 601 Market Street, Room 2609 Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797 14. Only Class Members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of objection shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member who does not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement, entry of Final Judgment, or to Class Counsel’s application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in this Order, shall be deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. 15. Persons wishing to be heard at the hearing are required to file written comments or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their intention to appear at the hearing. Settlement Class Members need not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval. 16. All members of the Settlement Class who do not personally and timely request to be excluded from the Class are enjoined from proceeding against the Defendant for the claims made in the Complaint. 17. Upon approval of the Settlement provided for in this Settlement Agreement, each and every time period and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court. 18. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Agreement, shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement. Allstate Fire operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37NceZT at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought in Hilario ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the the Parties agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The Class Certification Briefing Schedule shall be set as follows: a. Motion to be filed by: July 1, 2022 b. Response to be filed by: August 25, 2022. c. Reply to be filed by: Sept. 29, 2022. d. Hearing to occur on: Oct. 13, 2022. The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. A copy of Parties' motion to certify class dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wtbXDx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Shane, Esq. SHANE LAW 1000 Drakes Landing Rd No. 200 Greenbrae, CA 94904-3027 Telephone: (415) 464-2020 Facsimile: (415) 464-2024 E-mail: dshane@shanelaw1.com - and - Brian Eldridge, Esq. Steven Hart, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE 22 W Washington St, Ste 1600 Chicago, IL 60602-1615 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 Facsimile: (312) 971-9243 E-mail: beldridge@hmelegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Sonia R. Martin, Esq. Mark L. Hanover, Esq. Isabella c. hsu, Esq. DENTONS US LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 267-4000 Facsimile: (415) 267 4198 E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com mark.hanover@dentons.com isabella.hsu@dentons.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol's Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO KOMBOL, individually and on behalf other persons similarly situated, v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-SPW (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Susan P. Watters entered an order denying the Plaintiffs motion for class certification: -- Class I -- The GCOP Class All Allstate policyholders in Montana: (a) Who suffered a structural loss under an Allstate homeowner policy; (b)From April 27, 2012 to present (because the Montana breach-of- contract statute of limitations is 8 years); (c) Where Allstate accepted liability; (d)But where the ACV payment did not include GCOP, unless the insured was paid that full amount of GCOP as part of the RCV payment. -- Class II -- The UTPA Class "All members of Class I from April 27, 2018 to the date the class is certified (owing to the two-year statute of limitations on UTPA actions)." The proposed class action regards Allstate's alleged failure to incorporate and adhere to an objective standard for determining when an insured's covered structural repair requires the services of a general contractor and the subsequent inclusion of sums for general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP") in the insured's claim reimbursement. In order to recover for loss or damage to insured property, an individual must file a claim with their insurance provider. That insurance provider will then typically assign a claims adjuster to inspect the scope of the property damage and determine both the value of that property and what services will be required for repairs. The adjuster creates an estimate based on their inspection and expertise to review with the insured. That estimate typically describes the damage to the structure, the present value of the structure, and what costs will be required to repair or replace the structure to its pre-loss condition. Once the scope of the loss is agreed upon by the insured and the insurer, the insurer issues a payment to the insured for the actual cash value ("ACV") of the structure. The ACV represents the agreed upon cost to repair the structure minus depreciation and the policy deductible. Insureds have the option to pocket that ACV payment or, should the insured wish to proceed with repairs, the insurer will pay the previously withheld depreciation—termed the replacement cost value ("RCV") -- upon submission of proof the repairs were completed. For particularly extensive or complex repairs, insured will often need to hire a general contractor to coordinate the services of multiple trades and assist in the repairs. For most insurers, when the insurance adjuster determines that it is reasonably likely the repair will require a general contractor, the adjuster includes an industry standard 20% for GCOP in the repair estimate. Whether it is reasonably likely a repair will require a general contractor is intended to be an objective standard for adjusters to follow when determining the amount of loss. The Plaintiff alleges Allstate fails to follow an objective standard in determining the need for GCOP and instead allows adjusters to determine GCOP on an individualized, subjective basis of when "warranted." The Plaintiff claims this leads to disparate results depending on what adjuster is handling the claim and is inconsistent with the information provided to insureds. Further, "it is inconsistent with a wide body of case law where courts almost unanimously conclude that, where the insured would be reasonably likely to need a general contractor in repairing or replacing damaged property, GCOP has to be paid on an ACV payment." Allstate is a national provider of several types of insurance including auto, home, life, motorcycle, and renters. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NfUPrI at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Shareholder Suit for Misusing Customer Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Rosenblatt, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that taking a new approach to bringing attention to how Amazon uses individuals' data, a shareholder is suing Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy and 17 other Amazon leaders he claims knowingly allowed the company to violate state laws. Amazon has already come under fire for how its uses biometric data, things like fingerprints and facial images. It's been accused of collecting and using individuals' images without their consent as well as violating state laws that prohibit companies from profiting off individuals' biometric data. Usually, legal actions are targeting the company. This time, shareholder Stephen Nelson's lawsuit is aimed at Amazon's top decision makers, on behalf of the company itself. The group of defendants -- which includes executives like founder and Executive Chairman Bezos; CEO Jassy; Chief Financial Officer Brian Olsavsky; and General Counsel David Zapolsky, as well as all 11 members of the board of directors -- knowingly allowed Amazon to make false statements about its use of biometric data, Nelson alleges in the lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court in Seattle in April. Company higher-ups, his attorneys claim, "made a conscious choice to turn a blind eye to Amazon's conduct." Amazon executives and board members "caused substantial financial and reputational harm to Amazon," the lawsuit reads. Amazon did not return requests for comment on the lawsuit. Amazon, like many tech companies, uses biometric data to offer customers the features they've come to expect. Its Alexa virtual assistant uses voice recognition to answer user questions about the weather. A new feature for the Echo Show 15 device announced in September allows Alexa to use visual cues to identify an individual when they walk into view of the camera and offer a personalized to-do list, calendar and music selection. Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing arm of the business, stores some biometric data from its customers and those customers' employees, according to the lawsuit, like fingerprints to gain access to a building, voiceprints to identify callers and face scans from gamers. Amazon launched its facial recognition service, Rekognition, in 2016 for customers to build "powerful visual search and discovery" into applications, according to a blog post on its website. Since then, it has been used in Amazon's smart home systems, Alexa and other camera devices, and Amazon has marketed the technology to law enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Rekognition has raised alarm bells for activists and shareholders, who say the facial surveillance tech could "unfairly and disproportionately" target people of color. Amazon shareholders will vote on a proposal at the company's annual meeting May 25 to request a report on how Rekognition is used and marketed, and the extent to which it could violate privacy and civil rights. In the summer of 2020, Amazon put a one-year moratorium on the sale and use of Rekognition by law enforcement. In a statement urging shareholders to vote against that proposal, Amazon's board of directors said the company is "committed to the responsible use of our artificial intelligence and machine learning products and services." In response to growing concerns about how and where biometric data was being used, Illinois passed legislation in 2008 to establish guidelines for how companies and other entities could use an individual's information. Those guidelines require companies to get consent before collecting data and to tell individuals, in writing, what information is being collected, why and for how long. Washington passed a similar law in 2017, and roughly 20 states now have some safeguards in place. Since those laws went into effect, tech companies including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, TikTok and Meta have faced litigation for allegedly misusing individuals' biometric data. This month, facial recognition startup Clearview AI agreed to restrict the use of its massive collection of face images following a two-year lawsuit that alleged it collected people's photos without their consent. Amazon is facing at least 14 class action lawsuits and 75,000 individual cases, according to Nelson's court filing. With legal fees and potential fines to come, Nelson is arguing Amazon's executives and board of directors are liable for the consequences of those lawsuits. The potential damages are "astronomical to the point the company could be put out of business if the violations are not immediately addressed, stopped and remedied," the lawsuit reads. Nelson is accusing Amazon's decision makers of misleading investors about the financial and legal risks associated with its use of biometric data and potential violations to Illinois' Biometric Privacy Information Act. Faced with its own class action lawsuit, Facebook agreed to pay $650 million in February 2021 over the company's use of facial recognition technology. In legal filings, Amazon's board of directors dismissed shareholder concerns about the risks, the lawsuit alleges, and defendants listed in the complaint signed off on "false statements" about Amazon's compliance with state laws. The defendants' conduct "jeopardizes and harms one of Amazon's most important (and fragile) assets: consumer trust," the lawsuit reads. "Reputational damage is particularly devastating for technology companies like Amazon." Nelson declined to comment through his lawyer, Gregory Wesner of Herman Jones, based in Atlanta. The lawsuit is asking the court to direct Amazon to change its biometric data practices, as well as how it governs itself internally. It suggests appointing board members with a background in cybersecurity and consumer privacy, reviewing the company's policies for "confidential reporting" and fine-tuning its investigative process for complaints that come from within Amazon. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) between February 1, 2019 and April 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 5, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Amazon securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Amazon class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5465 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its private-label business practices, including giving Amazon products preference over those of its competitors and using third-party sellers' non-public data to compete with them; (2) the foregoing exposed Amazon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (3) Amazon's revenues derived from its private-label business were in part the product of impermissible conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Amazon class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5465 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Attention Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") (NASDAQ: AMZN) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between February 1, 2019 and April 5, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Amazon, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27227&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Amazon includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its private-label business practices, including giving Amazon products preference over those of its competitors and using third-party sellers' non-public data to compete with them; (ii) the foregoing exposed Amazon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iii) Amazon's revenues derived from its private-label business were in part the product of impermissible conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the defendants' public statements throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading. DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Aggrieved Amazon investors only have until July 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] AMAZON.COM: June 2 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the briefing deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action. Specifically, the Parties seek to extend the deadline for Defendant to file a response to the Plaintiff's Motion to June 2, 2022; and to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply to the Defendant's response to June 30, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his motion to certify class action on April 14, 2022. The Defendant's response to the Motion is currently due May 5, 2022. The Plaintiff's reply to the Defendant's Response to the Motion is anticipated to be due May 19, 2022. Pursuant to this Court's practice standards (I(G)(2)), the Parties file this motion no later than three business days before the date the Defendant's response is due. The Defendant requests its extension of time due to the complexity and significance of issues raised in the Motion, which, if granted, would result in notice issuing to a class of over 10,000 individuals. The Plaintiff requests its extension of time in order to allow sufficient time to reply because lead counsel will be unavailable from May 13 through June 16, 2022. Accordingly, the Parties request an additional 28 days for Defendant to file its response to the Motion, up to and including June 2, 2022. With the extension of the Defendant's response deadline, Plaintiff's reply is anticipated to be due June 16, 2022. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yFJJs9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7667 E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com vguzman@sawaya.law.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. Sarah K. Watt, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com swatt@littler.com AMERICAN LANDMARK: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline, Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diez v. American Landmark LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20189 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order setting deadline and briefing schedule for class certification. The Court said, "The Plaintiff files a motion requesting deadline and briefing schedule with Respect to their motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court set September 21, 2022 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court set a 30-day deadline for Defendant to file a response and a 14-day deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply." The Plaintiff argues that this briefing schedule will not affect any deadlines as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order. The Defendant does not oppose the Motion. American Landmark is a national multifamily owner-operator specializing in multifamily acquisition, repositioning and property management. The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions.[CC] APPLE INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro Models ----------------------------------------------------------------- patentlyapple.com reports that Apple defeated an appeal to revive a would-be class action over allegedly defective MacBook Pro displays, after the Ninth Circuit said that the company had no duty to disclose the flaw. The lawsuit alleged that MacBook Pro models released after 2016 were designed with cables that are too short and eventually fail with ordinary wear and tear. The plaintiffs claimed violations California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit also alleged fraudulent concealment under a common law theory, and violations of deceptive trade statutes in Washington, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Alaska, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Texas. For more, read the full report by Bloomberg Law. For those interested in the background of the lawsuit, review the court document regarding Taleshpour v. Apple Inc. here. For legal buffs, the 30-minute video below presents the appeal of a dismissal of a diversity putative class action against Apple, Inc., alleging that Apple MacBook Pro computers had defective displays that occurred on May 10, 2020. The ruling made dismissed the case. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Siri Secret Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ruchi Gupta, writing for Market Realist, reports that Apple's voice-operated Siri assistant is a powerful technology that adds value to various Apple products and services. However, the technology has put the the iPhone maker in trouble, with a class-action lawsuit threatening to dent its reputation and balance sheet. Apple's Siri answers users' questions and performs various tasks through voice commands. On your iPhone, Siri searches the internet to deliver answers or suggestion to you, on through your HomePod smart speaker, Siri responds to your voice commands, such as telling it to turn off lights in a room. Siri belongs to the same group of voice agents as Amazon's Alexa and Google's Google Assistant, which have also both raised privacy questions. You start Siri by speaking the activation words, "Hey Siri." Once prompted, Siri listens to and records what you say, and then acts on your instructions. Siri recordings may be reviewed by Apple employees to improve the technology. However, controversy over other people reviewing users' private recordings led Apple to adjust its review method, resulting in computer-generated transcripts being used for reviews instead of recorded audio. The Siri class-action lawsuit, explained Although Siri is helpful for performing various tasks, a number of Siri users sued Apple for allegedly violating their privacy by listening to conversations that were not meant for it. Their complaint is that Siri recorded their conversions without being prompted to do so. The conversations have ranged from private consultations with a doctor to discussions about shoes and sunglasses. Some users have even alleged that they started receiving targeted ads for the products they discussed. A federal judge in California has allowed Siri users to pursue a class-action lawsuit against Apple. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Apple breach their privacy or contract. Apple denies any wrongdoing. Apple's iCloud class-action lawsuit cost it millions of dollars Apple agreed to pay $14.8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit related to its iCloud storage service, for storing users' iCloud data on third-party servers instead of its own. While denying wrongdoing, Apple settled the lawsuit to avoid going to trial. Apple's strong balance sheet means it could easily absorb a financial hit for settling the Siri lawsuit, but it could still suffer significant reputational damage. How does Siri make money for Apple? Apple acquired the Siri technology in 2010, in a deal estimated to have cost it more than $200 million. In Siri, Apple saw an opportunity to break into the mobile search market. Although Apple doesn't sell Siri as a standalone item, it uses it to enhance the appeal of several of its products. [GN] APPLE INC: Must File Opposition to Supplemental Bid by June 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. The Defendants shall file any opposition to the Supplemental Motion no later than June 24, 2022; 2. Lead Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the Supplemental Motion no later than August 26, 2022; On May 5, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. On February 4, 2022, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion. The Order denied without prejudice Lead Plaintiff's Motion with respect to holders of options on Apple stock and contemplated that Lead Plaintiff may "re-seek certification with respect to this category of investors." On March 4, 2022, the Court issued an order setting a deadline of April 15, 2022 for Lead Plaintiff to supplement its class certification motion regarding holders of options on Apple stock. On April 15, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion to Certify Class of Apple Options Investors. Lead Plaintiff has agreed to make Professor Chance available for deposition on June 8, 2022. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PyRvdo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1 Montgomery St. Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com The Attorneys for the Defendants Apple Inc., Timothy Cook and Luca Maestri, are: James N. Kramer, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com APPLE INC: Settlement in Maldonado Suit Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKY MALDONADO, et al., v. APPLE, INC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting final approval of settlement; awarding attorney's fees, costs, and service awards as follows: 1. The Court finally approves and confirms the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The following "Certified Class" was previously certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a remanufactured replacement Device." 3. The Class period cutoff date is September 30, 2021. 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court previously appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as Class Counsel, and the named Plaintiffs, Vicky Maldonado and Justin Carter, as the Class Representatives on behalf of the Certified Class. 5. The Plaintiffs' notice of the Class Settlement to the Certified Class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The notice satisfied due process and provided adequate information to the Certified Class of all matters relating to the Class Settlement, and fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and (e)(1). 6. 153 Members of the Certified Class timely and validly requested exclusion from the Certified Class, and are excluded from those Certified Class identified. Such persons are not included in or bound by this Order as it relates to the specific settlement for which they opted- out. Such persons are not entitled to any recovery of the settlement proceeds obtained through the Class Settlement. 7. No valid objections were filed regarding the Class Settlement. 8. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' proposed Plan of Allocation, proposing to pay Settlement Class members an equal amount per remanufactured replacement device they received, is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 9. The Court awards to Class Counsel: a. Costs in the amount of $1,397,165.53; and b. Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of $26,876,027.50. 10. The Court awards to Class Representatives: a. An incentive award to Vicky Maldonado in the amount of $15,000; and b. An incentive award to Justin Carter in the amount of $12,500. Apple is an American multinational technology company that specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syT54P at no extra charge.[CC] ARQIT QUANTUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who (i) purchased or acquired the securities of Arqit Quantum Inc. ("Arqit" or the "Company") (ARQQ, ARQQW), f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. ("Centricus") (CENH, CENHU, CENHW) between September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (ii) held Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Arqit is a cybersecurity company that has pioneered a unique quantum encryption technology. Arqit claimed its quantum encryption technology would be secure against current and future forms of cyberattacks, including from a quantum computer. On May 28, 2021, Arqit filed with the SEC a Form F-4 Merger Proposal Registration (the "Proxy Statement") for the Merger. Then, on July 30, 2021, Arqit filed with the SEC a prospectus (the "Prospectus") for the Merger, which forms part of the Proxy Statement. According to the Complaint, the Proxy Statement contained a Risk Factors section which failed to discuss the risks to Arqit surrounding the adoption of new communications technologies necessary for Arqit's encryption technology; namely, that Arqit needed certain new protocols and standards for telecommunications, cloud computing, and internet services that currently were not supported. Plaintiff also alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements about Arqit's business because: (1) Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards of for telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (3) the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather, providing grants to Arqit; and (4) Arqit had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the Merger. On April 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal (the "WSJ") published an article entitled, "British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its Prospects, Former Staff and Others Say." The WSJ article stated, in part: "When the company secured its Nasdaq listing last autumn, its revenue consisted of a handful of government grants and small research contracts, and its signature product was an early-stage prototype unable to encrypt anything in practical use, according to [former employees and other people familiar with the company]." Further, "[t]he encryption technology the company hinges on-a system to protect against next-generation quantum computers-might never apply beyond niche uses, numerous people inside and outside the company warned, unless there were a major overhaul of internet protocols." On this news, the price of Arqit stock price declined over 17% to close at $12.49 per share on April 18, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or held the securities of Arqit Quantum Inc. (f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.) as discussed above, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Arqit Quantum Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] ARQIT QUANTUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 15 disclosed that purchasers of Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: ARQQ; ARQQW) securities between September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or all holders of Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger") and entitled to vote on the Merger have until July 5, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Glick v. Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp., No. 22-cv-02604 (E.D.N.Y). Commenced on May 6, 2022, the Arqit class action lawsuit charges Arqit and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Arqit class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp,join.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Arqit class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 5, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Arqit is a cybersecurity company that has purportedly pioneered a unique quantum encryption technology. Arqit alleged its quantum encryption technology would be secure against current and future forms of cyberattacks, including from a quantum computer. Centricus was a special purpose acquisition corporation ("SPAC" or 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. Prior to the Merger, Centricus shares traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol CENHU. The Arqit class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications; (ii) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (iii) the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather, providing grants to Arqit; (iv) Arqit had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the Merger; and (v) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On April 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published a story entitled: "British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its Prospects, Former Staff and Others Say." The Wall Street Journal revealed, among other things, that Arqit's "signature product was an early-stage prototype unable to encrypt anything in practical use," Arqit's encryption technology "might never apply beyond niche uses, numerous people inside and outside the company warned, unless there were a major overhaul of internet protocols," "British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed approach to encryption technology," "[t]he U.S. National Security Agency and the [National Counterintelligence and Security Center] published separate assessments in recent years warning against using satellite-based encryption systems like those Arqit is proposing," "[t]he encryption system . . . depends on the broad adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications, cloud computing and internet services that currently aren't widely supported," and that "[t]he people familiar with the matter said that the bulk of [Arqit's] committed revenue isn't from selling its product and that at its public launch, [Arqit] had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system." On this news, the price of Arqit stock fell by more than 17%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Arqit securities during the Class Period and/or all holders of Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the Merger and entitled to vote on the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Arqit class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Arqit class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Arqit class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Arqit class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Loses Prelim Approval Bid of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments from the gross settlement amount: -- The Class Representative will receive a service payment of $10,000; -- Class counsel will receive $191,666.76 in attorneys' fees, which equals 33 1/3 % of the gross settlement amount, and expenses up to $10,000.00; -- The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency shall receive $7,500 from the total PAGA payment of $10,000; and -- The Settlement Administrator will receive up to $30,000 for fees and expenses. The Court said, "Razo fails to carry the burden to show the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied for the proposed settlement class, and the Court is unable to certify the class." Razo was employed as a sales representative at the AT&T Mobility Store located in Madera, California. Razo asserts he worked for AT&T "for approximately eleven years" until his termination in June 2018. He alleges AT&T "routinely failed to properly calculate the overtime and double time rate of pay." Razo asserts AT&T "failed to include its employees' total compensation including bonuses and commissions when calculating the regular rate for the purposes of determining overtime wages owed and thus routinely underpaid employees for overtime wages owed." Razo contends this underpayment was "evidenced in [his] paycheck and accompanying wage statement issued June 13, 2018." Razo asserted the claims were brought on behalf of himself and classes including: 1. "The Plaintiff Class": All persons who have been, or currently are, employed by Defendant and who held, or hold, job positions which the Defendant have classified as "non-exempt" personnel in the State of California. (The Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter). 2. "The Terminated Sub Class": All members of the Plaintiff Class whose employment ended during the Class Period (The Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter). AT&T Mobility provides wireless voice and data communications services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sGLpOg at no extra charge.[CC] AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. ("Axsome" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AXSM). The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired Axsome securities between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the shares of Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. you may, no later than July 12, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- Axsome's CMC practices were deficient with respect to AXS-07 and its manufacturing process; -- as a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 NDA on its initially represented timeline; -- the foregoing CMC issues remained unresolved at the time that the FDA reviewed the AXS-07 NDA; -- accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA; -- as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's regulatory and commercial prospects; and -- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 5, 2020, Axsome issued a press release reporting the Company's third quarter 2020 results. That press release disclosed that the Company "plans to submit the [AXS-07] NDA to the FDA in the first quarter of 2021, versus previous guidance of the fourth quarter of 2020, to allow for inclusion of supplemental manufacturing information to ensure a robust submission package." On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $5.22 per share, or 6.99%, to close at $69.51 per share on November 5, 2020. Then, on April 25, 2022, Axsome disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, "[o]n April 22, 2022, Axsome . . . was informed by the [FDA] that [CMC] issues identified during the FDA's review of the Company's [NDA] for its AXS-07 product candidate for the acute treatment of migraine are unresolved." That filing also disclosed that "[b]ased upon the time remaining in the NDA review cycle, the Company expects to receive a Complete Response Letter [('CRL')] with respect to this NDA on or about the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of April 30, 2022." On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $8.60 per share, or 21.99%, to close at $30.50 per share on April 25, 2022. