/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220614.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 112
Headlines
5 F DIGITAL: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
9W HALO: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert Bid Extended in Smith
ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Loses Bid for Class Certification
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 25 Deadline
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Barnes
AMAZON.COM INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
AMAZON.COM: Seeks June 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
AMERICAN HERITAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMITY HARBOR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen's Findings of Facts Construed as Notice
ASA BUILDING: Marty Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
ASCENSION HEALTH: Workers Sue Over Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate
AT&T INC: Scott ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
ATLAS SENIOR: Green Loses Conditional Class Certification Bid
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Protein Content, Quality
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid To Exclude Lange's Report Terminated
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Kavon Suit
BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective
BOSWORTH CO: Dickson Files 2nd Supplement to Collective Action Bid
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Racism, Discrimination
CAREDX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 22 Deadline
CARVANA LLC: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Delivery Fee for Used Cars
CENTENE CORPORATION: Jones Seeks Payment of Earned Commissions
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered in Fox
CHOP'T CREATIVE SALAD: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Files Suit in W.D. New York
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended
CREDIT ONE: S.D. New York Grants Anderson's Bid for Sanctions
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Select CBD Wellness Drops
DANCEFIT INTERACTIVE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DENVER, CO: Exclusion of Plaintiffs From Epps' Arrest Class Denied
DIA STYLING CO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Connecticut Court Certifies Breach Class Action
EVOLENT HEALTH: Wants to Present Live Testimony at Hearing
FAIRLIFE LLC: Milk Cow Mistreatment Class Action Settled for $21MM
FARRIN PC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Garey, Hatch Suits
FCA US: Nuwer Seeks July 28 Extension to File Class Cert Reply
FIRSTENERGY CORP: LACERA Seeks to Certify Class
FIVE BELOW INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FLOWERS FOODS: District of Maine Enters Final Judgment in Noll Suit
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FUBU THE COLLECTION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUTURE FINS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GERON CORP: Delaware Court Stays Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Scheduled Sept. 28
GREENSKY MGMT: Order Partly Granting Wright's Bids to Compel Upheld
GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Plavin Suit
HABITUAL INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAIDER FAMILY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HALMEN LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Student's Suit
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Amended Phase I Case Mngt, Sched Order Entered
HENKEL CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Goldstein Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Forsyth Suit in California Court
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Jarrell Suit Over Concealed Seat Belt Defect
INJURED WORKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Email Account Breach
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 24 Deadline
IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 1 Deadline
IRONNET INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 21 Deadline
ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Class Suit
ISS FACILITY: Mendoza Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
JOHN C. HEATH: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
KALAHARI SNACKS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LA MARIA PIZZERIA: Martinez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
LEGAL SEA: Labby Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers & Bartenders
LLR INC: Ponkey Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Arbitration Order
LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 26 Deadline
MAZIE SLATER: Martino Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
META PLATFORMS: Illinois Residents Set to Receive Settlement Checks
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Greene Sues Over Gang Foremen's Unpaid Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Cir. Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit Discussed
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Denial of Goyette's Bid to Amend Schedules Upheld
MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid as Moot
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Certification Hearing Set for March 2023
MORPHE LLC: Brooks Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
MTA NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Prunella Suit Claims
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Case Management Deadlines in Davis Reset
MYLAN NV: Settlement Hearing in Price Fixing Suit Set for July 6
NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Seeks Leave to File Rejoinder
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Basch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NETFLIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NETFLIX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NETFLIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NEW INDY: Seeks Dismissal of Foul Odor Class Action Lawsuit
NEW YORK: Court Interpreters Sue Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
NEW YORK: Shomo Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. NYSDOCCS
NIGHTFOOD INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NIKOLA CORP: Stockholder Derivative Suit Put on Hold
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kendall
OKTA INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline
PARKASH 1630: Seeks Extension to Respond to Diaz Class Cert. Bid
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline
PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE: Guerra Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PNC BANK: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by July 11
PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California
PVH RETAIL: Gamboa Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
QUEENSLAND: 2011 Brisbane Flood Victims Start Receiving Settlement
RHODE ISLAND: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Munir Suit Denied
RISKIFIED LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 1 Deadline
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Snyder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
ROOSEVELT FIELD: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Attys. Fees in Antitrust Suit Partly Affirmed
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in Illinois Court
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
SHELTA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Technicians
SOCLEAN INC: Odom Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in Saxon Suit
SPLUNK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
STARKIST CO: To Appeal 9th Cir. Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment vs. Daniel
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson
TALKSPACE INC: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Combined Securities Suit
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Stallworth FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court
THERMON GROUP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Guardrail Class Action for $56-MM
UNITED STATES: Murbach Files Suit for Workplace Discrimination
UPSTART INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
VAXART INC: Court Dismisses Counts II-III in Stockholder Suit
VENTURE TRANSPORT: Harris Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VIVID SEATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Hidden Fees"
W.B. MASON: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Jablonski Suit Says
WAAWAATESI LLC: Johnson Small Loans Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hostetler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennesse
WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
WARDEN CARVER: Workman Class Certification Bid Nixed
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Warner Suit
WASHINGTON DC: Jefferson Files Suit in D. Columbia
WASHINGTON: Wise Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Vaccination Mandate
WELCH FOODS: Seeks to Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Clevenger
WELLS FARGO: District of New Jersey Dismisses Hart Federal Suit
WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Response to Class Cert Bid
WILD WEST: Filing of Jeter Class Status Bid Extended to July 11
WILLIAM OSLER: Cert. Ruling in Breach of Privacy Suit Discussed
WORKFORCE 7 INC: Discovery Plan, Sched Order Modified in Ballast
YMI JEANSWEAR: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZEETO LLC: Williams Granted Extension to File Class Status Bid
ZEETO LLC: Williams Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
*********
5 F DIGITAL: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 F Digital Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew R. Perrong, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 5 F Digital Inc. doing business as:
Vacant Land Experts, Case No. 2:22-cv-02160-CFK (E.D. Pa., June 2,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
5 F Digital Inc. doing business as Vacant Land Experts --
https://vacantlandexperts.com/ -- is a web-based marketing company
for real estate professionals and private landowners from around
the world..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
9W HALO: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert Bid Extended in Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR &
CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order continuing the briefing schedule for
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Plaintiff's Motion for June 16, 2022 Nov. 17, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Defendant's Opposition Aug. 18, 2022 Jan. 19, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Sept. 1, 2022 Feb. 2, 2023
Support of Motion for
Class Certification:
9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business
includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household
users.