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com [GN] BAKKT HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Attention Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings ("Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings") (NYSE: BKKT) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities 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 documents issued in connection with the business combination between the Company and Bakkt Holdings, LLC completed on or about October 15, 2021. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bakkt-holdings-inc-f-k-a-vpc-impact-acquisition-holdings-loss-submission-form?prid=27222&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective financial controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the Company's financial statements related to the misclassification of certain shares issued prior to the business combination between the Company and Bakkt Holdings, LLC; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its financial statements; (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope and severity of these issues; (v) the Company overstated its remediation of its defective financial controls; and (vi) as a result, the documents issued in connection with the business combination and defendants' public statements throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. DEADLINE: June 20, 2022 Aggrieved Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings investors only have until June 20, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Collectible Card Games -------------------------------------------------------------- eurogamer.net reports that a father is attempting to launch a class-action lawsuit against Hearthstone maker Blizzard, after his daughter secretly spent more than $300 on packs without getting all the cards they wanted. Arizona man Nathan Harris is trying to launch the suit, which claims Hearthstone tricks players into non-refundable purchases without knowing the odds of rare cards (thanks, Polygon). In particular, Harris complains that his daughter - who used his credit card without asking - did not realise you could not get a refund from packs which "almost never received any valuable cards". The game also lacks parental controls, Harris complained. The one where Wes beat Hearthstone pro Trump. Harris is seeking to use the California Family Code - which gives minors rights to get out of contracts and gain refunds - as part of a class-action suit, so the complaint could potentially be opened up to other, similar parents without full control of their credit cards. Like many other collectible card games (or games in other genres with lootboxes), Hearthstone's packs offer random chances at cards from a particular set, with a selection of rarity tiers. In Hearthstone, any card - such as one you don't need or have already - can be ground down into Dust, which can be crafted into a specific card you're after. The game also has so-called pity timers, which ensure you do get at least one top-tier Legendary card after more than 40 packs. Back in March, another Californian class-action lawsuit was proposed by two mothers against Nintendo over its Switch Joy-Con drift. In that case, the mothers wanted to circumvent the Switch's user agreement (which says you can't sue Nintendo) by saying their children would sue on their behalf. [GN] BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Card Pack System ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noam Radcliffe at dbltap.com reports that a parent has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Blizzard Entertainment on behalf of his daughter, claiming that Hearthstone's card pack system tricks players, especially minors, into making non-refundable purchases, Polygon reports. Arizona resident Nathan Harris and his lawyers filed the proposed suit with the California State Superior Court in Orange County. Their filing says Harris' daughter spent more than $300 on Hearthstone from 2019 to 2021 without her father's permission. The suit argues she didn't know the odds of opening valuable cards - and in fact "almost never" did, per the suit - and was unaware she could not get a refund. Harris and his lawyers have asked the court to open their suit up to any other minors or parents of minors who have ever purchased a Hearthstone card pack to join their side. They estimate that could include "hundreds, if not thousands" of people. According to Harris' lawyer, minors have the right to "disaffirm contracts" under California Family Code, and that this extends to getting a refund on a purchase such as a Hearthstone pack. The suit also attacks Blizzard for not disclosing odds for these packs, failing to implement sufficient parental control features, and not offering a way for parents and minors to get refunds. Blizzard has responded to the filing by asking the court to move the case to the United States District Court in the Central District of California, which it says is the appropriate jurisdiction. The company said damages in a proposed class action suit would exceed the $5 million threshold needed to move the case to the Central District. Blizzard has come under fire in the past for randomized player rewards bought with real money. The company successfully moved that case to arbitration in March, arguing the minor in the case had agreed to this when signing the game's user agreements. Blizzard is hardly alone in taking heat for loot boxes and similar monetization strategies. Legislators around the world have begun to question whether loot boxes count as gambling, and whether players need to be protected from them. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced a bill in 2019 to regulate loot boxes, but little progress has been made on enacting it. Meanwhile, a Dutch court ruled in March that FIFA's card packs don't break the country's gambling laws, dealing publishers a win. [GN] BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FITZPATRICK and ARTHUR J. CAPUTO, individually and behalf off all others similarly situated, v. BOSTON MARKET CORP., Case No. 21-cv-9618-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the action as a Rule 23 class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, on behalf of: "all employees who worked as Crew Members (including Servers, Cashiers, Cook Assistants/Backups and Dishwashers/Utilities), Sandwich-Makers/Carvers and Catering Delivery Drivers who worked at any and all of Defendant Boston Market Corp.'s restaurants located in New York State at any time on or after November 22, 2015"; 2. Appointing Arthur J. Caputo and Rachel Cuevas as the Class representatives; 3. Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g); 4. Authorizing Court facilitated notice of this NYLL class action to Class Members; 5. Ordering Defendant to produce a list of the names, last known address, alternate address(es) (if any), all known telephone numbers, all known e-mail addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, dates of employment and job titles, of all Class Members; and 6. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Boston Market known as Boston Chicken until 1995, is an American fast casual restaurant chain headquartered in Golden, Colorado. It is owned by the Rohan Group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsDxcP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. Michel DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 CALIFORNIA: FTB Settles Tax Fee Class Action for $22 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has agreed to pay $22 million to resolve claims it charged LLCs unconstitutional tax fees. The FTB settlement benefits LLCs that paid an LLC tax fee based on their worldwide total income previously required under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17942. Eligible LLCs must have submitted a refund request that was either denied or denied with the opportunity to file a lawsuit under California tax code by Feb. 4, 2010. The California Franchise Tax Board is responsible for California taxes by both individuals and businesses. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17942 determines the taxes limited liability corporations (LLCs) have to pay. Although the tax code was amended in 2008, previous versions of the statute required LLCs to pay taxes based on their worldwide income. Taxpayers took action against the California FTB, arguing these taxes were unconstitutional. According to the lawsuits against the tax authority, LLCs in the state should only need to pay taxes based on income derived in California. In two lawsuits, the tax statute was found to be unconstitutional, though the court hasn't decided if the plaintiffs in the consolidated FTB LLC fees lawsuit were correct. Instead of litigating this issue through a trial, the California FTB agreed to pay $22 million to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can collect payments for the LLC fees they previously paid to the California FTB. Payment amounts will vary based on the amount each LLC paid in tax fees, how much of those payments were for non-California income and other factors. Depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement, some class members could receive full refunds of their allegedly unconstitutional tax payments. However, since the FTB has held onto the paid tax fees for over 15 years, LLCs may not have records proving where they generated income that was later taxed. Although class members with documentation may be eligible for higher payments, proof of income isn't required to receive a refund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 5, 2022. The final approval hearing for the FTB LLC fees settlement is scheduled for Aug. 2, 2022. In order to receive benefits from the settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 5, 2022. Who's Eligible The FTB settlement benefits LLCs that paid an LLC tax fee based on their worldwide total income previously required under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Section 17942. Eligible LLCs must have submitted a refund request that was either denied or denied with the opportunity to file a lawsuit under California tax code by Feb. 4, 2010. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Class members with documentation may be eligible for higher payments, proof of income isn't required to receive a refund. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/05/2022 Case Name Franchise Tax Board Limited Liability Corporation Tax Refund Cases, Case No. CJC-12-004742, in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco Final Hearing 08/02/2022 Settlement Website FTBLLCTaxSettlement.com Claims Administrator FTB LLC Tax Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@FTBLLCTaxSettlement.com 888-874-5887 Class Counsel Amy Silverstein SILVERSTEIN & POMERANTZ LLP Kathleen V Fisher Rodney J Jacob Alex M Freeman CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP Defense Counsel Laura E Robbins DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Bacs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN BACS and JESSICA ROUBERT, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 8:21-cv-02852-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff Expert Disclosure August 31, 2022 -- Defendant Expert Disclosure September 30, 2022 -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure October 31, 2022 -- Discovery Cut-Off November 7, 2022 -- Class Certification Motion June 1, 2022 -- Summary Judgment, Daubert, November 30, 2022 and other Dispositive Motions -- The parties shall participate November 17, 2022 in court-annexed mediation on or before: -- A pretrial conference will be April 17, 2023 held before Judge Tom Barber, in Courtroom 14A, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, on: Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com a https://bit.ly/3wp7oKy at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM -------------------------------------------------------- The Cyber Wire reports that Capital One reaches settlement for 2019 data breach. American Bank Capital One has agreed to pay $190 million in a settlement linked to a 2019 data breach in which an intruder (later captured by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation) gained unauthorized third-party access to the bank's systems, compromising the personal data of approximately 98 million customers. Top Class Actions explains that the exposed data included sensitive information like names, birth dates, addresses, phone numbers, credit scores, and Social Security numbers. In the class-action lawsuit, the impacted customers argued the bank neglected to properly safeguard their data, putting them at risk for fraud. Though Capital One has not admitted to any wrongdoing, it agreed to the settlement, which grants class members access to a cash payment of up to $25,000 for expenses and lost time, and requires the bank to implement extensive cyber security practices for at least two years. [GN] CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $1BB Tentative Class Action Settlement Reached ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curt Anderson, writing for Associated Press, reports that a nearly $1 billion tentative settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit brought by families of victims and survivors of last June's condominium collapse in Surfside, Florida, an attorney said on May 11. Harley S. Tropin announced the $997 million settlement during a hearing before Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Michael Hanzman. Still pending final approval, the settlement involves developers of an adjacent building, insurance companies and other defendants. "I think it's fantastic," Hanzman said, reacting to the update from attorneys. "This is a recovery that is far in excess of what I had anticipated." Earlier this year, Hanzman had approved an $83 million settlement to compensate people who suffered economic losses such as condominium units and personal property. A key question from the beginning has been how to allocate money from the property's sale, insurance proceeds and damages from lawsuits among wrongful death cases and property claims. The 12-story Champlain Towers South condominium partially collapsed in the early-morning hours of June 24, almost instantly destroying dozens of individual condo units and burying victims under tons of rubble. Rescuers spent weeks carefully digging through mountains of concrete, first to find survivors and later to recover the remains of those who died. Ten days after the initial collapse, demolition crews used explosives to bring down the remaining portion of the building to give searchers access to additional areas where survivors might have been located. A total of 98 people were killed. The tragedy in the town of Surfside, just north of Miami Beach, triggered lawsuits from victims, families and condo owners, and prompted state and federal investigations. In October, a coalition of engineers and architects said the state of Florida should consider requiring high-rise buildings near the coast to undergo safety inspections every 20 years. And in December, a Florida grand jury issued a lengthy list of recommendations aimed at preventing another condominium collapse, including earlier and more frequent inspections and better waterproofing. At the time of the collapse, Miami-Dade and Broward were the only two of the state's 67 counties that had condominium recertification programs. The main lawsuit, filed on behalf of Champlain Towers South victims and family members, contends that work on the adjacent Eighty Seven Park tower damaged and destabilized the Champlain Towers building, which was in need of major structural repair. Champlain Towers was in the midst of its 40-year structural review when it partially crumbled to the ground. Video released by a team of federal investigators showed evidence of extensive corrosion and overcrowded concrete reinforcement in the building. Seven months after the collapse, temporary structural supports were added to areas in the underground garage of Champlain Towers South's sister tower, Champlain Towers North, in what the building's condo board called "an abundance of caution." The condo was built in 1981 and has a nearly identical design as the Champlain Towers South. The little-known enclave of Surfside comprises a mix of older homes and condos similar to the collapsed tower, built decades ago for the middle-class, and recently erected luxury condos drawing the wealthy. That includes former first daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, who live about a block north of the collapsed condo. The residents of Champlain Towers South were an international mix: South American immigrants, Orthodox Jews and foreign retirees.[GN] CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Class Action Settled for Close to $1 Billion -------------------------------------------------------------- On June 24, 2021, Champlain Towers South, a 136-unit oceanfront condo complex in Florida, suddenly collapsed without warning with many of the residents inside. This led to numerous injuries and fatalities. The portion of the complex that was left standing after the tragedy was then leveled in a controlled explosion that was meant to allow crews to continue their efforts to find missing residents. Governor Ron DeSantis said at the time of the demo, "Concerns about the remaining part of the building left few options but demolition. Residents of the building who survived fled with whatever they had with them and had not been permitted to enter the teetering structure. . . . I know there's a lot of people who were able to get out, fortunately, who have things there. We're very sensitive to that. But I don't think that there's any way you could let someone go back up into that building given the shape that it's in now." Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava added afterwards that the demolition was "executed exactly as planned and left officials optimistic about the safely sifting through the rubble. There is hope that there are voids that will allow us to continue the search and rescue operation." In fall 2021, once all was said and done, survivors and their families feared a legal a process called 'subrogation' in which insurance companies can essentially stop future payments to policyholders to reimburse themselves for losses. They voiced concerns over wanting reassurance that they'd be able to collect. Now, this month, they've gotten this reassurance as their class action lawsuit comes to a close and they're set to receive a $1 billion settlement. The terms of the deal were announced in Miami-Dade Circuit Court before Judge Michael Hanzman. Each of the 98 people who filed claims will receive their fair share of the funds, although the exact amount has yet to be determined. "We have gotten $997 million in proposed settlements before you - and it could be a billion before the end of the week," said Harley S. Tropin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We will be done. The money will be distributed. These victims will get some measure of relief." Hanzman said he originally expected far less to be paid out even though the attorneys had sought to collect $1 billion from the very start. The judge had initially called this "a longshot." Most recently, he said, "The result was achieved, and the speed is beyond extraordinary. When this case first came in this court I told everyone this wouldn't be business as usual. This was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions. If we didn't have the right people handling this case, it would be a ten-year slog with tens of millions in attorneys' fees." Plaintiffs settled with at least ten individuals and businesses, including the insurance companies of the security company for Champlain South, developers of the complex next door, engineers, architects, a law firm, and the condo's association. The defendants included 8701 Collins Development, Terra Group, Terra World Investments, John Moriarty and Associates of Florida, NV5, DeSimone Consulting Engineers, Stantec Architecture, Morabito Consultants, the law firm Becker, and Champlain Towers South Condominium Association. [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to July 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, FABIAN HUERTA, AND KOYAANA REDSTAR, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting in part the Ex Parte Application to Compel Charter Communications to Produce Pursuant to the Court's Ordered Protocols and to Continue Plaintiffs' Deadline for Class Certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to hear a Motion for Class Certification is continued to July 29, 2022. 2. The court REOPENS fact discovery solely for the purpose of allowing the Plaintiffs to bring their request for subscriber information as a discovery motion before Magistrate Judge Stevenson. The court expressly declines to consider whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient diligence or good cause for the requested discovery or whether Plaintiffs' request is reasonable. 3. Plaintiffs shall comply with all of Magistrate Judge Stevenson’s procedural requirements for the filing of discovery motions, as stated on her webpage, which is available at: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable- karen-l-stevenson. Plaintiff shall send Magistrate Judge Stevenson’s Courtroom Deputy an e-mail seeking a telephone conference with her court on or before May 6, 2022. 4. In light of this continuance, the parties are ordered meet and confer regarding a stipulation for the continuance of the remaining pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOcvbw at no extra charge.[CC] CLUB 360: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to September 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR MEHER; and DOES 1-10, Club 360 LLC et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order granting stipulation extending hearing on motion for class certification by 60 days. 1. The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is continued to September 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by July 26, 2022; 3. The Defendants shall file their Opposition by August 16, 2022; and 4. The Plaintiffs' shall file their Reply in Support by August 23, 2022. Club 360 offers personal training and fitness classes. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NgKkEF at no extra charge.[CC] COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Coca-Cola Consolidated workers were not paid proper overtime or for all their hours worked following a hack of Kronos timekeeping systems, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Taitum Marshall claims the Kronos hack last year led to "problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Coca-Cola Consolidated's organization." The hack caused workers who should not have been exempt from overtime under federal and state laws to be paid improperly, the class action lawsuit alleges. The Kronos hack "interfered" with Coca-Cola's ability to use its software to "track hours and pay employees," according to the class action. In the aftermath of the Kronos hack, meanwhile, Marshall claims Coca-Cola failed to temporarily implement its own system to "accurately record time and properly pay" non-exempt or salaried employees. "Instead, Coca-Cola Consolidated pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce," the lawsuit states. Coca-Cola Class Action Alleges Failure To Implement Accurate System Following Kronos Hack Marshall claims Coca-Cola issued paychecks using either "estimated" or "scheduled" hours or by simply duplicating paychecks from periods prior to the Kronos hack. "As a result of Coca-Cola Consolidated's failure to accurately track the actual hours worked each week, employees who were non-exempt and worked overtime were in many cases paid less than the hours they worked in the workweek, including overtime hours," the Coca-Cola class action states. While Coca-Cola has made good on some of the outstanding payments, the company still has not paid portions of earned wages to its workers, Marshall alleges. Marshall claims Coca-Cola is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and the Virginia Payment of Wage Law. He wants to represent a nationwide class along with Virginia and North Carolina subclasses of current or former Coca-Cola Consolidated non-exempt employees who worked for the company since the Kronos hack in December. Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of unpaid wages and liquidated damages for herself and all class members. A similar class action lawsuit was filed last month against PepsiCo over claims the company failed to properly compensate its workers in the aftermath of the Kronos hack. [GN] COLLECTO INC: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA DAVIS and CLARENCE DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00044 (S.D.W.Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification. On March 11, 2021, the Court entered the initial Scheduling Order, which set deadlines of: (i) November 12, 2021 for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification; (ii) discovery requests to be completed by January 21, 2022; and (iii) dispositive motions to be filed by August 8, 2022. On October 28, 2021, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to extend time for the Plaintiffs to File their Motion for Class Certification to January 21, 2022. On December 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery. While that motion was pending, which involved class discovery which would be necessary to support a motion for class certification, the parties agreed to a Joint Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to Move for Class Certification. On December 23, 2021, the Court granted the parties' second Joint Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File their Motion for Class Certification to May 20, 2022. Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lmNCds at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC 3566 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25526 Telephone: (304) 562-7111 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com - and - Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: 856-324-8219 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Lawrence J. Bartel, III, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI Three Logan Square, Suite 610 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Katlin C. Zarisky, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 316-2917 Facsimile: (412) 347-5461 E-mail: kzarisky@grsm.com COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Blair ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00254-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend expert deadlines and amend briefing schedule as follows: -- Defendants will produce by May 6, 2022 the supplemental written discovery agreed upon between counsel on April 28, 2022; -- the deadline for expert discovery is May 27, 2022; -- the deadline for Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is June 6, 2022; -- the deadline for Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' amended motion is June 27, 2022; and -- the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief in response to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' amended motion is July 11, 2022. Comprehensive Healthcare is a private company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lCSI5L at no extra charge.[CC] DANIEL LEBOLD: Hoelzer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HOELZER and all similarly situated individuals, v. DANIEL LEBOLD, Case No. 1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing her as class representative; 3. appointing New South Law Firm as class counsel; and 4. directing the University of North Carolina to produce the names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, job titles at the time of hire and termination, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within a reasonable time period of any Order granting this Motion. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FSkPHn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valerie L. Bateman, Esq. June K. Allison, Esq. NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM 209 Lloyd St., Ste 350 Carrboro, NC 27510 Telephone: (919) 810-3139 Facsimile: (919) 823-6383 E-mail: valerie@newsouthlawfirm June@newsouthlawfirm DELTA AIR: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Lomas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKIE LOMAS, ROXANDA YANCOR, JOSE ALVARADO, and MARIA ALVARADO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00786-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant submits the Application to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Delta's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Delta seeks to file under seal narrowly tailored portions of the below-listed documents: -- Declaration of Timothy P. Jung, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Delta's Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; -- Exhibit 1 (Expert Report of Christina M. Brunk, CFA, CRE, FRICS, dated 10 May 2, 2022) to the Declaration of Christina M. Brunk in Support of 11 Delta's Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Brunk Declaration); -- Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Nathan I. Cobb in support of Class Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and -- [Proposed] Order re Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Nathan I. Cobb in support of Class Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Delta is one of the major airlines of the United States and a legacy carrier. One of the world's oldest airlines in operation, Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yJXE0m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David K. Willingham, Esq. Arwen R. Johnson, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com arwen.johnson@kslaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Ellis, Esq. Autumn E. Lewis, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 405 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 710-3900 Facsimile: (212) 710-3950 E-mail: jeff.ellis@clydeco.us autumn.lewis@clydeco.us EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz's Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and YEKATERINA SKIDANENKO, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09856-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order: 1. granting Ms. Katz's motion for conditional certification of a collective of personal trainers who allegedly worked without proper compensation filed on Oct. 28, 2021; and 2. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Ms. Katz's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), filed on January 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs Monique Katz and Yekaterina Skidanenko bring this action against Equinox for failure to pay wages pursuant to federal, state, and city law, among other claims. Equinox is a nationwide fitness company with gyms throughout the State of New York. Equinox employs personal trainers at different tiers: Tier 1 and Tier 2 trainers (Low-Tier Trainers), who primarily perform floor shifts, including cleaning, demonstrating workouts, and recruiting members for private training; and Tier 3, Tier 3+, and Tier X trainers (High-Tier Trainers), who primarily perform private personal training sessions. Equinox hired Monique Katz as a Tier 1 personal trainer in August 2015; by August 2016 she had been promoted to Tier 3. Equinox hired Yekaterina Skidanenko as a Tier 1 personal trainer in July 2019; she stopped working due to an injury in October of that same year. Ms. Katz and Ms. Skidanenko assert claims of unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours, and unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York state and city laws. Ms. Katz also asserts that Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2615 et seq., by denying her benefits under the act and then retaliating against her for exercising her rights under the act. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ljD6Ud at no extra charge.[CC] EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bids to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LEE SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT MARTORELLO, and EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01651-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Armistead entered an order denying the defendants' motions to extend class certification deadlines and to issue subpoenas. The court finds that defendants have not shown "good cause" for extending the class certification discovery deadline, and the motion to extend the class certification deadlines is denied. Because the court finds that defendants have not shown good cause to extend the class-discovery deadline, and that deadline lapsed on April 11, 2022, the defendants' motion to issue the requested subpoenas is denied as moot. Smith alleges that Martorello orchestrated a lending scheme that charged Smith and other Oregonians usurious rates for short-term loans obtained online. Smith obtained a $1,500 loan online from his home in Banks, Oregon at an annual interest rate of 527 percent. Smith repaid his loan in four months and it cost him $4,353.69 in principal and interest. Smith received his loan from Big Picture, a lender ostensibly created and controlled by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a Native American tribe. Smith alleges that Martorello created Big Picture to insulate himself from liability and to rebrand his lending operation after an enforcement action was undertaken by the State of New York against Martorello and the Tribe's prior lending entities, Red Rock Tribal Lending and Bellicose Capital. Smith alleges Martorello owned and controlled Bellicose, and that Bellicose ran Red Rock's operations. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sI7DiH at no extra charge.[CC] EVOLUTION WELL: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Compensation.BLR.com reports that whether to pay any travel time for employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) can be complicated. Those who believe they should be compensated for the time often challenge nonpayment. A dispute over travel time with one individual can sometimes even blossom into a class action lawsuit involving a large number of current and former employees. An oilfield employer recently found itself battling exactly that sort of expanding lawsuit. Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC, provides a variety of oilfield services to the fracturing industry. Some employees are assigned to 14-day rotations while working at remote well sites. Before beginning each rotation, they traveled from their homes to housing provided by Evolution. After completing the 14-day rotations, they left the employer-provided housing and returned home. During the rotations, Evolution frequently held morning meetings with workers on-site at the employer-provided housing before they left for the worksite. The meetings, which generally lasted 15 to 20 minutes, included discussions with supervisors, temperature checks, and occasionally drug testing. Each day, employees traveled between the employer-provided housing to remote worksites. On average, the commute was a three-hour roundtrip. Employees claimed they performed some work tasks during their daily commute. Class Action Evolution employees and former employees are pursuing a class action lawsuit against the company, claiming they should have been paid for: -- Travel time to and from their homes to the employer-provided housing at the beginning and at the end of their 14-day rotations; -- The 15 to 20 minutes spent attending each morning meeting; and -- Travel time (three-hour roundtrip) spent each day between the employer-provided housing and a remote worksite. Although it remains to be seen whether the employees will be successful, at this point the court has conditionally approved them to move forward with their class action lawsuit against Evolution. Copley et al. v. Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC, Case No. 2:20-CV-1442-CCW (W.D. Pa., 2022). FLSA Considerations Under the FLSA, whether an employer is required to pay an employee for travel time depends on specific facts, such as: -- Whether travel is from home to work; -- Whether travel is to different worksites during the day; -- Whether travel is to a different city and returning the same day; -- Whether travel requires an overnight stay; -- Whether travel is during regular work hours; and -- Whether the employee performs work while traveling. The Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) Fact Sheet #22 provides a helpful summary of when travel time is compensable: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs22.pdf Check Your Travel Compensation Practices Under the FLSA, an employer's obligation to pay employees for some types of travel time, but not others, can be confusing. Increasingly, attorneys are targeting employers with potential class action lawsuits aimed at challenging a company's practices. Before that happens to you, audit your own travel pay practices. Make sure you are consistent on when travel time is paid and that your practices comply with the FLSA's requirements. Charlie Plumb is an attorney in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, office of McAfee & Taft where he represents management in all phases of employment law and labor relations. Much of his practice is dedicated to counseling employers on compliance with a broad range of state and federal employment laws and regulations and educating management on best practices for avoiding disputes arising from the employer/employee relationship. He can be reached at charlie.plumb@mcafeetaft.com. [GN] EXCELLUS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Fero Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW FERO, et al., v. EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-06569-EAW-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. 1. Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, including the Exhibits attached thereto, and Addendum, are approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and merit approval in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's consideration of the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). 2. Incorporation of Settlement Documents The Court expressly incorporates in this Final Approval Order and makes a part hereof the Settlement Agreement and exhibits, and the Addendum. 3. Class Definition The Court has certified an Injunctive Relief Class consisting of: "All individuals in the United States whose PII and/or PHI was stored in Excellus's systems between December 23, 2013 and May 11, 2015 who (1) are included in Excellus's list of Impacted Individuals and (2) whose PII and/or PHI currently resides in Excellus's systems." 4. Representative Plaintiffs Consistent with the Court's prior Order on class certification in this case, and the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Class Representatives Plaintiffs Matthew Fero, Roger A. Carroll, D.D.S., Andres Curbelo, Cindy Harden, Cathryn Kwit, Robert Kwit, Nina Mottern, Barbara Palmer, Carole Preston, James J. Smith, Jr., Sharon C. Smith, Dwayne Church, Don Korn, Therese Boomershine, Carlos Martinho, Harold Jackling, and Brenda Caltagarone ("Representative Plaintiffs") have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Injunctive Relief Class in enforcing their rights in the Action. 5. Class Counsel. The Court previously appointed Hadley Lundback Matarazzo (now Hadley E. Lundback) of Faraci Lange, LLP, and James J. Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. as Class Counsel and the Court confirms this appointment, finding that Class Counsel have adequately represented the class in all respects. Mr. Bilsborrow is now affiliated with the law firm Seeger Weiss LLP. Class Counsel are authorized to act on behalf of the Class Representatives and the Injunctive Relief Class, and to bind them all to the duties and obligations contained therein, which may be given pursuant to, or which are reasonably necessary to perform the Settlement Agreement. 6. Class Notice The Court finds that the Notice and Notice Program satisfied the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e), and fully comply with all laws and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, constituting the best notice that was practicable under the circumstances of this case, particularly given that notice is not required for a Rule 23(b)(2) class. 7. Objections No objections to the Settlement, the Settlement Benefits, Service Awards, and/or the Attorneys' Fee Award and Costs have been received by the Court, by any Injunctive Relief Settlement Class Member, nor any cause shown as to why the Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, why a final judgment should not be entered thereon, why the Settlement Benefits should not be approved, or why the Service Awards and/or the Attorneys' Fee Award and Costs should not be granted. 8. Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and Plaintiffs' Service Awards In accordance with Section VI of the Settlement Agreement, and requested in Plaintiffs' Application for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards, the Court orders that within 15 days following the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants pay Class Counsel $4,350,000.00, representing the sum total of the Court- approved Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and Plaintiffs' Service Awards, as follows: a. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,554,500.00. b. Class Counsel is awarded $700,000.00 in Litigation Costs and Expenses. c. Representative Plaintiffs are awarded $95,500.00 in Service Awards. 9. Release The Court finds that the Release set forth in ¶ 5.2 of the Settlement Agreement, as modified through the parties' Addendum to the Agreement, dated March 29, 2022, is valid and enforceable. Excellus BlueCross BlueShield a non-profit health insurance company headquartered in Rochester, New York. It is part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syq3T2 at no extra charge.[CC] FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been certified by the B.C. Supreme Court in Moretti et al. v. Facebook, Inc. S.C.B.C. No. VLC S-1813727 against Sony Group Corporation and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd for settlement purposes only on January 19, 2022. This class action has been certified against Sony Group Corporation and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. only on behalf of all Facebook users in Canada between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2018. The lawsuit is continuing against Facebook and the other remaining Defendants. What is the class action about? The lawsuit alleges that Facebook secretly gave major device manufacturers access to users' personal information, without users' knowledge or consent and in breach of their privacy. The Court has appointed Concetta Moretti, Christopher Chow, Elizabeth Chartrand and Jill Dockrill as representative plaintiffs. Through this settlement, neither Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., nor Sony Group Corporation, nor any of their affiliates are admitting liability. Facebook and the other Defendants deny the allegations, which have not been proven, and are defending the lawsuit. Where can I find more information? Settlement documents, opt-out forms, and court documents are available on https://www.callkleinlawyers.com/class-actions/facebook-device-manufacturers-class-action/. For more information, please contact class counsel: Mathew P. Good Law Corporation and Klein Lawyers LLP dtanjuatco@callkleinlawyers.com and 604-874-7171. [GN] FEDEX GROUND: Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kawaski Corley v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00429-ODW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply and directing Supplemental Briefing on Retroactivity of ABC Test Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed and under submission. The Court received and reviewed FedEx's Application for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in opposition to the Motion. The Court finds no need for the proposed sur-reply. In reviewing the Motion for Class Certification, the Court finds that additional briefing on a particular topic is necessary. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3whYlfq at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. ("FHS" or the "Company") (NYSE: FHS) American Depository Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). FHS investors have until July 11, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your FHS investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In March 2021, FHS conducted its IPO, selling 7.5 million ADSs at $10 per ADS. On May 12, 2021, media reported that the impending crackdown by the Chinese government on the online education industry would be more drastic than previously reported. Anticipated regulations included banning on-campus tutoring classes and weekend tutoring, as well as industry-wide fee limitations. Then, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its education sector, banning for-profit teaching and tutoring companies. On July 26, 2021, FHS issued a press release stating that it would "follow the spirit of the Opinion and comply with all relevant rules and regulations in providing high school education services." Then, on September 28, 2021, FHS announced its financial results for the first half of 2021, revealing a 7.7% decrease in year-over-year revenue. Then, on April 5, 2022, FHS issued a press release announcing that the Company had received a letter from the NYSE stating that the Company was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity had fallen below compliance standards. Then, on May 3, 2022, FHS disclosed that it would not be able to timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F. By May 10, 2022, FHS ADSs closed below $1 per ADS, over 90% below the IPO price, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education and its business; (2) that contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new educational facilities which would have a negative effect on First High-School Education's enrollment and growth; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired FHS ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than July 11, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 16 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to First High-School Education's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Commenced on May 11, 2022 in the Sothern District of New York, the First High-School Education class action lawsuit -- captioned Dagan Investments LLC v. First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd., No. 22-cv-03831 -- charges First High-School Education, certain of its top executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the First High-School Education class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-class-action-fhs,join.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the First High-School Education class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 11, 2022. CASE ALLEGATIONS: First High-School Education provides tutoring services and operates private high schools in Western China. In the week immediately prior to the IPO -- from March 4, 2021 through March 11, 2021 -- China held its annual "Two Sessions" parliamentary meetings, where the two main political bodies of China meet, discuss, and reveal plans for China's policies involving the economy, military, trade, diplomacy, education, the environment, and other issues. Unbeknownst to investors until after the IPO, Chinese government leaders in attendance at the Two Sessions meetings had proposed – and ultimately adopted – stringent regulations governing the educational industry with material adverse repercussions for First High-School Education's business, operations, and financial prospects. Specifically, the First High-School Education class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement made inaccurate statements of material fact because defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO: (i) that the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education and its business; (ii) that contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new educational facilities which would have a negative effect on First High-School Education's enrollment and growth; and (iii) that, as a result, the Registration Statement's representations regarding First High-School Education's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of First High-School Education at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and misleading and lacked a factual basis. Soon after the IPO, media reports stated that attendees of the Two Sessions conference had proposed stricter regulations to rein in the for-profit education industry, such as regulations aimed at enhancing teacher quality, limiting fee scams, reducing market abuse, and reducing the stress that for-profit educational companies had placed on students in the Chinese educational system. On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that the impending government crackdown on for-profit educational companies in China would be much more drastic and far reaching than previously publicly known. Sources stated that anticipated rules would include measures such as banning on-campus tutoring classes, prohibiting tutoring services during weekend hours, and the imposition of industry-wide fee limitations. Then, on May 14, 2021, China's state council announced rules that it would further tighten regulations on compulsory education and training institutions. According to an article on fitchratings.com titled "Legal Changes in Private Education in China: Rising Risks for K-12 Education Companies; Higher-Education Providers Benefit," the new rules "aim to prohibit profit-making in compulsory education," and "expose K-12 school operators to heightened regulatory risks and their revenue growth may slow . . . until they obtain more clarity on how the changes will be implemented." Thereafter, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its education sector, banning companies that teach the school curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public. These drastic measures effectively ended any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring sector in China. Two months later, on September 28, 2021, First High-School Education revealed that its first half of 2021 revenue was RMB231.9 million, a year-over-year increase of only 24.8%, a steep drop from the 30.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the first nine months of 2020, and the 32.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the full year 2020. The following month, on October 13, 2021, First High-School Education issued a release announcing that its CFO, defendant Lidong Zhu, had resigned as CFO. And on December 16, 2021, First High-School Education announced that it had dismissed its auditor KPMG Huazhen LLP. On April 5, 2022, First High-School Education announced that it had received a letter from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") stating that it was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity had fallen below compliance standards. The following week, on April 13, 2022, First High-School Education announced that its total revenues for 2021 were just RMB400.2 million, representing a substantial deceleration in the second half of the year. The release also stated that First High-School Education's total student enrollment had remained almost unchanged at 21,247 students at year's end, representing a paltry 3% increase year-over-year, and that First High-School Education's gross profit had declined 18.1% during the year. Finally, on May 3, 2022, First High-School Education filed a notice with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it would not be able to timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F. By May 10, 2022, First High-School Education ADSs closed below $1 per ADS -- more than 90% below the price at which First High-School Education ADSs were sold to the investing public a little more than one year previously. At the time of the filing of this complaint, the price of First High-School Education ADSs has remained significantly below the IPO price. You can view a copy of the complaint by visiting the following link: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-class-action-fhs.html THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased First High-School Education ADSs in or traceable to the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the First High-School Education class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the First High-School Education class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the First High-School Education class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the First High-School Education class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9 billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds first investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) American Depository Shares in the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. FHS operates private high schools in Western China and provides for-profit tutoring services. If you would like more information about First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd's misconduct, click here. What is this Case About: First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (FHS) Misled Investors in Connection with the Company's IPO According to the complaint, the Registration Statement in support of the Company's IPO highlighted the Company's "steady growth" and stated that FHS is "well-positioned to seize the enormous and sustainable demand for high-quality high schools in China." The Registration Statement also stated that the private secondary education industry in China experienced a "CAGR of 18.4%" from 2014 to 2019 and was on track to achieve a "CAGR of 24.9%" from 2019 to 2024, and represented that this sustained growth was due to a variety of positive factors impacting FHS's business. However, defendants failed to disclose certain adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO. Specifically, that the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings - held prior to the IPO - were far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material adverse threat to the Company and its business. Further, contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new educational facilities, which would have a negative effect on FHS's enrollment and growth. In complying with the new policies, FHS took a financial hit. On April 5, 2022, FHS issued a press release announcing it had received a letter from the NYSE stating that the Company was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity had fallen below compliance standards. On May 3, 2022, FHS filed a notice with the SEC that it would not be able to timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F. On May 10, 2022, FHS ADSs closed below $1 per ADS - more than 90% below the price at which they were sold just more than one year previously. Next Steps: If you acquired shares of First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. pursuant to the Company's March 2021 IPO, you have until July 11, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses.[GN] GAMESTOP CORP: Worker Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Carpenter reports that a former GameStop worker is suing the video game retail company for allegedly violating New York Labor Law. The proposed class action suit was filed in New York's eastern district court by Trevon Mack, a GameStop retail worker employed from 2016 to 2020. Mack and his lawyer said in the lawsuit that GameStop workers qualify as "manual laborers," meaning that 25% of their job requires them to do manual labor, like organizing stockrooms, moving packages, and standing for a long shift. GameStop allegedly pays their workers every other week, but New York Labor Law Section 191 requires companies to pay workers classified as manual laborers every week. In not doing so, the suit alleged that GameStop is violating labor law in the state. The state defines a manual worker as "a mechanic, workingman, or laborer," which has been interpreted as a worker doing "physical labor" for more than 25% of their working day. New York's Department of Labor includes "countless physical tasks performed by employees" as physical labor, according to an FAQ page on the government website. The broad nature of that definition seems to be what causes confusion among workplaces. Companies are able to skirt these rules if they're large enough, but have to apply for that exemption. The proposed class action suit could include "hundreds, if not thousands" of employees and former GameStop workers. Mack and his lawyer want the court to define GameStop workers as manual laborers - and then GameStop will have to pay. Neither GameStop nor Mack's lawyers have responded to Polygon's request for comment. These sorts of lawsuits are common in New York. This year alone, Cheesecake Factory, Wal-Mart, Party City, Apple, Urban Outfitters, and plenty others have been served over the same violations. Most of these cases are ongoing, though some have been dismissed. Outside of court, GameStop itself has had a turbulent past few years - the company faced an existential crisis around 2020 as it started closing hundreds of stores amid a push toward digital-only sales. After a board refresh in 2021, the company saw an expected and chaotic boost by meme stock trading - also known as GameStonk - that dramatically increased GameStop's stock price. Despite struggling in earnings, GameStop's stocks continue to bounce around, reaching record highs as recent as last month, Kotaku reported. In the past few years, GameStop workers have faced dire working conditions and extreme pressure from "desperate bosses." GameStop workers alleged that the company failed to adequately protect its workers during the COVID-19 pandemic - including staying open when the store should have been closed with other non-essential businesses. GameStop also reportedly owes $30 million to Boston-based consulting firm Boston Consulting Group, which filed a lawsuit against the retail company in March.[GN] GEICO INDEMNITY: Must Face Georgia Policyholders' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes,writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that GEICO Indemnity Co. must face certified class claims by Georgia policyholders alleging it didn't pay the full replacement costs on total-loss car insurance claims, the Middle District of Georgia ruled. Whether the company breached its contractual obligations to its customers by failing to pay sufficient title ad valorem tax -- the tax paid when a customer buys a car -- is common to all members and capable of classwide resolution, Judge Marc T. Treadwell wrote for the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffs estimate the class will number in the tens of thousands. [GN] GEICO: Pimentel Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Nixed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PIMENTEL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge David C. Keesler entered an order that "Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses" is denied without prejudice. The Court further ordered that the "Plaintiff's motion To modify scheduling order" is denied without prejudice. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not sought conditional class certification. Under these circumstances, the undersigned will decline to extend the case deadlines or expand the scope of discovery in this action in a manner that is inconsistent with Judge Conrad's clear expectations for this case. Rather, the undersigned finds that these motions should be denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing revised motions, if necessary, that seek discovery and/or additional time consistent with the "Pretrial Order," and/or without prejudice to renewed motions if the Court later allows a request to expand the scope of this case. The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF35NO at no extra charge.[CC] GOLUB CORP: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to July 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin v. The Golub Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00778 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an order that: -- Deadline for completion of June 6, 2022 Mandatory Mediation is: -- Deadline to file a Class July 6, 2022 Certification Motion is extended to: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Golub Corporation is an American supermarket operator. Headquartered in Schenectady, New York, it owns the chains Market 32 and Price Chopper Supermarkets. The company opened its first supermarkets in New York's Capital District in 1932, and changed its name from Central Market to Price Chopper in 1973.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over DeepMind NHS Patient Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch+, reports that Google is facing a new class-action style lawsuit in the U.K. in relation to a health data scandal that broke back in 2016, when it emerged that its AI division, DeepMind, had been passed data on more than a million patients as part of an app development project by the Royal Free NHS Trust in London -- without the patients' knowledge or consent. The Trust was later sanctioned by the U.K.'s data protection watchdog which found, in mid 2017, that it had breached U.K. data protection law when it signed the 2015 data-sharing deal with DeepMind. However the tech firm -- which had been engaged by the Trust to help develop an app wrapper for an NHS algorithm to alert clinicians to the early signs of acute kidney injury (aka the Streams app) -- avoided sanction since the Trust had been directly responsible for sending it the patients' data. So it's interesting that this private litigation is targeting Google and DeepMind Technologies, several years later. (Albeit, if a claim seeking damages against one of the world's most valuable companies prevails there is likely to be considerably more upside vs litigation aimed at a publicly funded healthcare Trust.) Mishcon de Reya, the law firm that's been engaged to represent the sole named claimant, a man called Andrew Prismall -- who says he's bringing the suit on behalf of approximately 1.6 million individuals whose records were passed to DeepMind -- said the litigation will seek damages for unlawful use of patients' confidential medical records. The claim is being brought in the High Court of Justice of England & Wales. The law firm also confirmed that the Royal Free is not being sued. "The claim is for Misuse of Private Information by Google and DeepMind. This is under common law," a spokeswoman for Mishcon de Reya told us. "We can also confirm this is a damages claim." A similar claim, announced last September, was discontinued, according to the spokeswoman -- who confirmed: "This is a new claim for the misuse of private information." In a statement on why he's suing Google/DeepMind, Prismall said: "I hope that this case can achieve a fair outcome and closure for the many patients whose confidential records were -- without the patients' knowledge -- obtained and used by these large tech companies." "This claim is particularly important as it should provide some much-needed clarity as to the proper parameters in which technology companies can be allowed to access and make use of private health information," added Ben Lasserson, partner at Mishcon de Reya, in another supporting statement. The firm notes that the litigation is being funded by a litigation finance agreement with Litigation Capital Management Ltd, a Sydney, Australia headquartered entity which it describes as an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally. Google was contacted for comment on the new suit but at the time of writing the adtech giant had not responded. There has been an uptake in class-action style litigations targeting tech giants over misuse of data in Europe, although a number have focused on trying to bring claims under data protection law. One such case, a long-running consumer class action-style suit in the U.K. against Google related to a historic overriding of Safari users' privacy settings, failed in the U.K. Supreme Court last year. However Prismall is (now) suing for damages under the common law tort of misuse of private information so the failure of that earlier U.K. case does not necessarily have strong relevance here. It does appear to explain why the earlier suit was discontinued and a fresh one filed, though. "It's correct that the previous claim was brought on the basis of a breach to the Data Protection Act and the new claim is being brought on a for misuse of private information," Mishcon de Reya's spokeswoman told us when we asked about this. While the DeepMind NHS patient data scandal may seem like (very) old news, there was plenty of criticism of the regulatory response at the time -- as the Trust itself did not face anything more than reputational damage. It was not, for example, ordered to tell DeepMind to delete patient data -- and DeepMind was able to carry on inking deals with other NHS Trusts to roll out the app despite it having been developed without a valid legal basis to use the patient data in the first place. And while DeepMind had defended itself against privacy concerns attached to its adtech parent Google, claiming the latter would have no access to the sensitive medical data after the scandal broke, it subsequently handed off its health division to Google, in 2018, meaning the adtech giant directly took over the role of supplying and supporting the app for NHS Trusts and processing patients' data… (Which may be why both Google and DeepMind Technologies are named in the suit.) There was also the issue of the memorandum of understanding inked between DeepMind and the Royal Free which set out a five-year plan to build AI models using NHS patient data. Though DeepMind always claimed no patient data had been processed for AI. In a further twist to the saga last summer, Google announced it would be shuttering the Streams app -- which, at the time, was still being used by the Royal Free NHS Trust. The Trust claimed it would continue using the app despite Google announcing its intention to decommission it -- raising questions over the security of patient data once support (e.g. security patching) got withdrawn by Google. While the tech giant may have been hoping to put the whole saga behind it by quietly shuttering Streams it will now either have to defend itself in court, generating fresh publicity for the 2015 NHS data misuse scandal -- or offer to settle in order to make the suit go away quietly. (And the litigation funders are, presumably, sniffing enough opportunity either way.) The backlash against market-dominating tech giants continues to fuel other types of class-action style lawsuits. Earlier this year, for example, a major suit was launched against Facebook's parent, Meta, seeking billions in damages for alleged abuse of U.K. competition law. But the jury is out on which -- or whether -- representative actions targeting tech giants' data processing habits will prevail. [GN] GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL: Smith Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSUNTOKA SMITH, et al., v. WARDEN, D. BLACKBURN, JUSTIN SEGERSTROM, D. BROOKS, KELLY REIGNIER, MAZIN ALSHAKHLY, HSU, TALLIER, WESLAFF, RUSSEL, MICHAEL, and METTNER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00330-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order that Osuntoka Smith is assessed $12.43 as an initial partial payment of the $350.00 fee for filing this case. On or before May 20, 2022, he must submit a check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court in the amount of $12.43 or advise the court in writing why he is not able to submit the assessed amount. To the extent that he does not have enough money in his regular account to make the initial partial payment, he is responsible for making arrangements with authorities to pay the remainder of the initial partial filing fee from the plaintiff's release account. He is advised that the language of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(1) suggests that a prisoner's release account may be invaded to satisfy an initial partial filing fee only if insufficient funds are available in his regular account. The Court further ordered that: -- if Osuntoka Smith fails to make the initial partial payment or show cause for failure to do so on or before May 20, 2022, this case may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. -- a copy of this order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where the inmate is confined. -- no further action will be taken in this case until the clerk's office receives Osuntoka Smith’s initial partial filing fee as directed above and the court has screened the complaint as required by the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. Once the screening process is complete, a separate order will issue. -- Osuntoka Smith's motion to certify case as a class action is denied. -- any plaintiff, other than Osuntoka Smith, who wants to drop out of the case must notify the court by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court on or before May 20, 2022. Any plaintiff, other than Osuntoka Smith, who drops out of the case on or before May 20, 2022, will not have to pay the filing fee for this case and will avoid risking a strike. The Plaintiff Smith, who is confined at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, has filed a pro se complaint, a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion for class certification. This order assesses an initial partial filing fee for Osuntoka Smith and denies his motion for class certification. This order also serves as notice to the plaintiffs of the risks and implications of multi-plaintiff lawsuits, and it provides all plaintiffs, other than Osuntoka Smith, an opportunity drop out of the case without incurring the filing fee. Green Bay Correctional Institution is an adult male maximum-security correctional facility operated by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Division of Adult Institutions in Allouez, Wisconsin. The prison is located along the east bank of the Fox River. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldLXXJ at no extra charge.[CC] HALL FERRY: Tierney Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TIERNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HALL FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00828-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification; 2. conditionally certifying a class of: "All current and former delivery driver employees of Halls Ferry Pizza, Inc. for the period of three years prior to July 9, 2021 to the present;" 3. conditionally authorizing Plaintiff Joseph Tierney to act as class representative; 4. authorizing Dolley Law, LLC to act as class counsel; 5. directing the Defendant, no later than May 17, 2022, to produce and provide to Plaintiff's counsel, in a reasonably useable format, a data file containing the names, last-known addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and dates of employment of all class members to facilitate notice of this pending action; 6. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form; 7. directing the Plaintiff to send the notice and consent form to all identified persons within 14 days of receiving the information from the Defendant; 8. giving potential class members 60 days after the mailing of the notices to opt-in to this case; and 9. denying the Plaintiff's motion for entry of Proposed Order. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39WirmQ at no extra charge.[CC] HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Stay of Class Cert. Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH GERMAN, and ASHLYN HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Great Clips – HEI, Case No. 1:19-cv-03540-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order staying briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Defendant's Objection to Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order, and Defendant's Motion to Decertify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action. On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The Defendant filed a Response in opposition to that Motion on April 20, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Reply is currently due on May 4, 2022. The Defendant filed its Objection to Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order on April 13, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a Response to that Motion on April 27, 2022. The Defendant's Reply is currently due on May 11, 2022. The Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective on April 19, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Response to that Motion is currently due on May 10, 2022. The parties conferred, and they believe that it is in the interest of all parties, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, to temporarily stay briefing on the Pending Motions so that they may conserve judicial and financial resources and focus on attempting to resolve this matter through mediation to avoid continued and costly litigation. The parties also jointly agree that expending the significant costs related to briefing the Pending Motions may impact whether mediation is ultimately successful. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NjyZn7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Claire E. Hunter, Esq. Shelby Woods, Esq. Adam M. Harrison, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 730 17th Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 255-0370 Facsimile: (720) 668-8989 E-mail: chunter@hkm.com swoods@hkm.com aharrison@hkm.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua F. Bugos, Esq. Marisa B. Hudson-Arney, Esq. CONDIT CSAJAGHY LLC 695 S. Colorado Blvd, Suite 270 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (720) 287-6606 E-mail: josh@cclawcolorado.com marisa@cclawcolorado.com HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Seeks to Partially Dismiss Shaw's SAC --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw v. HORNBLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10408-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Hornblower's contemplated motion to partially dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, partially denying class certification on a preemptive basis. The Plaintiffs Shaw and Press seek to pursue WARN Act claims, individually and on a class basis, related to the two sites of employment at which they worked. For now, Hornblower does not seek dismissal of those claims. In addition, however, Shaw and Press seek to also pursue WARN Act claims, on a class basis, on behalf of hundreds of Hornblower employees at various locations across the country where Shaw and Press never worked. These claims are subject to dismissal, or preemptive class certification denial, because: (1) Plaintiffs' allegations that the WARN Act was triggered at other work locations are insufficiently pled; and (2) Plaintiffs' individual WARN Act claims, as a matter of law, cannot be common with or typical of WARN Act claims of employees at other sites of employment. As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff Clyve Shaw worked as a sales manager for Hornblower, based at Hornblower's Chelsea Piers Pier 62 location in New York City. The Plaintiff Kenardro Press worked as a deckhand for Hornblower, based at Hornblower's Navy Pier location in Chicago. Both employees were furloughed in March 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Shaw was notified of his layoff on August 17, 2020.They bring this action under the federal, New York, and Illinois WARN Acts seeking to represent a class of "hundreds" of former Hornblower employees "throughout [the] United States," "throughout New York State," and "throughout the State of Illinois," "who were not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination and whose employment was terminated as a result of a 'mass layoff' or 'plant closing'" under those statutes. Their purported classes include hundreds of former Hornblower employees who worked at sites across the country distinct from the two sites where Plaintiffs worked. The Plaintiffs do not even try to identify the particular worksites across the country at which they alleged WARN Act violations occurred. Rather, they give "examples" of cities at which they believe violations may have occurred, and allege that information showing purported violations will be "reflected in records maintained by Defendant." The Plaintiffs assert that there are "questions of law and fact common to members" of the three classes they purport to represent (a nationwide federal WARN Act Class, a statewide New York WARN Act Class, and a statewide Illinois WARN Act Class). A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FQk94Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Shawn Matthew Clark, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: (212) 497-6840 Facsimile: (212) 583-9600 E-mail: smclark@littler.com ILLINOIS: Fling of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRIE WALLACE, and RAVAEL E. SANTOS, JR.,v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01513 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order that: -- Deadlines/Hearings Motion for Jan. 6, 2023 Class Certification due: -- Presumptive Trial Month set September 2023 for: On August 17, 2018, Plaintiffs Rafael Santos, Jr. and Corrie Wallace, inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) who are currently housed at Menard Correctional Center, filed their original Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that at various times they have been housed in constitutionally deficient cells located within the North I and North II cell houses at Menard. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that investors with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities fraud class action lawsuit against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. ("Innovative Industrial Properties" or the "Company") (NYSE: IIPR). Class Period: May 7, 2020 - April 13, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2022 Investors suffering losses on their Innovative Industrial Properties investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a real estate investment trust; (2) that the true values of the Company's properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top customers; (4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue making payments to the Company, which would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] INT'L BUSINESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) Class Period: April 4, 2017 - October 20, 2021 Deadline: June 6, 2022 For more info: www.bgandg.com/ibm. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose that: (1) Strategic Imperatives Revenue and growth, CAMS and CAMS Components' revenue and growth, and the Company's Segments' revenue and growth were artificially inflated as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (2) the Company's present success and positive future growth prospects concerning its Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a result (3) misled the market by portraying the Company's Strategic Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more favorable than they actually were as a result of the fraudulent scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives. ABBVie, Inc. (NYSE:ABBV) Class Period: April 30, 2021 - August 31, 2021 Deadline: June 6, 2022 For more info: www.bgandg.com/abbv The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, about the company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) safety concerns about Xeljanz extended to Rinvoq and other JAK inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3) therefore, Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of AbbVie's securities, AbbVie investors have suffered significant damages. Twitter, Inc. (NYSE:TWTR) Class Period: March 24, 2022 - April 1, 2022 Deadline: June 13, 2022 For more info: www.bgandg.com/twtr. On April 4, 2022, Elon Musk announced that he had purchased over 73 million shares of Twitter stock - a 9.2% stake in the Twitter. Following this news, Twitter stock surged on April 4, 2022, closing 27% higher than its closing price the previous day. The complaint alleges that by failing to timely disclose his ownership stake, Musk was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the Class Period. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] JK ENTERPRISE: Begley Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL BEGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JK ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED dba CABARET II, an Oregon Corporation; JOSEPHINE JABRA KIRAZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order granting in part the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The court denies the implementation of plaintiff's proposed order and use of the proposed notice and instead directs the parties to confer and finalize a notice and proposed order that is (1) in accordance with this opinion and (2) distributed by a mutually agreed-upon third-party claims administrator. The Plaintiff Begley brings this putative collective action against the defendants. The Complaint describes the collective action members as "all current and former exotic dancers who worked at the Cabaret II at any time starting three years before this Complaint was filed, up to the present." The Complaint alleges four violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): failure to pay minimum wages, requiring illegal kickbacks, unlawfully taking tips, and forced tip sharing. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCbeyT at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Narguess Noohi Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following class: "All persons, who, between April 17, 2016 and the date of class certification, purchased one or more Neutrogena Oil Free Moisture Sensitive Skin products in the state of California." The Plaintiff will also move the Court for: -- injunctive relief; -- appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel; and -- oral argument. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research and development of products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yGG4KD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noohi Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff applies for leave of Court to file documents under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5-5.2.2(b). The documents were designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by the Defendant such that L.R. 79-5.2.2(b) governs the Plaintiff's application. On June 14, 2021, the Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. entered an order granting the Parties Stipulated Protective Order. The Stipulated Protective Order permits designation as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEY EYES ONLY" documents and information that the Designating Party believes would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury if disclosed. On April 28, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff telephonically met and conferred with counsel for the Defendant to meet and confer under L.R. 79-5.2.2(b) with regards to filing the application for leave to file under seal documents designated by Defendant as Confidential or Attorney Eyes Only. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research and development of products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a8CChC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Vasquez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: 1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment and decertification is denied; 2. The case is stayed pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., Cal. S. Ct. Docket No. S258966; 3. All currently set dates and deadlines, including the June 7, 2022 trial date, are vacated; 4. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within 21 days of resolution of Naranjo by the California Supreme Court. This class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke and Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company. On March 30, 2020, the Court certified Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call" during their meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Decertification with respect to Plaintiffs' "on-call" break claim. Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wvIlpj at no extra charge.[CC] LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming June 20, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a Peridot Acquisition Corp. ("Li-Cycle" or the "Company") (NYSE: LICY) securities between February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Li-Cycle investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/li-cycle-holdings-corp/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On August 10, 2021, Li-Cycle merged with special purpose acquisition company, Peridot Acquisition Corp. On March 24, 2022, Blue Orca Capital published a report which described Li-Cycle as a "near fatal combination of stock promotion, laughable governance, a broken business hemorrhaging cash and highly questionable Enron-like accounting." The report also alleged, among other things, that Li-Cycle had "diverted $529,902 in investor capital to the family [] of its founders through a series of highly questionable related party payments," and that its "cash burn is so severe and far above previous guidance" which "will require the Company to raise at least $1 billion . . . in large part by massively diluting current shareholders." The Report further stated that the Company's largest customer, Traxys, is not actually a customer, but a "broker or marketing partner that on-sells Li-Cycle's black mass to end buyers," and that "not only is Traxys not the end buyer, but the revenue recognized by Li-Cycle is merely Li-Cycle's initial estimate of the price of the product it expects to receive from the end customer once the final deal is complete." On this news, Li-Cycle's stock fell $0.47, or 5.6%, to close at $7.93 per share on March 24, 2022, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Li-Cycles largest customer, Traxys North America LLC, is not actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working capital financial to the Company while Traxys tries to sell Li-Cycles product to end customers; (2) the Company engaged in highly questionable related party transactions; (3) the Company's mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the Company's reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables on products that had not been sold; (5) the Company's gross margins have likely been negative since inception; (6) the Company will require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned growth (which is a figure greater than the Company raised via the merger); and (7) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 20, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] LUCID GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 31 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LCID) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Lucid investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27397&wire=4 LCID investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Lucid's business and operations. Specifically, the Company overstated its production capabilities while concealing that "extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges" were hampering Lucid's operations. As a result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of Lucid's common stock, Lucid investors have suffered significant damages. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Lucid during the relevant time frame, you have until May 31, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. [GN] LUCID GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Attention Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid") (NASDAQ: LCID) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Lucid, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27214&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Lucid's business and operations. Specifically, the Company overstated its production capabilities while concealing that "extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges" were hampering Lucid's operations. As a result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of Lucid's common stock, Lucid investors have suffered significant damages. DEADLINE: May 31, 2022 Aggrieved Lucid investors only have until May 31, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] MADISON COUNTY, IN: Inmates Class Settlement Gets Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that each member of the class action lawsuit filed against the Madison County Sheriff's Department will receive $28 per hour they were detained longer than 48 hours without a warrant. United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Judge Sarah Barker approved a settlement agreement on May 16. The lawsuit filed in 2017 alleged that people were arrested without a warrant and detained in the Madison County jail for 48 hours or longer without a court appearance or notification of the charges. Mark Long contacted the law firm about filing a lawsuit against the county and it was determined that other people were detained on a warrantless arrest for more than 48 hours without a judicial determination that probable cause existed. People included in the class can file for a special damage award if they lost a job while incarcerated or suffered physical or psychological damages. The settlement agreement calls for Madison County through its insurance carrier to pay $417,012 for 354 members of the class and $200,000 for 18 people that have requested special damages which will be determined by a special master appointed by the court. Each of the 354 members of the class will receive a minimum of $1,344. Judge Barker also approved $350,000 for the Fort Wayne law firm of Christopher Myer & Associates that brought the lawsuit started by Mark Long. Long will receive an additional $5,000. Barker said there were 477 people identified in the class and 123 were not able to be contacted and not included in the settlement agreement. She ordered the settlement funds be deposited within the next 30 days so the distribution to members of the class can begin. "The agreed amount represents a good settlement," Barker said. "There is a good rate of recovery at $28 per hour." Barker said the lawsuit was an important case because it included significant civil rights violations. "I commend both sides for hammering out an agreement," she said. "It's important that county sheriffs, not just in Madison County, keep careful records of when people are detained," Barker said. "There is a larger good that has been accomplished." Judge Barker noted that Myer & Associates have filed 11 class action lawsuits against county sheriff departments concerning the detaining of inmates for 48 hours or longer without a warrant being served or a hearing taking place. [GN] MATCH GROUP: Must File Class Certification Response by May 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crutchfield v. Match Group Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02356 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for amended briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Defendants shall file their May 25, 2022 response by: -- Any reply, if necessary, shall July 13, 2022 be filed by: The nature of suit states Contract -- Stockholders Suits. Match Group is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, Ship, and OurTime, totalling over 45 global dating companies.[CC] MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal or with Redactions ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Sonneveldt, et al., v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants submit an Application for an order permitting them to file the following documents under seal or with redactions, as applicable: -- Portions of Exhibit A to Defendant's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D; -- Portions of Defendants' Memorandum in support of their Motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D; -- Portions of Exhibits 1 and 21 to the Declaration of Darlene M. Cho in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and -- Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 attached to the Declaration of Darlene M. Cho in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On April 29, 2022, Defendants filed with the Court unsealed or unredacted versions of the foregoing documents and served unsealed or unredacted versions of the foregoing documents on Plaintiffs' counsel. Contemporaneously with this filing, Defendants have served on Plaintiffs' counsel a copy of the Cho Decl. and unsealed or unredacted versions of all documents, except that all personally-identifying information has been redacted from the documents. In addition, the Defendants have on Ford's counsel a copy of the Cho Decl. and unredacted versions of Exhibit A to Defendant's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D, Defendants' Memorandum in support of their Motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D, and Exhibits 1 and 21 to the Declaration of Darlene M. Cho in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, except that all personally-identifying information were redacted from the documents. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39VhLhx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Mark D. Campbell, Esq. Darlene M. Cho, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mmallow@shb.com mdcampbell@shb.com dcho@shb.com MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Burgers' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklyn Magazine reports that a New York man is asking "Where's the beef?" and is taking McDonald's and Wendy's to court for answers. Justin Chimienti filed a class action lawsuit in a Brooklyn court against McDonald's and Wendy's, accusing the fast food giants of falsely advertising how big and juicy their burgers are. The patties in question are McDonald's Big Mac and Wendy's Bourbon Bacon Cheeseburger, both of which Chimienti said they weren't as voluptuous as advertised. He's accusing the chains of using undercooked patties in their ads, which makes the burgers 15 percent to 20 percent larger than what customers are served. Chimienti's is complaining that the meat shrinks 25 percent when they're cooked. In the 35-page complaint, which comes just 50 days after a similar suit leveled at Burger King, he says their ads are "unfair and financially damaging consumers as they are receiving food that is much lower in value than what is being promised." Chimienti puts an altruistic spin on his lawsuit, alleging the chains' "actions are especially concerning now that inflation, food, and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially lower income consumers, are struggling financially." He's seeking a whopping $50 million in damages. However, he's "unlikely" to win, according to at least one expert. The court will seek out customers personally victimized by the less-than-impressive meat. "Both of those are an uphill battle for the plaintiff to prove," Mark Bartholomew, law professor at the University of Buffalo in New York, said, adding that the companies could argue that the public expects some "exaggeration" in their ads. [GN] MED-DATA INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 4 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE TOKARSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MED-DATA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00631-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order that the current deadlines regarding class certification are extended by 60 days, as follows: Current New Deadline Deadline -- Deadline for Plaintiffs May 6, 2022 Aug. 4, 2022 to File their Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Defendants' June 3, 2022 Sept. 1, 2022 Response to the Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' June 24, 2022 Sept. 22, 2022 Reply to the Motion for Class Certification: MedData provides medical revenue cycle management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3llnCz7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, are: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. Elizabeth A. Adams, 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: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com eadams@terrellmarshall.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. Teague Westrope HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Suite 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9081 Email: john@lawmontana.com teague@lawmontana.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan Maxey, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmaxey@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com The Attorneys for the Defendant, are Ralph H Palumbo, Esq. Lynn M. Engel, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 428-3150 Facsimile: (206) 428-3251 E-mail: rpalumbo@aretelaw.com lengel@aretelaw.com - and - Kent M. Adams, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER (HOUSTON) 909 Fannin Street, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 353-2027 Facsimile: (713) 785-7780 E-mail: kent.adams@wilsonelser.com The Attorneys for the Respondents, are: Matthew James Ide, Esq. 7900 Se 28th Street, Ste 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 Facsimile: (206) 622-0909 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 16 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) resulting from allegations that MEI Pharma may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. "[R]evenue was overstated in some quarters and understated in other quarters in the Company's financial statements during 2020 and 2021. The Company will therefore restate its previously filed annual and quarterly financial statements for periods from June 30, 2020 forward." Tweet this SO WHAT: If you purchased MEI Pharma securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6192 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 13, 2022, after market hours, MEI Pharma announced restatements of its financial statements for certain quarters for 2020 and 2021. In part, MEI Pharma stated, "[R]evenue was overstated in some quarters and understated in other quarters in the Company's financial statements during 2020 and 2021. The Company will therefore restate its previously filed annual and quarterly financial statements for periods from June 30, 2020 forward." On this news, MEI Pharma share prices fell $0.0242, or 4.6%, to open at $0.4958 per share on May 16, 2022, damaging investors. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over Snapchat Lenses Facial Recognition ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in the wake of the $650 million paid out by Facebook parent Meta, SnapChat users in Illinois are demanding the operators of the popular social media app also pay out, accusing Snap of also violating Illinois' strict biometrics privacy law. On May 11, attorney James C. Vlahakis, of the Sulaiman Law Group, of suburban Lombard, filed suit in Chicago federal court against Snap Inc. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Maribel Ocampo and Adrian Coss. The plaintiffs are identified in the complaint only as people who live in northern Illinois and have used SnapChat, the photo sharing app developed and operated by Santa Monica, California-based Snap. The lawsuit centers on the SnapChat app's Lenses feature, which allows users to augment their images, known as Snaps, to add a variety of effects, frames and filters. The lawsuit claims the Lenses feature improperly uses facial recognition technology developed by Looksery Inc. to capture images of users' faces. The lawsuit asserts Snap captures users' faces without their consent, and without notifying them that their images were being captured. The lawsuit asserts those alleged failures by Snap violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The BIPA law has been on the books since 2008. However, since 2015, a growing cadre of plaintiffs' lawyers have used the law to spawn a blitz of thousands of class action lawsuits. The bulk of the lawsuits have targeted employers, accusing them of improperly requiring workers to scan their fingerprints or other biometric identifiers when punching the clock to begin or end work shifts, or to access secure areas in the workplace. But a significant number of the lawsuits have also taken aim at big tech companies, like Facebook and Google. And the law carries a big potential bite. Under the law, plaintiffs can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. Courts have interpreted the law to define individual violations as each time a company's technology scans a user's unique biometric identifiers, which can include their facial geometry. When multiplied across thousands or even millions of users, scanning biometric identifiers multiple times per day, the potential damages can rise well into the many millions or even billions of dollars. In their new complaint, the plaintiffs estimate as many as 500,000 Snaps could have been created that allegedly violate the BIPA law. That could place Snap on the hook for as much as $2.5 billion in damages, should Snap take the case to trial and lose. When sued under the BIPA law for claims related to face scans conducted under its photo tagging feature, Facebook estimated it could also face billions of dollars in potential damages, if it had lost at trial. To eliminate its risk of such a payout, Facebook instead agreed to settle the case for $650 million. That resulted in payouts of about $400 to Illinois Facebook users, and nearly $100 million in fees for the lawyers who brought the case. Google has also agreed to pay $100 million to end the claims against them, related to face scans in the Google Photos app. Despite the potential for massive damages, courts have also rejected nearly every attempt by defendants to get out from under the lawsuits, or even to reduce their potential liability. The Illinois Supreme Court, for instance, has specifically ruled that plaintiffs suing under the BIPA law don't need to establish they suffered any kind of particular or concrete injury stemming from the improper biometric scans. The court has said plaintiffs need only allege their rights were violated under the law to bring massive lawsuits, that business groups and defendants have said could be potentially ruinous. This has prompted calls from business groups for reform, to stem the rising tide of so-called "gotcha" class action lawsuits under BIPA. The plaintiffs in the Snap action are seeking certification of a class of potentially millions of other SnapChat users in Illinois. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Opposes Facebook Ad Class Action Notice Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that Meta Platforms Inc. presented the court with a dispute over the plaintiffs' proposed notice plan to be presented to potential class members who purchased advertising space on Facebook and Instagram. The opposition argued that the current language is one-sided, does not present class members with neutral information, and must be modified. The 2018 case concerns allegations that Meta exaggerated the expected impact potential advertisers could achieve by purchasing advertisement space on its Instagram and Facebook platforms. In February 2021, Judge James Donato ruled on Meta's motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), common law fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment claims to proceed. The following month, the court certified several classes of ad purchasers. Thereafter, the parties began to work on a notice and distribution plan. In the filing, Facebook says that the parties collaborated to submit a mutually agreeable notice plan, but they did not agree on everything. The social media juggernaut explains that they disputed the content of the proposed notifications purportedly because the plaintiffs "refused to include any statement of Meta's defenses at all, other than a blanket denial of the allegations." Meta argues this is incorrect because civil procedure rules require courts to convey objective information about the nature of the claims, inclusive of the defendants' defenses. The plaintiffs' proposed notice reduces Meta's position to "a boilerplate, ‘Meta denies the allegations,'" the opposition contends of the proposed in-app banner and long- and short-form notices. According to Meta, the current language prevents class members from evaluating opposing viewpoints in determining whether to opt out or be bound by the settlement. In turn, the company requests modified short- and long-form notices as well as an expanded in-app banner that appears when users hover their mouse on the banner that shows Meta's defenses. The approval hearing is scheduled for June 9. Facebook is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and the plaintiffs by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Law Offices of Charles Reichmann. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs to Get Settlement Payouts in BIPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Connor Day, writing for WQAD8, reports that payments are rolling out in the settlement of a 2020 lawsuit against Facebook, now Meta, over its use of facial recognition technology that violated an Illinois privacy law. In an update posted to an official website for the lawsuit, it was announced that beginning May 9, payments estimated at $200-400 would begin rolling out to plaintiffs in the suit. Officials said that if you are expecting a payment and do not receive one within two weeks of May 9, wait until mid-June to make an inquiry. The $650 million settlement was approved by a U.S. District Judge in February 2021, after the 2020 suit accused Facebook of using users' facial recognition data and other biometrics without their consent, specifically citing the company had failed to get permission before scanning and storing faces in users' photos through a "photo tagging" feature that has since been removed. The lawsuit was made possible by Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, which allows consumers to sue companies for harvesting biometric data without permission. The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Settles Class Action in Ill. Over Privacy Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- More than a million Illinois residents will receive a $397 settlement payment from Facebook, thanks to a legal battle over the platform's since-retired photo-tagging system that used facial recognition. It's been nearly seven years since the 2015 class-action lawsuit was first filed, which accused Facebook of breaking a state privacy law that forbids companies from collecting biometric data without informing users. The platform has since faced broad, global criticism for its use of facial recognition tech, and last year Meta halted the practice completely on Facebook and Instagram. But as Vox notes, the company has made no promises to avoid facial recognition in future products. Even though it was first filed in Illinois, the class-action lawsuit eventually wound up on Facebook's home turf - at the U.S. District Court for Northern California. Nevertheless, the court repeatedly denied the platform's many motions to dismiss the lawsuit and eventually certified the Illinois class-action. Facebook tried to appeal the case certification with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but was rejected. After Facebook initially agreed to settle the lawsuit for $550 million - which at the time was the largest payout from an online privacy class-action lawsuit - a federal judge fought back and said the amount was too small. Finally, the company last year agreed to a settlement total of $650 million. The issue at hand was Facebook's old photo-tagging system, which relied on facial recognition to recognize users in photos and videos. Attorneys representing Illinois residents argued that the platform's "Suggested Tags" feature violated the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act. Any Facebook user in Illinois who posted a photo of themselves or was tagged on the platform during a certain time period was eligible to file a claim. Nearly 1.6 million Illinois residents in total were included in the settlement. A number of Redditors reported receiving their settlement checks via direct deposit or in the mail, though not everyone has received their payment yet. "I did mine and my wife's at the same time and got one. This was through Zelle," noted one user on Reddit. Some who opted to receive a check in the mail were a little thrown off by its non-descript appearance. "Honestly I almost threw mine away. It was sent in a brown envelope made of recycled paper. Felt just like a paper bag. I thought for sure it was junk mail," said a user on Reddit.[GN] MILLIMAN INC: Healy Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to seal. The Clerk is directed to maintain docket numbers 100 and 102 under seal and the Court orders as follows: 1. The following classes are certified: a. 1681e(b) Inaccuracy Class: All persons residing in the United States (including all Territories and otherpolitical subdivisions of the United States), beginning five years prior to the filing of this Complaint and through the resolution of this action, about whom the Defendant sold a report to a third party containing one or more items of information which did not pertain to the individual who was the subject of the report;" b. 1681i Failure to Properly Reinvestigate Class: "All persons residing in the United States (including all Territories and other political subdivisions of the United States), beginning five years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, who disputed the completeness and/or accuracy of one or more items of information on an IntelliScript report, and for whom Defendant responded with form/template communication substantially in form of MM_HEALY000315;" 2. James Healy is appointed as representative of each class; 3. Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Francis Mailman Soumilas PC are appointed as class counsel; 4. The parties shall meet and confer, and within 60 days of the entry of this order, submit a joint status report containing proposed case management deadlines for the remainder and their proposal for notice to the class to the Court for approval; and 5. Plaintiff may file another version of its motion for class certification with the redactions discussed above removed. No other changes are permitted. Milliman, formerly Milliman & Robertson, is an international actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhrcX3 at no extra charge.[CC] MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE COLE, BARBARA KOOSTRA, MARY-ANN SONTAG BOWMAN, and RHONDIE VOORHEES, v. MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA–MISSOULA, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion to deny class Certification. The Plaintiffs' certification request is unsupported by controlling Rule 23 jurisprudence and would result in an overbroad and unmanageable class based on weak and speculative evidence. Plainly, the Plaintiffs lack commonality, lack typicality, lack a sufficiently numerous class, lack adequate class representatives, have an improper class definition, and fail to create a class appropriate for treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3), the Defendants contend. The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish the elements of Rule 23 and class certification should be denied, the Defendant adds. The Montana University System was created on July 1, 1994, when the Montana Board of Regents of Higher Education restructured the state's public colleges and universities, with the goal of streamlining the state's higher education in the wake of decreased state funding. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF324A at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Susan Moriarity Miltko, Esq. James D. Johnson, Esq. Hannah I. Higgins, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C. 235 E. Pine, P.O. Box 9440 Missoula, MT 59807-9440 Telephone: (406) 721-4350 E-mail: susan@wmslaw.com james@wmslaw.com hannah@wmslaw.com MORPHE COSMETICS: Faces Suit Over Eye Makeup Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Fashion Law reports that Morphe Cosmetics is on the receiving end of a proposed class action lawsuit, accusing it of knowingly engaging in false advertising, unfair competition, negligence, and products liability in connection with its manufacture and sale of makeup that is "inherently dangerous." According to the complaint that they filed in a California federal court last month, Crystal Damato, Amanda Montgomery, and Taylor Maxwell (the "plaintiffs") claim that Morphe is offering up eye makeup products that "contain color additives and ingredients that are dangerous when used on the immediate eye area," and at the same time, failing to alert consumers -- including children -- about the risks of such known dangers. In their 52-page complaint, Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell allege that they used Morphe eye makeup - including its eyeshadow palettes, eyeliners, and Colorfix 24-hour Cream Color - as instructed and encouraged by the popular beauty brand and "suffered physical injuries as a result." Specifically, they claim that these products contain an array of color additives, such as FD&C Red No. 4, D&C Red No. 6, and D&C Violet No. 2, among many others, which have been designated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as "unsuitable and unapproved for cosmetic use in the eye area." ("Both the FDA and California Health & Safety Code tightly regulate color additives for use in cosmetic products," the plaintiffs assert.) The plaintiffs contend that the 14-year-old beauty brand is running afoul of the law by representing that its eye makeup products "are safe for use in the eye area," and labeling and packaging the products in a way that is "false and/or misleading," namely, by "omitting material facts about the safety of the products." Primarily, they claim that Morphe - which gained widespread popularity thanks to its eyeshadow palettes and collaborations with YouTube mega-stars like Jeffree Star and James Charles - does not warn consumers that the products are "not safe for [their] intended use or that the products contain harmful ingredients." It also does not alert consumers of "the known dangers and risks associated with the harmful ingredients," per the complaint. Los Angeles-based Morphe's "advertising, marketing, packaging, and all other forms of communication, including [its] website, each fail to provide any warning whatsoever regarding the known dangers associated with the intended use of the products," according to the plaintiffs, who assert that Morphe's website merely includes "vague language and inconsistent statements such as '*Caution: Pressed pigments not intended for use in eye area.'" As a matter of law, the plaintiffs argue that this language - which is buried in lengthy lists of ingredients, "is not a safety warning because it does not: (1) assist the consumer in understanding the danger; and (2) it is not conveyed in a manner that a reasonable person would see, receive, and understand." Such disclaimers are "unlikely to reach consumers at all because they are located in the least prominent location of Morphe's website rather than in a conspicuous location such as the individual Products' landing pages and/or description pages," and in fact, the plaintiffs argue that "consumers can navigate through the entire purchasing process online at Morphe.com without ever encountering [its] hidden disclaimer." Similarly, the products' packaging "fails to provide any warning regarding the known dangers associated with the intended use of the products," as indications, such as "a tiny symbol of an eye with a line though it, fail in every aspect to warn consumers of the known hazards associated with using the products for their intended use." Despite (allegedly) knowing that its eye makeup products are not safe for their intended use (i.e., cosmetic application to the eye area), Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell assert in their lawsuit that Morphe not only encouraged the use of the products for the eye area but actively attempted to work around federal regulations by using "deceptive and misleading language, such as 'artistry palette' or 'pressed pigments,'" as opposed to "eyeshadow." The problem, according to the plaitniffs, however, is that "pressed pigments are indistinguishable from eyeshadow, [and] the only reasonable and foreseeable use for [Morphe's] pressed pigments is as eyeshadow to be used for cosmetic application around the eye area." Morphe's "use of these euphemisms allow [it] to sell the products alongside its other eyeshadows even though the products contain harmful ingredients and are unlawful to sell for cosmetic use in the eye area," they argue. And the brand "knows, or should have known, that [they] and [other] consumers are likely to be misled by the phrase 'pressed pigment' because the products are packaged, marketed, and sold as eye shadows; there is no generally understood meaning of the phrase pressed pigment; [its] website does not explain how pressed pigments differ from eyeshadow; and [its] promotional images, tutorials, and other advertising materials instruct and encourage 'pressed pigments' to be used for cosmetic application in the eye area." Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell contend that they are other consumers "were under the reasonable belief that Morphe Eye Makeup was safe for its intended use, cosmetic application to the eye area," and thus, suffered damages as a result. With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs set out claims of breach of implied warranties, false advertising, unfair competition, negligence, strict products liability, and unjust enrichment, among others, and are seeking damages that exceed $5 million, injunctive relief, and certification of their class action to enable as many as "tens of thousands of [other] people" who have been damaged by Morphe to join pool of plaintiffs. A representative for Morphe was not immediately available to comment on the lawsuit. The case is Crystal Damato, et al, v. Morphe LLC, et al, 3:22-cv-02110 (N.D.Cal.) [GN] MR. VACUUM: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MR. VACUUM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09945-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be Aug. 30, 2022 completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production June 2, 2022 of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 shall be: -- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Aug. 30, 2022 Civ. P. 30, 31 shall be completed by: -- Requests to admit pursuant to June 2, 2022 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 shall be served by: -- All expert discovery shall be Oct. 14, 2022 completed no later than: -- Motions for summary judgment, Nov. 14, 2022 if any, shall be filed no later than: -- The Court will hold a status Oct. 31, 2022 conference on: A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ltj5Fn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP 420 Lexington Ave No. 2440 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 500-5010 The Defendant is represented by: Michael Steven Samuel THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 38 W 32nd St. No. 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 NATERA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA) investors who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors have the opportunity to lead the case. Class Period: Feb. 26, 2020 - Apr. 19, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NTRA Contact An Attorney Now: NTRA@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895 Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA) Securities Fraud Class Action: In the past, Defendants have repeatedly claimed that its screening test for kidney transplant failure ("Prospera") was more accurate than competing tests and that its non-invasive prenatal test ("Panorama") was reliable. According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants' false and misleading claims about Natera's technology, the company was exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; and, (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its revenue growth. On Jan. 1, 2022, The New York Times published a report about the accuracy of Panorama and competing tests and found that positive results for genetic disorders such as DiGeorge and Prader-Willi syndromes when using Natera's test are incorrect more than 80% of the time. Next, on Jan. 14, 2022 the Campaign for Accountability non-profit watchdog group filed a complaint requesting the SEC to investigate whether Natera knowingly overstated the accuracy of Panorama. Then, on Mar. 9, 2022, analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing report entitled "Natera: Pioneers In Deceptive Medical Billing." Hindenburg concluded, based in part on more than 2 dozen interviews with former Natera employees, patients and industry experts that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance companies and expectant mothers." Finally, on Mar. 14, 2022, a federal jury found that Natera intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to market Prospera as being more effective than CareDx's competing AlloSure test. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Natera intentionally misled investors about the reliability and superiority of its tests," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Natera and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Natera should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email NTRA@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP(www.ktmc.com) informs investors that the firm has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Natera, Inc. ("Natera") on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Natera common stock between February 26, 2020, and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/natera-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=natera&mktm=r LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 27, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 26, 2020 through APRIL 19, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Email at info@ktmc.com Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing. Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of shareholders we represent. NATERA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Natera, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in Austin, Texas, offers genetic testing in the areas of women's health, oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), called "Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure, called "Prospera." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Panorama was reliable, that Prospera was more accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's growth was driven by its superior technology and customer experience. Investors, however, began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022, when The New York Times published a detailed report calling into question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. Among other things, The New York Times reported that Natera's positive results for several genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of the time. On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of $93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share on January 4, 2022. Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for Accountability-a nonprofit watchdog group-filed a complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requesting an investigation as to whether Natera repeatedly claimed - in marketing materials and earnings calls - that its tests are much more reliable than it appears they really are. On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January 14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022. Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research issued an investigative report alleging, among other things, that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance companies and expectant mothers." On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as $28.65 per share, or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on March 9, 2022. Several days later, on March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to market Prospera in violation of federal and state laws. Among other things, the jury found that Natera's marketing falsely claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. Ultimately, the jury awarded CareDx, Inc. $44.9 million in monetary damages. On this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share, or approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share on March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022. Finally, on April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication "to educate patients and health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use of [NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements about NIPTs' reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with sound scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy." The FDA suggested that patients discuss benefits and risks with a healthcare provider before deciding to undergo NIPT or making any pregnancy-related decisions on the basis of NIPT results. In addition, the FDA advised health care providers that they should not rely on NIPT results alone to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities or disorders. Following this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as $1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of $39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on April 20, 2022. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants' false and misleading claims about Natera's technology, the company was exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT CAN I DO? Natera investors may, no later than June 27, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Natera investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Class Suit Wants Team to Drop New York from Name ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Rosenstein, writing for NJ Advance Media, reports that both teams also have their practice facilities in New Jersey. The Giants have the Quest Diagnostics Training Center next door to MetLife Stadium while the Jets have the Atlantic Health Training Center in Florham Park. And that's the problem. The New York Post reports a $6 billion class-action lawsuit against the Jets, Giants and NFL "initially demanded both teams pack their pads and leave the Garden State for the Big Apple. Now they're making a slightly more manageable request -- the teams can stay in New Jersey but must dump 'New York' from their names." "MetLife Stadium is located in the swamps of East Rutherford, NJ . . ., which has a population under 10,000, the 116th largest city in New Jersey. It's not exactly an exciting and romantic destination[,] and the Giants, Jets and MetLife Stadium have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the city, county or state of New York. . . . Plaintiffs Abdiell Suero and Maggie Wilkins insist they were duped by false advertising and other fraudulent deceptive practices into believing the Giants and Jets still played in New York and shelled out some significant green to see Blue Blue and Gang Green play at MetLife Stadium." Before MetLife Stadium opened in 2010, both the Giants and Jets called Giants Stadium home. The Giants have been in the Meadowlands since 1976. The Jets joined them in 1984. According to the Post, "The class-action case also seeks to represent anyone who was tricked by the teams' marketing since 2016 into attending NFL games at the stadium." The attorney leading the lawsuit is Evan Spencer. "Not only isn't the Meadowlands in New York, it was the site of one of the country's biggest garbage dumps for decades before defendants' stadiums were built on top of it," wrote Spencer, demanding the case move forward. The Post reports "The NFL, Jets and Giants filed legal papers April 25 seeking to get the suit dismissed." In doing so, they claim the "continued use of 'New York' as part of their team names is not misleading at all -- it merely refers to the teams' hometown." The defendants also noted "MetLife is a mere 7 miles from Manhattan -- which is well within the 75-mile radius covering the teams' NFL territory rights that cover parts of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut." The Giants and Jets will resume the tradition of the Snoopy Bowl on Aug. 28 in the final preseason game for both teams. [GN] NATIONAL SPINE: Seeks to File Confidential Documents Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC; SPINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, LLC; AND PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Case No. e 2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file certain confidential documents under seal and to file redacted copies of the exhibits on the public docket. These documents are exhibits to Plaintiff Scoma's Motion for Class Certification, filed on April 18, 2022. Consistent with the Local Rules, Scoma notified NSPC of its intent to file these documents under seal, and temporarily filed placeholder slip-sheets in place of the documents in question. This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. In support of its Motion, Scoma seeks to file certain of NSPC’s confidential documents under seal, namely, internal NSPC correspondence discussing marketing and referral sources, and the deposition transcript of Dr. Eugene Mahaney, a medical doctor at NSPC. The parties entered into an Agreed Qualified Protective order which was signed by the Court on February 12, 2021. Pursuant to the Protective Order, NSPC has produced certain confidential documents to Scoma, and those documents were so labeled. NSPC has also designated certain limited portions of the deposition transcripts from its employees and affiliates -- specifically, portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Eugene Mahaney -- as confidential. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wxHQLi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew L. Knowles, Esq. Elizabeth A. Rodd, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 535-3885 E-mail: mknowles@mwe.com erodd@mwe.com - and - Kamal H. Sleiman, Esq. 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500 Miami, FL 33131-4336 Telephone: (305) 358-3500 E-mail: ksleiman@mwe.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts -------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that it is facing various antitrust class actions filed against the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation since 2007. In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration. On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019. Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of Columbia. Norfolk Southern Corporation is a transportation company based in Georgia. ONTARIO: Class Action Members Have Until Aug. 6 to File Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Youth Confinement Class Action Settlement is open for claims. Class members have until August 26, 2022 to make a claim. Under the Settlement, class members may be entitled to compensation of up to $1000 - $40,000 for each qualifying placement in youth segregation at a youth justice facility between April 1, 2004 and December 17, 2018. If you think you might be eligible to make a claim, or if you know someone who might be eligible, you can get more information by visiting https://www.youthsegregationclassaction.ca/home.html. You can also get more information by contacting the administrator by email (info@youthsegregationclassaction.ca) or toll-free phone (1-833-430-7538). You can get assistance with your claim by contacting class counsel, the lawyers for the class members, using the information below: Koskie Minsky LLP 20 Queen St. West, Suite 900 Box 52 Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 Email: youthconfinementclassaction@kmlaw.ca Toll-Free Tel: 1-844-819-8501 Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP 1561 Ouellette Avenue Windsor, ON N8X 1K5 Email: youthconfinement@strosbergco.com Toll-Free Tel: 1-866-229-5323, ext. 296 [GN] ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in February 28, 2022, a purported securities class action was filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, entitled "Braun v. Ontrak, Inc., et al.," 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, namely 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 namely B. Riley Securities, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., William Blair & Company, LLC, Aegis Capital Corp., Insperex LLC (formerly 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 CAP 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. On 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 stayed the case pending an initial status conference, which is scheduled for June 7, 2022 at 10:00 am. That order stayed the entire case, including the May 6, 2022 response deadline. Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 19, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the same court, entitled "Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-02460. In July 14, 2021, the court consolidated said action with another case. In August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the consolidated amended complaint, lead 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 and its board members Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, 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, said complaint alleged 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 (CAP). 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. In September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss said 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 with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. ONTRAK INC: Farhar Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California --------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled "Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. In July 14, 2021, the court consolidated said action with another case. In August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the consolidated amended complaint, lead 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 and its board members Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, 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, said complaint alleged 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 (CAP). 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. In September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss said 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 with a technology-enabled platform that provides claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment programs. OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Did you lose money on investments in Oscar Health? If so, please visit Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights. Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) pursuant to and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. Oscar is a health insurance company that claimed to be the first such company "built around a full stack technology platform" which will "allow [Oscar] to continue to innovate like a technology company and not a traditional insurer." In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the Offering which were purportedly to be used to repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses, under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when made because: (1) Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; and (4) Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth. On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that "[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year. On November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7 million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year. Since the IPO, the price of Oscar Health's stock has fallen over 85%, closing as low as $5.72 per share on May 12, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 11, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired OSCR common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] OSCAR HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 12 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on May 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar securities pursuant to the Company's March 4, 2021 IPO (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 12, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses, under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes. On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that "[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year. Then, on November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7 million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year. During a conference call held the same day, Scott Blackley, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated: "We recognized approximately $20 million of risk adjustment expense this quarter related to our risk adjustment data validation audit or RADV results. The RADV exercise is atypical this year due to COVID. It spans two years, 2019 and 2020. The majority of the RADV headwinds relate to the 2019 audit results, which were recently completed." On this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or 24.5%, to close at 12.47 per share on November 11, 2021. By the commencement of this action, Oscar stock has traded as low as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per share IPO price. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] OSCAR HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 11 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/oscr. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/oscr or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Oscar you have until July 11, 2022, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] OSCAR HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. (Oscar) (NYSE: OSCR). The action charges Oscar with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Oscar's materially misleading statements to the public, Oscar investors have suffered significant losses. YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/oscar-health-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=oscar_health&utm_campaign=oscr&mktm=r LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JULY 11, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO OSCAR'S MARCH 2021 IPO THROUGH MAY 12, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com OSCAR'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT In March, 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. Oscar received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the IPO. On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170 basis points year-over year, claiming that the increase was primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs. Oscar also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year. Then, on November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. Oscar claimed, again, that the MLR increase was primarily driven by higher net COVID costs, as well as several other purported reasons. Oscar also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7 million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year. Following this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or 24.5%, to close at $12.47 per share on November 11, 2021. At the time of the filing of the complaint, Oscar stock has traded as low as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per share IPO price. WHAT CAN I DO? Oscar investors may, no later than July 11, 2022 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Oscar investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- PDS Biotechnology Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in February 22, 2022, the plaintiffs in a putative class action and shareholder derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in said court. In July 23, 2021, David R. Rosener, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action and shareholder derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2021-0644 JRS) against the company and all of its directors and certain of its executive officers. The plaintiff named all current directors of PDS as defendants as well as PDS's Chief Scientific Officer and PDS's Chief Medical Officer and also named PDS as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff claimed PDS's bylaws required tabulation of broker non-votes on Proposal 3 at the company's 2021 annual stockholder meeting held on June 17, 2021 which sought shareholder approval of the Second Amended and Restated PDS Biotechnology Corporation 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties, declaratory judgment, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the Restated Plan and the granting of an aggregate of 1,040,700 stock options to certain executive officers pursuant to the Restated Plan. The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages, to have the Restated Plan declared void, and rescission of the grant of stock options as ultra vires. At the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on January 19, 2022, the requisite stockholders of the Company voted to ratify the prior approval of the Restated Plan which was adopted at the 2021 Annual Meeting and the stock options issued under the Restated Plan. Thereafter, on February 22, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. PDS Biotechnology Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company developing a growing pipeline of cancer immunotherapies and infectious disease vaccines designed to overcome the limitations of current immunotherapy and vaccine technologies. PERATON INC: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peraton, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Oscar Brooks, on behalf of himself and all others, similarly situated v. Peraton, Inc. a Maryland Corporation; Peraton Risk Decidion, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-50; Case No. 34-2022-00319674-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 11, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Peraton -- https://www.peraton.com/ -- is a privately held American technology company formed in 2017, with areas of service including space, intelligence, cybersecurity, defense, homeland security, and health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-300-1705 - and - Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 818-456-6168 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com PERMANENT GENERAL: Lancaster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Permanent General Assurance Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Matthew K. Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00319644-CU-BC-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 11, 2022). The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty - Civil Unlimited." Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio -- http://www.thegeneral.com/-- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart C Talley, Esq. KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC 401 Watt Ave. Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: 916-779-7000 Fax: 916-721-2501 Email: stuart@kctlegal.com PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pineapple Hospitality Company, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pineapple Hospitality Company doing business as: Staypineapple, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02964-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pineapple Hospitality Company doing business as Staypineapple -- https://www.staypineapple.com/ -- offers a unique collection of boutique hotels for unforgettable getaways.[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 PLAINS ALL: Settles Oil Spill Class Action in Calif. for $230-MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press reports that the owner of an oil pipeline that spewed thousands of barrels of crude oil onto Southern California beaches in 2015 has agreed to pay $230 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by fishermen and property owners, court documents show. Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline agreed to pay $184 million to fishermen and fish processors and $46 million to coastal property owners in the settlement reached on May 13, according to court documents. The company didn't admit liability in the agreement, which follows seven years of legal wrangling. The agreement still must undergo a public comment period and needs federal court approval. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 10. "This settlement should serve as a reminder that pollution just can't be a cost of doing business, and that corporations will be held accountable for environmental damage they cause," said Matthew Preusch, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs. Plains All American Pipeline officials didn't immediately return a message from The Associated Press seeking comment. On May 19, 2015, oil gushed from a corroded pipeline north of Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, northwest of Los Angeles, spreading along the coasts of Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. It was the worst California coastal oil spill since 1969 and it blackened popular beaches for miles, killing or fouling hundred of seabirds, seals and other wildlife and hurting tourism and fishing. A federal investigation said 123,000 gallons spilled, but other estimates by experts in liquids mechanics were as high as 630,000 gallons. Federal inspectors found that Plains had made several preventable errors, failed to quickly detect the pipeline rupture and responded too slowly as oil flowed toward the ocean. Plains operators working from a Texas control room more than 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away had turned off an alarm that would have signaled a leak and, unaware a spill had occurred, restarted the hemorrhaging line after it had shut down, which only made matters worse, inspectors found. Plains apologized for the spill and paid for the cleanup. The company's 2017 annual report estimated costs from the spill at $335 million, not including lost revenue. The company also revised its plans for dealing with onshore pipeline spills. In 2020, Plains agreed to pay $60 million to the federal government to settle allegations that it violated safety laws. It also agreed to bring its nationwide pipeline system into compliance with federal safety laws. The spill crippled the local oil business because the pipeline was used to transport crude to refineries from seven offshore rigs, including three owned by Exxon Mobil, that have been idle since the spill. Plains has applied for permission to build a new pipeline but it is facing an uphill battle. The emerging debate is playing out amid the global climate crisis and as California moves toward banning gas-powered vehicles and oil drilling, while record gas prices have left consumers with sticker shock at the pumps. A complex environmental review of the pipeline plan is not expected until October. [GN] PLAN BENEFIT: Wasow LLP & Berzon LLP Named as Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERIBERTO CHAVEZ; EVANGELINA ESCARCEGA, AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF JOSE ESCARCEGA; AND JORGE MORENO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES, INC; FRINGE INSURANCE BENEFITS, INC.; AND FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order appointing Nina Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman, & Wasow LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP as class counsel for the subclasses of persons defined pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 26, 2022, the court conducted a Conference after Class Certification at which all parties attended. During the conference, Nina Wasow of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman, & Wasow LLP moved on behalf of Plaintiffs to amend the Class-Certification Order so as to appoint not only herself but also her firm and co-counsel, Altshuler Berzon LLP, as class counsel. The Defendants did not oppose the motion. The motion is therefore granted. Accordingly, the Class-Certification Order is amended, the Court says. Plan Benefit provides consulting, management and brokerage services. The Company offers employee benefits, and retiree benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NeRwkt at no extra charge.[CC] PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 7 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming June 7, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who: (1) purchased Playstudios, Inc. ("Playstudios" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MYPS ) securities between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").; (2) held common stock of Acies Acquisition Corp. ("Acies") as of May 25, 2021, and were eligible to vote at Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting; or (3) purchased Playstudios common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy Statement issued in connection with the June 2021 merger. If you suffered a loss on your Playstudios investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/playstudios-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In June 2021, Playstudios became a public entity via merger with Acies, a special purpose acquisition company. On August 11, 2021, Playstudios released its second quarter financial results and revealed that its anticipated new game, Kingdom Boss, was being delayed until later in the year and that investors should expect decreased revenue and profits during the year as a result. On this news, Playstudios' stock fell $0.66, or 13%, to close at $5.09 per share on August 12, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Then, on February 24, 2022, Playstudios released its annual report, summarizing disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2021. On this news, Playstudios' stock fell $0.24, or 5%, to close at $4.86 per share on February 25, 2022, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on February 26, 2022, Playstudios announced that Kingdom Boss was indefinitely suspended. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that it was having significant problems with Kingdom Boss, would not be releasing Kingdom Boss as expected, and had not revised its financial projections to account for the issues with Kingdom Boss, and as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 7, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] PORK KING GOOD: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pork King Good. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pork King Good, Case No. 1:22-cv-03894 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pork King Good -- https://porkkinggood.com/ -- is a proudly quirky pork rind company committed to providing the best low carb snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PROFESSIONAL HEALTH: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Health and Nutrition, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Health and Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03889 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Professional Health and Nutrition, Inc. is a domestic profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Betty Vantree, Cynthia Rayborn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, Mountain Laurel Assurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., May 12, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- http://www.progressive.com/ -- provides property and casualty insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas M. Flanagan, Jr., Esq. THOMAS M. FLANAGAN, JR. P O Box 1081 202 W. Market St. Greenwood, MS 38935 Phone: (662) 453-6626 Fax: (662) 453-2777 Email: tomflanagan@bellsouth.net PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Judy Collins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PROVIDENT BANK, Case No. HUD-L-001429-22 (N.J. Super. Ct., Hudson Cty., May 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant arising from its routine practice of assessing an overdraft fee ("OD Fee") on transactions that did not actually overdraw checking accounts. The Defendant's customers have been injured by the Bank's improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in violation the Defendant's clear contractual commitments. The Plaintiff seeks to end the Defendant's abusive and predatory practices and force it to refund all of these improper charges. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania and has a checking account with Provident Bank. Provident Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com PURE BLISS ORGANICS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Bliss Organics, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pure Bliss Organics, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03949 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pure Bliss Organics -- https://pureblissorganics.myshopify.com/ -- has been making Paleo, traditional, and no sugar granola, real food bars and snack bites, and gourmet nut blends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Actions in California -------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action complaints have been filed against the company in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices. In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District of California to the Northern District of California. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company violated California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to our competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of our baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license our entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the commitments to standard setting organizations. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court denied the motion, except to the extent that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on September 27, 2018, the court granted that motion. On January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted the company permission to appeal the court's class certification order, and on January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the appeal. On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit, and on September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order, ruling that the court had failed to correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a nationwide class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and instructed the court to consider the effect of United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. QUALCOMM Incorporated (which the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of Qualcomm in August 2020) on this case. QUALCOMM Incorporated is into radio & TV broadcasting & communications equipment based in California. QUANTUM INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Arqit Quantum Inc. (NASDAQ: ARQQ) investors and Centricus Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: CENH, CENHU, CENHW) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Sept. 7, 2021 - Apr. 18, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022 Visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ARQQ Contact An Attorney Now: ARQQ@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Arqit Quantum Inc. (ARQQ) Class Action: The complaint alleges Defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose: (1) Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting held in 2020; (3) the British government was not a customer of Arqit and only provided grants to the company; and, (4) Arqit had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of its SPAC merger. The truth emerged on Apr. 18, 2022, when The Wall Street Journal reported that "British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed approach to encryption technology in a high-level evaluation they privately shared with the company in the summer of 2020, according to people familiar with the matter." The WSJ also reported that Arqit's proposal is a well-known 1980s-era technology with limited real-world application, requires broad adoption of new telecommunications, cloud, and internet protocols and standards that aren't widely supported, and its customer list includes a number of British government agencies who merely provided research grants and not contracts to purchase Arqit's encryption product. On this news, the price of Arqit shares fell 17%, wiping out over $300 million in market capitalization in a single trading day. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Arqit misrepresented the status of- and commercial prospects for- its encryption system," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Arqit and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Arqit should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ARQQ@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] QUINSTREET INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls --------------------------------------------------------- Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that QuinStreet, Inc. faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of placing automated calls to consumers' cell phones without first securing their consent to be contacted. QuinStreet operates AmOne.com, a website that purports to provide quotes for consumer loans, the 18-page case relays. The suit alleges, however, that the defendant is not a lender but a marketing company who harvests and then sells consumers' contact information to lenders and receives referral fees in return. The lawsuit claims that consumers who provide their phone numbers through AmOne.com's "See My Rates" form are not shown any loan "rates" on the defendant's website but instead receive prerecorded calls from QuinStreet in an effort to market itself and its clients. According to the case, the defendant has violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing automated telemarketing calls to consumers' cell phones without first securing their prior express consent to do so. The plaintiff, a Westchester County, New York resident, claims to have been "one such target of Defendant's unsolicited robocalls." Per the suit, QuinStreet caused a prerecorded call to be placed to the plaintiff's cell phone around November 13, 2021. Messages left by the defendant identified the caller as "Amone" and claimed that the caller would like to "help" with the plaintiff's "financial situation," the case relays. According to the lawsuit, other consumers have received from the defendant similar prerecorded messages, purporting to be from AmOne or GuideToLenders. The lawsuit alleges that QuinStreet collects consumers' phone numbers through AmOne.com "under false pretense." Per the case, a site visitor interested in a loan is told that the "[l]ast step to get your quotes" is to enter a phone number and click "See My Rates." The suit alleges QuinStreet "obscures its intention" to place prerecorded messages to the numbers it receives through the form by including a "barely readable" disclosure under the "See My Rates" button that is designed to be inconspicuous. Moreover, the lawsuit says that although the disclosure contains a hyperlink to the defendant's terms of use, which contains an arbitration agreement, this notice is not "reasonably conspicuous" and thus cannot bind users to arbitration. The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the U.S. to whom, within the past four years, QuinStreet placed a call using a prerecorded or artificial voice message regarding property, goods or services. [GN] R&R RESTAURANTS: Hollis' Conditional Status Bid Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZOE HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R & R RESTAURANTS, INC dba SASSY'S, an Oregon corporation; STACY MAYHOOD, an individual; IAN HANNIGAN, an individual; FRANK FAILLACE, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00965-YY (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order: 1. granting in part the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification; 2. denying the implementation of plaintiff's proposed order and use of the proposed notice and instead directing the parties to confer and finalize a notice and proposed order that is (1) in accordance with this opinion and (2) distributed by a mutually agreed-upon third-party claims administrator. The Plaintiff Hollis brings this putative collective action against defendants, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff alleges defendants employed her and all other dancers at Sassy's as independent contractors. The Defendants allegedly exercised a great deal of control over the dancers' performances. The Plaintiff and her fellow dancers were required to perform stage dances as part of their work at the club. The Defendants also required dancers to complete their entire shift on their scheduled workdays; performers who wished to leave early during a shift were subject to discipline by club management. The Defendants are operators, representatives, or managers at Sassy’s, a club located in Portland, Oregon. The Plaintiff performed at Sassy's from 2017 to February 2019. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wy12Zw at no extra charge.[CC] RAINBOW APPAREL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rainbow Apparel Distribution Center, Corp. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rainbow Apparel Distribution Center, Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-02817 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rainbow Apparel Distribution Center, Corp. was founded in 1981. The Company's line of business includes retail sale of women's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com RANK & STYLE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rank & Style, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rank & Style, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03928 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rank & Style -- https://www.rankandstyle.com/ -- is the only resource that uses consumer and industry data to help people shop the best products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com RECKITT BENCKISER: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sterling Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,, v. RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, RAKESH KAPOOR, and SHAUN THAXTER, Case No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed Jan. 20, 2023 no later than: -- All expert discovery shall be March 31, 2023 completed no later than: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Oct. 28, 2022 motion for class certification by: -- The Defendants shall file their Dec. 19, 2022 opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Jan. 27, 2023. reply in support of their motion for class certification by: -- The Parties' document productions Aug. 29, 2022. shall be substantially completed by: -- Privilege logs shall be produced by: Sept. 29, 2022 Reckitt is a British multinational consumer goods company headquartered in Slough, England. It is a producer of health, hygiene and nutrition products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sEC1ux at no extra charge.[CC] REGUS MANAGEMENT: Hilton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regus Management Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Hilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regus Management Group, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00319657-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 11, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Regus Management Group, LLC -- https://www.regus.com/ -- was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Mauro, Esq. THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC 790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9 Pasadena, CA 91101-2193 Phone: 626-698-0048 Fax: 626-698-0049 Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an order setting scheduling order deadlines as follows: -- Class Certification Motion due by: Nov. 1, 2022 -- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Aug. 1, 2022 Deadline is: -- The Defendants Expert Disclosure Sept. 15, 2022 Deadline is: -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Oct. 31, 2022 Deadline is: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is a private research university in Troy, New York, with additional campuses in Hartford and Groton, Connecticut.[CC] RISKIFIED LTD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD) pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July 28, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), of the important July 1, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Riskified securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Riskified class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5896 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration Statement was 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. Specifically, the IPO Registration Statement made inaccurate statements of material fact because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO: (1) as Riskified expanded its user base, the quality of Riskified's machine learning platform had deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the Registration Statement), because of, among other things, inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with onboarding new merchants and entering new geographies and industries; (2) Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with relatively high rates of fraud - including partnerships with cryptocurrency and remittance business - in which Riskified had limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted the effectiveness of Riskified's machine learning platform; (3) as a result, Riskified was suffering from materially higher chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed gross profits and gross profit margins during its third fiscal quarter of 2021; and (4) thus, the Registration Statement's representations regarding Riskified's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of Riskified prior to and at the time of the IPO, and were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Riskified class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5896 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Matlick Shareholder Suit in CA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 9, 2022, an alleged shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the company and certain of its executives and directors, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the registration statement for the company's direct listing. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and is captioned "Matlick v. Roblox Corporation, et al.," Case No. 22-CIV-01038. The complaint seeks damages and attorneys' fees, as well as other relief. Roblox Corporation operates a human co-experience platform where users interact with each other to explore and develop immersive, user generated, 3D experiences. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumer Suit Targets Defective Refrigerators ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan j. Farrick at legalreader.com reports that the plaintiffs claim that certain double-door Samsung refrigerators do not keep food cool. Samsung is facing a class action filed by consumers who claim the electronic company's refrigerators do not keep their food cold enough. According to CBS News, lawsuit was filed by attorneys for Samsung refrigerator owners Matthew Jordan and Lisa Saghy, who accuse Samsung of unjust enrichment and deception by selling products that do not fulfill marketing promises. The complaint, adds CBS, was submitted in New Jersey, where the South Korean company's U.S. operations are based. The lawsuit takes specific issue with a line of double-door Samsung refrigerators with bottom-side freezers. Each unit ranges in price from $1,000 to $3,000 and are backed by 1-year warranties. However, the lawsuit suggests that Samsung's double-door refrigerators do not adequately cool and preserve food. "They run above the temperature at which food can be safely stored," the lawsuit states. "This defect is fatal to the operation of the refrigerators, which serve one purpose: keeping food and other consumable goods at a safe temperature." While Samsung declined to comment on the specifics of the filing, the company insisted that its biggest priority is customer satisfaction and safety. "Our commitment to ensuring product quality and safety for all of our customers is our top priority," Samsung told CBS MoneyWatch in a statement. Jordan, adds CBS, is a California resident. He purchased a Samsung refrigerator for $1,300 in June 2020. A Samsung refrigerator. Representational image only. Image via Flickr/user:Goedeker's. (CCA-BY-2.0). (source location: https://www.flickr.com/photos/goedekers/15659436233/). Shortly after his purchase, Jordan noticed that the temperature inside the refrigerator was inconsistent and seemed to constantly fluctuate. Using a thermal-imaging camera, Jordan found that the internal temperature was 45 degrees near the top of the unit and 29 degrees near the bottom. Saghy, from Pennsylvania, bought her Samsung refrigerator in 2020. When Saghy observed that her $2,250 refrigerator was not keeping food adequately chilled, she called a technician-only for the serviceperson to tell her that the unit had a defect, could not be repaired, and must be replaced. Despite the technician's claims, Saghy claims that Samsung has known about the problems with its refrigerators for years but made little to no effort to fix them. Between 2019 and 2021, for instance, consumers across the United States submitted more than 600 Samsung refrigerator-related complaints to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. WRTV-ABC notes that the lawsuit is separate from a Facebook-based organization, Samsung Refrigerator Recall USA Now. The group has spent years demanding that that the federal government order a mass recall of Samsung refrigerators known or suspected to be defective. Tom O'Shea, one of the group's moderators, told WRTV-ABC that refrigerators that do not properly preserve food pose a public safety risk. "Nobody is stepping in, nobody," O'Shea said. "People are getting sick. Medicines are going bad. Breast milk is going bad, and food is going bad." "It's disgusting, that's what I say," O'Shea said, recommending that other Samsung customers document every conversation and repair. "We are the cheerleaders: it's your money, get your money."[GN] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Dunsmore Seeks Provisional Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC., MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC., LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO CoUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for a preliminary injunction and for provisional class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MoHb5v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq. Van Swearingen, Esq. Priyah Kaul, Esq. Eric Monek Anderson, Esq. Hannah M. Chartoff, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com vswearingen@rbgg.com pkaul@rbgg.com eanderson@rbgg.com hchartoff@rbgg.com - and - Aaron J. Fischer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AARON J. FISCHER 2001 Addison Street, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94704-1165 Telephone: (510) 806-7366 Facsimile: (510) 694-6314 E-mail: ajf@aaronfischerlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Young, Esq. Isabella Neal, Esq. Oliver Kiefer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com isabella.neal@dlapiper.com oliver.kiefer@dlapiper.com - and - Bardis Vakili, Esq. Jonathan Markovitz, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES 2760 Fifth Avenue, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92103-6330 Telephone: (619) 232-2121 E-mail: bvakili@aclusandiego.org jmarkovitz@aclusandiego.org SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming, et al., File Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fleming, et al., v. Select Portfolio Servicing, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-12092-PBS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class, defined as follows: A "failure to strictly comply with the default acceleration notice class" consisting of: The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class of foreclosed homeowners: (i) Massachusetts residents; (ii) Whose Massachusetts properties were foreclosed on pursuant to mortgages that contained the following or a materially similar paragraph: "22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument…The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument and sale of the Property. The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. If the default is not cured on or before the date specified in the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may invoke the STATUTORY POWER OF SALE and any other remedies permitted by Applicable Law. Lender shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this Section 22, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of title evidence; (iii) Who, prior to foreclosure, were sent notices by Select Portfolio Servicing pursuant to said paragraph entitled "90 Day Right to Cure" or "150-Day Right to Cure", that failed to state that the mortgagor had a "right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration" and/or a "right to bring a court action;" and (iv) Who were sent separately dated untitled letters that stated that the mortgagor had a "right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration and commencement of foreclosure proceedings." The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and the "failure to strictly comply with the default acceleration notice class" to seek relief for Defendants’ practices in sending default/ acceleration form notices that fail to strictly comply with the terms of the mortgages in violation of c. 183 section 21 by failing to include their "right to reinstate after acceleration" and right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale" in the same clearly worded and laid out notice as contemplated by the mortgage. The Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and the "good faith and reasonable diligence class" for the Defendants' practices of failing to ascertain the fair market value of their properties prior to foreclosure in order to adhere to their duty in obtaining the best possible and commercially reasonable price for the properties at foreclosure. The Plaintifffs include KELLI FLEMING & PHILIP FLEMING, BETSY ANNE GOSSELIN, JOSEPH T. PAPPALARDO, ALAN PETTWAY, PETER M. SQUIRES & ERIN K. SQUIRES, JARED MORGAN, DONNA M. PRIOLI & PAUL S. PRIOLI, MELISSA FEMINO & PAUL FEMINO On behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated. The Defendants include SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE ACCREDITED MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-4 ASSET BACKED NOTES; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR REGISTERED HOLDERS OF LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-1; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-WL2; U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-AQ2; U.S. BANK, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2006-HE2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-HE2 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, FOR THE CIM TRUST 2016-3, MORTGAGE-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2016-3; WILMINGTON TRUST, NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO CITIBANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST 2006-4. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-4; and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE HIS ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-NC1 TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-NC1. Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ph6hoZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd S. Dion, Esq. 15 Cottage Avenue, Ste 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Telephone: (401) 965-4131 Facsimile: (401) 270-2202 E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying its deadline to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and staying all discovery until after the Court rules on Select's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a claim filed contemporaneously. The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged unpaid overtime wages and for alleged recordkeeping violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and seeks a nationwide collective class under the FLSA and a Rule 23 class action under the IMWL. Plaintiffs allege that the FLSA collective class consists of 20,000 (or more) program managers and various different types of therapists and therapist assistants. To date, there are a total of 44 plaintiffs, including the three named Plaintiffs and individuals that filed notice to join as opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed their Mot. Cond. Cert. only days after Select filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC), and about a week before Plaintiffs' voluntarily filed their SAC. Select has moved again to dismiss all counts in the SAC because Plaintiffs have failed to correct flaws in the FAC that they voluntarily filed. Select is a provider of contract rehabilitation services, as well as for nurse and therapy consulting services. (SAC ¶49). 3 Plaintiffs allege that Select supports or provides services to facilities operating in 2300 locations in 43 states, including in Florida. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FSuC00 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leonard V. Feigel, Esq. John A. Tucker, Esq. David B. Goroff, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017 Telephone: (904) 359-2000 Facsimile: (904) 359-8700 E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com jtucker@foley.com dgoroff@foley.com - and - Diane G. Walker, Esq. Kristen W. Roberts, Esq. WALKER MORTON LLP Two Prudential Plaza 180 North Stetson Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 471-2900 Facsimile: (312) 471-6001 E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com kroberts@walkermortonllp.com SIGNATURE CARE: Adolphe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature Care LLC. The case is styled as Fridane Adolphe, and individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Signature Care LLC, Case No. 522705/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 12, 2022). The case type is stated as "E-Filed Other." Signature Care -- https://signaturecareny.com/ -- is a New York State Licensed Home HealthCare Agency that provides comprehensive homecare services in the New York Metropolitan Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: VIRGINA & AMBINDER Phone: (212) 943-9080 The Defendant is represented by: LITTLER MENDELSON 290 Broadhollow Rd Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 247-4701 - and - TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN 470 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 216-8000 SIREN SNACKS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siren Snacks, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Siren Snacks, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03932 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Siren Snacks -- https://sirensnacks.com/ -- offers plant-based protein bites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SLOWTIDE LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slowtide, LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Slowtide, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03930 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Slowtide -- https://slowtide.co/ -- elevates a daily essential into a functional piece of art. Designed in Hawaii & California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SOLID VENTURES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solid Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Solid Ventures, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03877 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Solid Ventures, Inc. -- https://www.solidventures.vc/ -- is a private investment group, based in San Diego, California, specializing in online asset acquisition, growth, and consulting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com SONOMA CREAMERY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonoma Creamery, LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sonoma Creamery, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03952 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sonoma Creamery -- https://sonomacreamery.com/ -- is a dynamic company and maker of innovative snacks made with simple, high quality ingredients that surprise, delight and nourish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SPORTS RESEARCH: Seeks Reconsideration of April 15 Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI and CYNTHIA FORD on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), Sports Research moves the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7-18(c), for reconsideration of its Order re: Motion for Class Certification entered on April 15, 2022 granting, in part, Plaintiff Cynthia Ford's Motion for Class Certification. Sports Research brings this Motion on the grounds that the Court failed to consider material facts in determining that plaintiff has sufficiently shown that consumers were exposed to substantially similar product labels such that there are common legal or factual issues to be determined for the proposed classes. Sports Research is a family-owned company that provides health & wellness products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mh72w5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Blank, Esq. Norma V. Garcia, Esq. GARCIA RAINEY BLANK & BOWERBANK LLP 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 382-7000 Facsimile: (714) 784-0031 E-mail: jblank@garciarainey.com ngarciaguillen@garciarainey.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Rescheduled to May 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEILEE FANT, et al., v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order that: -- the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is rescheduled for Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. This is a time change only. The hearing will be held in person, in Courtroom 12S; and -- having advised the Court that they do not intend to present evidence, the parties shall have 20 minutes per side for argument. St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River. Its iconic, 630-ft. Gateway Arch, built in the 1960s, honors the early 19th-century explorations of Lewis and Clark and America's westward expansion in general. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBWH66 at no extra charge.[CC] STAPLES THE OFFICE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01254-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarci entered a scheduling order: Event Date -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: December 27, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial): October 24, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): November 28, 2022 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: January 30, 2023 -- Deadline to File a Motion for August 29, 2022 Class Certification: -- Deadline to File an Opposition September 19, 2022 to the Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File a Reply in October 11, 2022 Support of the Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing Date on Motion for October 31, 2022 Class Certification: A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39pSfRn at no extra charge.[CC] STRATA SKIN: Faces Class Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------- Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in April 1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was filed in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against the company and an employment agency which provided it with temporary employees. The complaint alleges various violations of the California Labor Code, including California's wage and hour laws, relating to its current and former non-exempt employees. The complaint seeks class status and payments for allegedly unpaid compensation and attorney's fees. In a related matter, the attorneys in this matter and the proposed class representative, in a letter dated March 12, 2022, to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency made nearly identical claims seeking the right to pursue a PAGA action against the company and the employment agency. Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company in dermatology dedicated to developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products for the treatment of dermatologic conditions. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's October 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") of the important June 13, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Stronghold Digital Mining securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Stronghold Digital Mining class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5313 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 13, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) contracted suppliers, including MinerVa, were reasonably likely to miss anticipated delivery quantities and deadlines; (2) due to strong demand and pre-sold supply of mining equipment in the industry, Stronghold Digital Mining would experience difficulties obtaining miners outside of confirmed purchase orders; (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant risk that Stronghold Digital Mining could not expand its mining capacity as expected; (4) as a result, Stronghold Digital Mining would likely experience significant losses; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Stronghold Digital Mining's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Stronghold Digital Mining class action, go to https://rosenl 481631egal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5313 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SUGAR FREEDOM: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Freedom Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sugar Freedom Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03955 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sugar Freedom -- https://sugarfreedom.com/ -- is the new generation ZERO CALORIE Sugar Substitute.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SUPER CARE INC: Stephanski Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Care, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Stephanski, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Super Care, Inc. doing business as: Supercare Health, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03248-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. SuperCare Health -- https://supercarehealth.com/ -- is the leading respiratory care provider in the Western U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Fax: (877) 500-8781 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Jason P Johnston, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: rachel.tack@zimmreed.com SUPER CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------ Wilson Fay at lawstreetmedia.com reports that Harmon Cottrell filed a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California against Super Care, Inc. alleging that it failed to properly secure and safeguard its patients' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). According to the complaint, Super Care Inc. is a California corporation doing business as SuperCare Health, Inc. and is a leading in-home respiratory care provider in the Western U.S. with the goal "to be the most trusted partner managing high-risk respiratory diseases combining both in-home, high-touch care with telehealth and remote monitoring." Further, as a corporation doing business in California, Super Care is legally required to protect PII and PHI from unauthorized access and exfiltration. The complaint purports that from July 23, 2021 to July 27, 2021, a third unknown party gained access to certain systems on the defendant's network leading to a data breach. The complaint states that the breach affected nearly 318,400 current and former patients of Safe Care and the plaintiffs' PII and PHI were potentially compromised by the data breach including. The complaint states that despite Safe Care being aware of the data breach on July 27, 2021, Safe Care did not report the breach to the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights until March 28, 2022 and did not inform the plaintiffs of the breach until March 25, 2022. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to explain why it failed to prevent the data breach nor why it failed to inform the plaintiffs of the breach for nearly eight months. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant failed to properly safeguard and protect their PII and PHI and provide reasonable and adequate data security in compliance with California law and the defendant's required standard of care. Additionally, the plaintiffs state that their PHI is highly coveted and protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the defendant's negligence has caused the plaintiffs' PHI to be compromised in violation of HIPQA. The complaint argues that Safe Care was obligated under California law, HIPAA, contract law, industry standards, common law and its own representation made to the plaintiffs to keep their PII and PHI confidential. The plaintiffs further argue that the data breach has put the plaintiffs in iminent, immediate and continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the present suit alleging violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California's Consumer Records Act and California Unfair Competition Law, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract and invasion of privacy. For the alleged causes of action, the plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory, special and economic damages and prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs are represented by Lebe Law, APLC. [GN] SWEET JULY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweet July LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sweet July LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03915 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sweet July -- https://sweetjuly.com/ -- is a budding brand encompassing a magazine, brick-and-mortar store and product line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SWIFT TRANS: Bouissey, et al., Seek to Certify Truck Driver Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD BOUISSEY et al., and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03203-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals employed by Defendant Swift Transportation Co. Of Arizona, LLC and/or Defendant Swift Transportation Co., Inc. as an over-the-road truck driver at any time from November 26, 2014 until the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), with the following limitations: The individual must either be (1) based out of a work location within California, (2) have the majority of his or her DOT hours logged in California, and/or (3) be a resident of California: -- For condition (1), membership in the class is limited to the time period during which the individual has been based out of a California location; -- For condition (2), membership in the class is limited to those workweeks during which the DOT logs show a majority of hours logged in California; and -- For condition (3), membership in the class is limited to just DOT hours logged in California. Further, the Class excludes Settlement Class Members covered by the class action settlement in Burnell, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 5:2020-cv-00809 (C.D. Cal.), for the period of time covered by the settlement class release in that case. The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition above is intended to supersede the definition in the Class Action Complaint. In addition, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is limited to the following causes of action of the Class Action Complaint, in the following respects: 1. First Cause of Action: Failure to pay for all hours worked under Cal. Lab. C. Sections 201, 202, 204, and 221-223, arising from unpaid time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' Department of Transportation (DOT) driver logs; 2. Second Cause of Action: Failure to pay minimum wages under Cal. Lab. C. sections 7 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; and IWC Wage Order No. 9, arising from unpaid time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs; 3. Fifth Cause of Action: Failure to keep accurate payroll records showing accurate hours worked under Cal. Lab. C. sections 1174 and 1174.5, arising from failure to pay for time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs; 4. Sixth Cause of Action: Failure to furnish wage statements showing accurate wages earned, hours worked, and applicable hourly rates under Cal. Lab. C. sections 16 226; arising from failure to pay for time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs; 5. Seventh Cause of Action: Waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. C. sections 201-203, 19 arising from failure to pay for time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs; and 6. Eighth Cause of Action: Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., but only insofar as such violation is predicated on one or more violations alleged in the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action as described. The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs Edward Bouissey and Richard Hodges as Class representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to serve as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4). The Plaintiffs further request that the Court permit them to submit a proposed form of notice to the Class and a notice plan to the Court if certification is granted, pursuant to Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) Swift provides transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDIeqm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com TAPESTRY INC: Settlement in Ornelas Suit Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORNELAS v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06453-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the parties move for final approval of their class settlement and class counsel move for attorney's fees and costs. In brief, plaintiff worked as a sales associate at defendant's retail store, which required its employees to undergo a security check prior to leaving the store. Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not pay him for time spent undergoing the security checks and that the security checks interfered with meal and rest breaks. A previous order granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to the meal and rest breaks, leaving only plaintiff's claims for unpaid wages and overtime. A subsequent order then certified the wage and overtime claims for class treatment. Specifically, the only issues certified for class treatment were the class's "claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime incurred as a result of defendant's security check policy". The parties reached a class action settlement agreement in November 2021 that would create a $342,500 fund to compensate the class. Since preliminary approval, notice of the settlement has reached 188 of 190 class members. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ph7jRT at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Must Face Class Action Over iTunes Gift Cards ---------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Target Corp. largely lost its bid to dismiss a would-be nationwide class action alleging that it knowingly sold Apple iTunes gift cards that were vulnerable to third-party theft, after the District of Minnesota said many of its arguments were premature. Judge Donovan W. Frank of the US District Court for the District of Minnesota partly granted Target's motion to dismiss with respect to a single count under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He limited any potential relief under that claim to attorneys' fees and costs, but he declined to toss any of their other claims. [GN] TEAM HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORWARD MOMENTUM, LLC, et al., v. TEAM HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00346-WKW-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the "Class Representatives", Forward Momentum, LLC, Argo Consulting, PC, Lisa M. Bundy, MD, LLC, Dr. Steven Bobo, Dr. Raymond J. Maguire, Dr. Landon E. Argo, Dr. Nima Bahraini, Dr. Dawn Donald, Dr. Roger D. Eiland, and Dr. Lisa M. Bundy, on behalf of themselves and the Class, ask the Court to enter an order: -- finally approving the class settlement of the Plaintiffs' Claims against Team Health LLC f/k/a Team Health, Inc. and Paragon Contracting Services, LLC; and -- certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Class Representatives seek final approval of their Class and Settlement Agreement. The Class and other terms of the Settlement Agreement were agreed upon after several years of intense litigation and arm’s-length negotiations with the assistance of highly respected mediators. The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and likely to warrant final approval under the Eleventh Circuit's long standing class settlement fairness factors as well as the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), the Plaintiffs contend. Moreover, the Settlement Class satisfies and is certifiable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and (b)(3). The Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds and Notice should be approved because it is fair, adequate, and reasonable. No objections warrant disapproval of the Settlement. TeamHealth offers careers for physicians plus hospital management and staffing services for facilities across the country. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wtM0ns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Lowell, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0557 E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com clowell@wigginschilds.com TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Schilder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, et al. The case is styled as John Schilder, an individual(s), on behalf of, himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599603 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 12, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) -- https://www.tndc.org/ -- provides affordable, sustainable housing and service.[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 TERRAFORM LABS: Luna Fiasco Escalates Into Class Action By Victims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Min-hyung at koreatimes.co.kr reports that the devastated investors of Terra and Luna are moving to take class action against Do Kwon, co-founder of Terraform Labs, which developed the scandal-tainted cryptocurrencies. LKB & Partners, a Seoul-based law firm, sued him and filed a provisional attachment of his assets, , holding him responsible for the recent crash of the two coins, the values of which have in about a week plummeted to near zero. A group of 1,700 victims of the fiasco also share the same plan to sue Kwon and Shin Hyun-sung, better known by his English name, Daniel Shin, the co-founder of the company, to Seoul Southern District Court. As the cryptocurrency industry is still in a legal grey area here, it is not clear whether the investors will be able to get any compensation from Kwon and his company. Despite the investors moving to take legal action, Kwon recently shared his plan to launch a decentralized exchange that will operate under the new Terra 2.0 ecosystem, as part of an updated initiative to set up a new chain without an algorithmic stablecoin. But as his latest Terra stablecoin project ended in spectacular failure, crypto investors and moguls are expressing skepticism over Kwon's revival plan. According to the industry, the National Tax Service conducted a special tax investigation on Terraform Labs and its parent firm, The Encore Company, in June of last year over their alleged evasion of paying tens of billions of won in corporate and income taxes. Officials from the authority were unavailable for comment. Korea's financial authorities are also stepping up monitoring of crypto exchanges, so that they can figure out the exact scale of damages to retail investors. According to the Financial Services Commission, the number of Luna's Korean holders reached 280,000 and they held 70 billion Luna tokens. With the Luna scandal escalating fear sentiment here and abroad, local crypto exchanges decided to delist the two tokens. Under the decision, Luna cannot be traded through Upbit, the nation's largest crypto exchange, from May 20. Bithumb will also follow suit on May 27. All eyes are also on whether the revived Financial and Securities Crimes Joint Investigation Team under the country's prosecution will launch a probe into the Luna scandal. The organization was disbanded in January 2020, but was launched once again, shortly after prosecutor-turned-President Yoon Suk-yeol took office. Even if Kwon and his company face multiple lawsuits here and abroad, it still appears that it will be hard for Terra and Luna investors to be compensated. "Korea's financial authorities have reiterated their warning on crypto investment for the past few years due to its high price volatility and the legal ambiguity surrounding the crypto industry," Sejong University business professor Kim Dae-jong said. "The latest scandal is different from conventional securities fraud, as there is not a single legal safeguard to protect crypto victims." [GN] TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toms River Township, et al. The case is styled as Gerald Smit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toms River Township, John Does, to be later identified, Ocean County NJ, Case No. 3:22-cv-02594-FLW-RLS (D.N.J., May 2, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Toms River -- https://tomsrivertownship.com/ -- is a township in Ocean County, New Jersey, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: To Pay Damages Over Defective Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------- The members of the class action against Toyota Australia over its defective diesel particulate filter (DPF) are to be awarded payouts to cover the vehicle's drop in value. The Federal Court judgement from May 16 found in favour of the original applicant and class action group members, and has ordered Toyota Australia to pay damages. According to the order, the Federal Court found that, as a result of the defective DPF, the affected vehicles "were not of acceptable quality", and that Toyota Australia engaged in "misleading or deceptive conduct" in relation to marketing and selling the specified models. The Court found that the value of the impacted vehicles at the time of sale was reduced because of the faulty DPF and determined that the amount of the reduction in value was 17.5 per cent of the average retail price. As a result, all eligible members of the class action are entitled to monetary compensation for the drop in value, "and for the excess GST they paid as a result of acquiring their vehicles at prices which were higher than the true value of those vehicles". The second applicant of the action was awarded a total payout of $18,401.76 over the DPF issue in their Toyota Prado. This was made up of $7474.59 for the drop in value, $747.46 for the excess GST, $246.60 for excess stamp duty, $1650.32 for excess financing costs, $4725 for income lost due to having the Prado serviced for the DPF issues and $3559.79 in interest on the above amounts. Each class action member will be entitled to compensation of 17.5 per cent of the retail price as outlined above and the law firm for the members, Gilbert + Tobin, is urging affected owners that are not already part of the action to register their interest. Given each of the models and their respective variants had differing retail prices at the time of purchase, the amount that each class action member receives will differ. Some owners have already received a refund, a replacement vehicle or compensation payout directly from Toyota Australia, in which case that will be taken into account under the Court-approved compensation distribution scheme. The DPF problem affects Toyota HiLux, Fortuner and Prado models fitted with a 2.8-litre (1GD-FTV) or 2.4-litre (2GD-FTV) turbo-diesel engine, sold in Australia between October 2015 and April 2020. The DPF is part of the vehicle's exhaust system and is designed to capture and trap exhaust soot and other particles that are created during the diesel combustion process. This then ensures that they are prevented from being pumped into the atmosphere when the vehicle is operating. As previously reported, 264,170 vehicles are affected by this DPF problem and the total payout amount could add up to close to $2 billion. Toyota Australia has appealed the Court's judgement and if successful, it would mean the applicants could lose the entitlement to receive money, or the amount could be reduced. CarsGuide has contacted Toyota Australia for comment. [GN] TOYOTETSU NORTH AMERICA: Phelps Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jonathan Phelps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyotetsu North America, Case No. 22-CI-00328 was removed from the Pulaski Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on May 12, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-00106-CHB-HAI to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TOYOTETSU North America -- https://ttna.com/ -- is proud to be a community leader in launch of Kentucky FAME in the Cumberland Region and Greater Owensboro Region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Venters, Esq. VENTERS LAW OFFICE 35 Public Square P.O. Box 1749 Somerset, KY 42501 Phone: (606) 451-0332 Fax: (606) 451-0335 Email: joey@venterslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Judd R. Uhl, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP - LEXINGTON 2333 Alexandria Drive Lexington, KY 40504 Phone: (859) 663-9830 Fax: (859) 663-9829 Email: Judd.Uhl@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Russell Morgan Salisbury, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP - FT. WRIGHT 909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 230 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Phone: (859) 663-9830 Fax: (859) 663-9829 Email: Morgan.Salisbury@lewisbrisbois.com TRANSFORCE INC: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Modified in Lim Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO LIM individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TFORCE LOGISTICS, LLC, and TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, Case No. 2:19-cv-04390-JAK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part stipulation regarding continuing hearing date and briefing schedule of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to permit parties additional time to conduct declarant discovery. The briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's motion for class certification is modified as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline -- Last day to file motion March 8, 2022 Filed (Dkt. 166) for class certification: -- Last day to file response May 13, 2022 June 13, 2022 to motion for class certification: -- Last day to file reply May 27, 2022 July 25, 2022 to motion for class certification: -- Hearing on Motion for June 27, 2022 Aug. 22, 2022 Class Certification: TForce specializes in providing delivery solutions, fleet replacement, e-commerce and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pqn5cY at no extra charge.[CC] TRITERRAS INC: Settles Class Action Over Securities Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Triterras Inc. (OTC Expert Market: TRIRF) ("Triterras" or the "Company"), a leading fintech company focused on trade and trade finance, on May 16 disclosed that Triterras and all defendants in the class action Erlandson v. Triterras, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-10795-CS (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action")), have entered into a settlement agreement to fully and completely resolve the Action. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, fault or liability. Under the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Settlement Agreement"), which has been filed with the Court, Triterras will pay $9 million, of which a portion will be covered by insurance. The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court and the fulfillment of other conditions set forth therein, all of which involve inherent risks and substantial uncertainties. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached to this press release. About Triterras Triterras is a global fintech company co-headquartered in Singapore and Dubai and leading innovator of inclusive finance solutions for the world's micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The company launched and operates Kratos™—one of the world's largest digital financing platforms--to directly connect MSMEs with lenders online and source capital across commodity trading, supply chain, logistics, and ecommerce finance. For more information, please visit triterras.com or email us at contact@triterras.com. [GN] UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Residency Cert. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the US Supreme Court declined on May 16 to hear an appeal brought by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates over the criteria to certify an issue class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It's at least the fifth time the high court has declined to resolve questions about the claimed circuit split over the interplay between Rule 23(b)(3), which authorizes a class action where common questions predominate over individual questions, and Rule 23(c)(4), which allows issue certification when "appropriate." [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 12 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on May 17 dislcosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 12, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On May 9, 2022, after the market closed, Upstart announced its first quarter 2022 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer cited "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies [as] putting downward pressure on conversion." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Upstart stock between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Upstart should contact the Firm prior to the July 12, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm.[GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Upstart Holdings, Inc. ('Upstart' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: UPST). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022. Investors are hereby notified that they have until July 12, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser:https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/upstart-holdings-inc-news-class-action There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Upstart class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Upstart class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel, LLP:Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLPJim Baker, 619-814-4471Investor Relationsjimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Upstart Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UPST) investors that a class action filed on behalf of investors that purchased Upstart Holdings shares and lost money are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss their legal rights. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. Upstart Holdings, Inc. (UPST) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans. In addition, the Company was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate and reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans. On May 9, 2022, Upstart announced its first quarter 2022 financial results, reducing its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer indicated that the "balance of loans, notes, and residuals at the end of the quarter was ... up to $604 million from $261 million in Q4," citing "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies [as] putting downward pressure on conversion." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Upstart Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UPST) between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Upstart securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Upstart class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6208 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) as a result, Upstart was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Upstart class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6208 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Upstart securities between March 18, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). A previous securities fraud class action complaint filed against Upstart asserted a shorter class period of November 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022. The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned: Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 3:22-cv-02973 (N.D. Cal.) Upstart is a financial technology firm that uses artificial intelligence ("AI") and data science to underwrite consumer credit. The Company partners with banks to offer credit to consumers, either through the Upstart website or through banking partner websites embedded with Upstart technology. Upstart claims that its underwriting process allows banking partners to originate credit with higher approval rates, lower loss rates, and a high degree of automation. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants claimed that the lack of loans the Company retained on its balance sheet ensured it only was exposed to limited credit risk. Further, Defendants assured investors the Company was "cognizant of the fluidity in the macro environment," but was "not expecting any meaningful adverse impact from rising defaults on our volumes or economics." Additionally, Upstart's "technology and model-driven" growth "manifest[ed] as increasing conversion rates," an important metric representing the number of rate inquiries that resulted in loan transactions. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misled investors and/or failed to disclose: (1) Upstart's AI underwriting model could not and did not adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rate increases and the end of the U.S. government stimulus; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was experiencing negative impacts on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans, rendering its balance sheet highly exposed to credit risk; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth emerged after the markets closed on May 9, 2022, when Upstart released its financial results for the first quarter of 2022, which included a dramatic increase in loans on its balance sheet. Specifically, loans on the Company's balance sheet had more than doubled in just one quarter: from $252.4 million for the period ending to December 31, 2021, to $597.9 million for the period ended March 31, 2022. During a related earnings call, Defendants attributed the increase of loans on the Company's balance sheet to "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies putting downward pressure on conversion." In response to this news, Upstart's stock price fell 56%, from a closing price of $77.13 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022. If you purchased Upstart securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California no later than July 12, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN] VIMPELCOM LTD: Appointment Bids for Lead Plaintiff Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kux-Kardos v. Vimpelcom, Ltd. et al. (RE: VEON LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:15-cv-08672-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order that: 1. SKS's motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and motion for appointment of Lead Counsel are denied; and 2. Lvov's motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of Lead Counsel are granted. This securities class action was brought on behalf of individuals who purchased VEON shares between June 30, 2011 and November 3, 2015, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SAC alleges that during the relevant class period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, failed to disclose adverse material facts about VEON's business, operations, and prospects, and that the disclosure of these acts and omissions caused a precipitous decline in VEON's stock price. The Defendant's wrongful conduct during the relevant period gave rise to investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). During the pendency of this action, VEON entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the USDOJ, pursuant to which VEON pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information charging the company with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA). The two competing Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff are brought by Boris Lvov and a group of Plaintiffs comprised of Sherman Steele, Leonard Karpwich, and Stan Sinitsa ("SKS"). Both movants propose to replace prior Lead Plaintiff Westway, which has been dismissed from this action for lack of standing. Lvov originally sought and was denied Lead Plaintiff status in 2015, and has been participating in the litigation since that time. SKS became parties to this litigation more recently, by being added as Named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint filed on April 14, 2020. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ld4e7v at no extra charge.[CC] VISION SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of Calta Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CALTA, v. VISION SOLAR FL, LLC a/k/a VISION SOLAR, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00897-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Vision solar asks the Court that the case be dismissed or stayed in the alternative based on: (a) the first-filed rule; and (b) the Complaint containing insufficient allegations regarding the nature and origin of Vision Solar's alleged improper telephonic solicitation. Vision Solar asks an entry of an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint and awarding Vision Solar any and all such other appropriate relief. In the alternative, Vision Solar respectfully requests that this case be stayed in its entirety. This class action, which involves claims against Vision Solar arising from allegedly unauthorized, automated telephonic solicitations, should be dismissed (or in the alternative, stayed) based on the "first-filed rule." There are already two pending Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) class action cases against Vision Solar wherein the proposed classes are broader and thus encompass the proposed class set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, giving the overlapping parties and issues, this Court should follow the strong presumption across the federal circuits that favors the forum of the first-filed suit under the first-filed rule, the Defendant contends. Vision Solar designs and installs the best performing, cost-efficient, and aesthetically pleasing solar solutions in the industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LpqBkS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Bonnie@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: JBarrett@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Seth B. Burack, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 1700 West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 804-4418 Facsimile: (561) 835-9602 E-mail: sburack@foxrothschild.com bhutson@foxrothschild.com VMK INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Reeves Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reeves v. VMK, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01948 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Michael E Hegarty entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend scheduling order as follows: -- Discovery due by: Sept. 28, 2022 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Dec. 1, 2022 -- Proposed Pretrial Order due by: Jan. 10, 2023 -- The deadline to file a Motion October 27, 2022 for Class Certification is extended to: -- The Final Pretrial Conference Jan. 17, 2023 currently set for October 20, 2022 is rescheduled to: The suit involves restrictions of use of telephone equipment. VMK is an IT Company.[CC] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leah Getchel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Wakefield and Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02436-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for class certification and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Wakefield and Associates is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yCGRMw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ, 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121 E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com WALMART INC: Flores Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20, 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL FLORES on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC. a Delaware corporation, a California corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00181-TJH-RAOx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting stipulation to continue briefing and hearing deadlines on motion for class certification as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a class certification motion is January 20, 2023; -- The deadline for Walmart to file an opposition to the Plaintiff’s class certification motion is March 3, 2023; -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of his class certification motion is March 31, 2023; -- The hearing on Plaintiff’s class certification motion is April 17, 2023; and -- The Parties are to submit a joint status report four weeks after a ruling on Plaintiff's class certification motion, which will include a proposed further schedule, including proposed dates for a final pre-trial conference and trial. 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 Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38w9pwr at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiff Manuel Flores on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 The Attorneys for Defendant Walmart Inc., are: Robert J. Herrington, Esq. Alex Linhardt, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com linhardta@gtlaw.com WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Disneyland Dream Key Annual Passes --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Carey, writing for ThatHashtag Show, reports that if you are or ever have been a Disneyland Passholder, the old convenient days are gone and the "Disney Magic Key" nightmare is here. Previously with the Annual Pass Program, when you paid the maximum fee you could get into Disneyland with free parking and zero blockout dates. Now, with the Dream Key Pass, you can pay even more money with the promise of no blocked dates. However, getting a reservation during any busy time is nearly impossible. That is the complaint filed by Disneyland Magic Key annual pass holder, Jenale Nielsen. This complaint has been working its way through the courts since November 2021. The lawsuit filed against Disney alleges that Nielsen purchased a $1,399 Disneyland Dream Key annual pass with no blockout dates in September of 2021. However, they were unable to make any theme park reservations for certain dates in November 2021. "[The] Plaintiff alleges that the term 'no blockout dates' is not defined in the advertisement, but that she understood the term to mean that Dream Key Pass holders would not be blocked from making theme park reservations 'whenever Disney was offering park reservations for entrance to the theme parks. She also understood the advertisement's statement that 'park reservations are subject to availability and are not guaranteed for any specific dates or park' to mean that 'if park reservations were available and being offered to the public, Dream Key holders could use their passes to make reservations for entry to the parks." The $5 million suit filed against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on behalf of all Magic Key annual pass holders alleges Disneyland relegated them to "second class" ticket holders. How so? By artificially limiting Magic Key reservations and the number of passholders that can visit on any given day. HOW TRUE ARE THESE ALLEGATIONS? Well, Disney agrees that the phrase "blockout date" is not defined. However, they deny the phrase "'no blockout' dates can be reasonably understood to mean Dream Key passholders can make reservations whenever Disneyland or Disney California Adventure offers theme park reservations." Disney also admits it promised there would be no blockout dates for Dream Key pass holders. However, they deny that they blocked out dates to Dream Key pass holders. However, if you've read anything from Disney Parks about Dream Key passes, they have said that this new program helps with crowd control. They have said Disneyland has the power to artificially limit theme park reservations for Passholders and single ticket holders alike. However, saying they can and actually doing it are two different things. Disneyland is obviously aware of the Magic Key Reservation issue, even if they don't want to fully admit it. Currently, the Dream Key and Believe Key passes are sold out. Which, to my knowledge, has never happened with any incarnation of a Disneyland Annual Pass. If you're a current Dream Keyholder (like me) I'm sure you can agree with the statement above. I currently own the 2nd tier Dream Key and can rarely use it on the weekends I pay for. You must make reservations months out or hope someone cancels the night before you were hoping to go. Previously, I've had multiple tiered Disneyland Annual Passes, including the original reservation pass, Flex-Pass. I never had these issues before Dream Key. So, I understand Nielsen's frustration. The feeling of being treated as "second class" ticket holders, as the complaint states, is a true statement. Disney Parks has the power to limit Magic Key reservations for pass holders on any given day. They are not tiered off depending on your pass. We are all fighting for days out of the same pool. WHERE DOES THE LAWSUIT STAND? Currently, United States District Court Judge David Carter has denied Disney's motion to dismiss the Dream Key case. He is allowing it to proceed. And it seems that Nielsen's attorneys are seeking to have the case certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court. So, if this $5million dollar lawsuit becomes a class action you can bet your bippy I'll be signing up. Judge Carter is allowing this case to move forward because it falls under breach of contract. It also falls under the California consumer protection act. However, Judge Carter has granted Disney's dismissal motions relating to claims of false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, legal disclosure, as well as unfair competition. "The court finds that plaintiff has adequately pled facts supporting how a reasonable consumer may be deceived by the advertisement, which states 'no blockout dates.'" Carter wrote in his ruling. "Plaintiff argues that ordinary consumers generally understand blockout dates to be 'dates when tickets, credits, passes or rewards cannot be used.'" So, what do you think? Are the Dream Key allegations without merit? Do you believe the lawsuit should become a class action? Comment and let us know! [GN] WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Manipulation of Retro Game Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------- According to PCGamer's Ted Litchfield, as reported by VGC, collectible grading service Wata is facing a class-action lawsuit over allegedly conspiring with Heritage Auctions to pump up the value of rare videogames. Wata and Heritage both deny any wrongdoing. Grading services like Wata assess the condition of mint videogames and assign them a rank based on that physical condition. The games are then sealed in a clear plastic housing for preservation with the rating clearly displayed. While communicating with rival rating service VGA to research our round-up of the rarest collectible PC games, a company representative claimed that "our company does not provide any type of appraisal service and the market value is determined by the video game community." In the past few years, the prices of collectible games have skyrocketed. In 2017, a sealed copy of Super Mario Bros. sold for $30,000 at auction, the most anyone had paid for a copy of a videogame to that point. This sale also took place before Wata had gotten up and running. Between 2019 and the end of 2021, Wata-graded games sold through Heritage auctions broke the record for most expensive videogame ever sold six times in a row: February 2019: Super Mario Bros., $100,150 July 2020: Super Mario Bros., $114,000 November 2020: Super Mario Bros. 3, $156,000 April 2021: Super Mario Bros., $660,000 July 2021: The Legend of Zelda, $870,000 July 2021: Super Mario 64, $1.56 million That last record has since been broken by the $2 million sale of a Wata-graded copy of Super Mario Bros. on the website Rally. The class action lawsuit alleges that Heritage and Wata coordinated media appearances and press releases to drive up the prices of collectible games, with Heritage taking a cut of successful sales and Wata's fee for its services being proportional to a game's estimated price. In September of 2021, journalist Seth Abramson published an article to his Substack newsletter, Retro, alleging that Wata co-founder Mark Haspel was selling a significant volume of Wata-graded games through eBay. This goes against best practices and ethics among grading houses, and also directly contradicts statements by Wata president Deniz Khan to the New York Times that the company's employees would not personally sell Wata-graded games due to the potential conflict of interest. Also covered by Abramson through Retro, Haspel subsequently admitted to selling Wata-graded games, while also claiming to have distanced himself from the company. Despite this, Haspel continues to have a featured place on the company website alongside the rest of its executive team. The big-ticket items of the overheated collectible games market are mostly classic console releases, but as we noted in our report on rare big box games, things are getting pretty crazy on the PC side as well. Ultima: Escape From Mt. Drash has one of the best claims to the title of all-time rarest PC game, being a cassette-based entry of a popular series with an exceedingly limited original retail distribution. A copy sold for $9,002 in 2017 before the current market developed, and no new copies have gone on sale since. Last December, a DOS copy of the original John Madden Football sold for an astonishing $25,000 on eBay, and collectible PC games are regularly selling for over $1,000 at auction—once an extreme rarity according to Joel McCoy, administrator of the Big Box PC Game Collectors Group on Facebook. Thankfully, the current situation around NFTs and cryptocurrency shows us that the aggressive overvaluing of assets like this could never catastrophically collapse and take people with it—the line just keeps going up and up. [GN] WELCH FOODS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Clevenger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN CLEVENGER and DAVID BLOOM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, THE PROMOTION IN MOTION COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01859-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order amending the scheduling order as follows: -- The date by which Plaintiffs must file any motion to compel regarding PIM's responses/objections to (1) Interrogatories, Set 6, and (2) Requests for Admission, Set 3, is continued to 30 days after the Court rules on their motion for class certification, currently set for hearing on June 13, 2022. Welch is an American company, headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. It has been owned by the National Grape Cooperative Association, a co-op of grape growers, since 1956. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FY3EUU at no extra charge.[CC] WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Breach of Contract Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wilhelmina International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that a putative class action lawsuit filed in in October 24, 2013 brought against the company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, in New York State Supreme Court (New York County, is still pending. The claims initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the company filed its answer and counterclaim against Little. By Order dated May 8, 2020, the court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later date. Wilhelmina is into fashion model management with its business operations headquartered in New York City. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wilhelmina International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that a putative class action lawsuit filed in in October 24, 2013 brought against the company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (Shanklin Litigation), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County), is still pending. The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. On January 6, 2014, the company moved to dismiss an amended complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. It also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. In October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety and permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. Wilhelmina is into fashion model management with its business operations headquartered in New York City. WINMARK CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winmark Corporation. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Winmark Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-02816 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Winmark Corporation -- https://winmarkcorporation.com/ -- is an American franchisor of five retail businesses that specialize in buying and selling used goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com YASSO INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yasso, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yasso, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03917 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yasso -- https://yasso.com/ -- operates as a frozen yogurt brand featuring stick bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com Z SUPPLY LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Z Supply, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Z Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02778-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Z Supply -- https://zsupplyclothing.com/ -- offers thoughtfully designed, versatile clothing that empowers women through effortless style and comfort for everyday wear and life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com [*] Class Actions v. FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10% in 2021, Research Shows ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Womack, writing for Law.com, reports that the number of class action lawsuits faced by FTSE 100 companies globally has jumped by 10% over the past year. Research by Thomson Reuters found that, currently, there are 170 class action claims against FTSE 100 companies -- up from 155 the previous year. The research also found that while class action lawsuits have historically been most prevalent in the U.S., they are seen as an increasing threat to corporates in the U.K. Just under 47% of all class actions reported by the FTSE 100 were in relation to claims for breaches of competition law, and 44% of these are against banks or other financial services institutions. Commenting on the findings, Thomson Reuters' Warsha Kalé said: "The uptick in class action cases should be a cause for concern among corporates. Involvement in this type of litigation can cost businesses enormous sums of money, not to mention serious reputational damage." The research concluded that many expect to see a greater number of claims being brought before English courts, due to recent consumer rights legislation which enables classes to be certified on an 'opt-out' rather than 'opt-in' basis. Separately, on May 16 Mishcon de Reya confirmed its involvement in an 'opt-out' claim in London's High Court against Google and DeepMind Technologies for the unlawful use of patients' confidential medical records. The claim, which has been brought on behalf of approximately 1.6 million individuals, relates to an arrangement formed in 2015 between Google and DeepMind and the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. Mishcon will argue that the tech companies obtained and used a substantial number of confidential medical records without patients' knowledge or consent. The action is being funded through a litigation finance agreement with Litigation Capital Management, an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions.[GN] [*] Malaysia Needs to Set Up Class Action Framework --------------------------------------------------- M Shanmugam, writing for The Edge Malaysia, reports that based on its latest annual report, Serba Dinamik Holdings Bhd has in excess of 69,500 shareholders. The company's market capitalisation is now down to RM315 million. Serba's market cap was close to RM6 billion a year ago, when KPMG PLT red-flagged its accounts and reported the matter -- as required by law -- to the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC). KPMG's audit alert was the start of Serba's fall from grace. In the last one year, its shareholders have lost 95% of the value of their shares in the company. The company is battling creditors and needs to come up with a scheme to restructure its debts of RM1.8 billion and US$42.4 million to lenders, including bondholders. Shareholders are sitting on a RM5.5 billion wipeout in paper losses. The four directors of Serba who were hauled up by SC for furnishing false information have paid their fines totalling RM16 million, which is a measly sum compared with the losses suffered by minorities. Bankers have filed a winding-up petition on Serba and are seeking to appoint an interim liquidator to recover the debts. The company has assets but it is unlikely that the bankers will be able to fully recover the amount they lent to Serba. As for the shareholders, they have little choice but to hold on to their shares and hope that the company's fortunes improve, which is almost impossible. Past examples show that companies with huge accounting discrepancies do not recover and are finally delisted, leaving shareholders with nothing. Among the examples are Megan Media Bhd and Transmile Group Bhd, whose shareholders were left holding worthless scrips. In both cases, SC took criminal action against the principal officers and directors. In Megan Media's case, its former executive chairman was sentenced to 18 months' jail and fined RM300,000. As for the Transmile case, the principal perpetrator has gone missing after a 10-year trial, in which he was found guilty. In a nutshell, bankers and the authorities have avenues to seek redress from companies and their principal officers and directors for providing the capital markets with misleading information. But shareholders generally do not have many options except for joint legal action. On this score, Malaysia and many other countries in this region lack the framework to facilitate effective joint legal action against companies and directors. They do not have laws that allow for entities to come together and make up an ecosystem to facilitate collective legal action such as class suits. Some of the key components of such a framework are legislation that allows for a collective legal action, a tribunal to ensure that the framework is not abused by "ambulance chasers" and funders who are prepared to bankroll the aggrieved parties. At present, there are provisions in Malaysia's Companies Act 2016 that address the oppression of minority shareholders' rights. However, the benefits -- if the minorities are successful -- are accrued to the company and not the minority shareholders themselves. Therefore, the Companies Act is inadequate for protecting the rights of the thousands of minority shareholders in listed companies. This is important because the target of aggrieved minorities is the listed company and its principal directors. The other key components for facilitating a class action ecosystem are funding avenues, laws that allow legal firms to intervene on their own initiative and a tribunal to weed out the cases that do not warrant class action. In countries where there are laws that allow legal firms to take charge of class actions, some law firms specialise in such suits. The case would automatically involve all shareholders unless individual shareholders opt out. This means the legal firm does not need to reach out to shareholders before they commence a class action suit. For instance, as recently as March this year, Australia's Slater & Gordon initiated a class action suit against The Star Entertainment Group to seek compensation of A$1 billion for aggrieved minority shareholders. The company is alleged to have misled banks and regulators, to be involved in money laundering and to have failed to operate ethically. What is interesting is that the action by the legal firm -- if successful -- will automatically benefit anyone who bought shares in The Star Entertainment Group from March 2016 to March this year. In most capital markets where a class action is among the preferred ways to protect minority interests, there are funds prepared to invest in what is described as "litigation funding" ventures. They are prepared to fund shareholders and coordinate cases in class action suits. In return, they receive a percentage of the compensation if successful. Finally, there needs to be a tribunal or legislation that allows the court to determine whether the case warrants class action. Essentially, a tribunal or court will ensure that "ambulance chasers" do not misuse the framework for their own benefit. The capital markets with the most advanced class action framework and ecosystem are the US, the UK, Australia and Europe. In these markets, class suits are an avenue for minorities to recoup some of their losses. The biggest hurdle to any class suit action is the absence of regulations that enable legal firms to take the leadership role for such action and funding requirements, especially if the minorities lose their case. What Malaysia needs, for starters, is a framework that covers both aspects. Introducing such a framework would encourage minority shareholders' groups to initiate class action when they are saddled with losses due to the misdeeds of the major shareholders. This will allow minorities to take early measures to hit the pockets of the major shareholders. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***