A copy of the Parties motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8eCaB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
The Attorneys for Defendant 9W Halo Western OPCO L.P., are:
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company, Case No.
1:17-cv-23749-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Seitz
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court is not persuaded that a class action is the superior
vehicle for putative class members. It is certainly not the only
vehicle available to MAOs and downstream entities who wish to
recoup on small claims. They could contract with Plaintiff, which
has demonstrated its willingness to bring such claims as an
assignee on behalf of a variety of Medicare Advantage Organization
(MAOs) and other entities.
The Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act ensures that Medicare funds
do not cover costs that should be paid by private insurers. This
situation arises where a person is covered by both Medicare and
private insurance. As relevant here, for instance, a MAO plan
beneficiary might be injured on commercial property where an
insurer ultimately accepts responsibility for the medical expenses.
In such cases, the MAO plan or one of its contracted providers
(often termed downstream or first-tier entities) might have to pay
first to cover immediate medical needs (a "conditional payment"
under the Act).
ACE American Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xktcay at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Global Investors U.S.
LLC ("AllianzGI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APBIX) (NASDAQ: APBPX)
(NASDAQ: APBRX) (NASDAQ: APKIX) (NASDAQ: APKPX) (NASDAQ: APKRX)
(NASDAQ: AZIAX) (NASDAQ: AZICX) (NASDAQ: AZIIX) (NASDAQ: AZIPX)
(NASDAQ: AZIRX) (NASDAQ: AZUAX) (NASDAQ: AZUCX) (NASDAQ: AZUIX)
(NASDAQ: AZUPX) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased, sold, or liquidated mutual
funds shares managed by AllianzGI's Structured Products Group from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020. Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/agi.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that AllianzGI committed
securities fraud from 2015 through 2020 through a scheme to defraud
prospective and current Mutual Fund investors by making false and
misleading statements that substantially understated the risks
being taken by the Mutual Funds. Instead of managing the Mutual
Funds as represented, the Complaint alleges that AllianzGI
prioritized returns over risk management in ways that were
fundamentally inconsistent with AllianzGI's representations
concerning the Mutual Funds Principal Investment Strategies.
AllianzGI and its managers engaged in this conduct, the Complaint
alleges, to increase the compensation paid to AllianzGI as
investment manager and to its employees as portfolio managers of
the Mutual Funds. The Complaint also alleges that AllianzGI acted
negligently and breached its fiduciary duties to investors.
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/agi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in AllianzGI you have until July 25, 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 represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. 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]
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Barnes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARNES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (AES), LLC ,Case No. 1:21-cv-21121-BB
(S.D. Fla.), AES moves the Court for leave to file a short
sur-reply to plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification.
AES makes this request to address two erroneous factual claims
raised for the first time in plaintiff's Reply, which are
contradicted by the discovery record before the Court. Because
plaintiff's erroneous claims were made for the first time in
plaintiff's Reply, AES had no opportunity to address them in its
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's complaint, filed in March 2021, alleged a proposed
class period "within four years prior to the filing of this
action." The parties engaged in extensive discovery based on that
proposed class period. This discovery included depositions of AES
employees and AES's January 12, 2022 Second Supplemental Responses
and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set
of Interrogatories.
When plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on March
14, 2022, she for the first time alleged an entirely new proposed
class period of “December 2020 to July 2021. Given plaintiff's
new proposed class period, AES immediately searched for and, on
April 6, 2022, supplemented its document production with 17
additional messages for the newly defined class period.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tqwtE6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
R. Allan Pixton, Esq.
Kelsey Bleiweiss, Esq.
Nadia Abramson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
allan.pixton@kirkland.com
kelsey.bleiweiss@kirkland.com
nadia.abramson@kirkland.com
- and -
Buffey E. Klein, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 999-6100
Facsimile: (214) 999-6170
E-mail: buffey.klein@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
Facsimile: (312) 655-1501
E-mail: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Amazon.com, Inc.:
Shareholders who purchased shares of AMZN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27908&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: February 1, 2019 to April 5, 2022
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued 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 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27908&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of AMZN during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 5, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
AMAZON.COM: Seeks June 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Action to and
including June 16, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed his Certification Motion on April 14, 2022. On
May 2, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to
Brief Motion to Certify, which the Court granted on May 3.
This set Defendant's response deadline at June 2 and Plaintiff's
reply deadline at June 30.
The Defendant also filed a Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify, requesting the Court stay briefing on the
Certification Motion until after ruling on Defendant's pending
Motion to Dismiss.
On May 31, 2022, the Court issued its Order denying the motion to
stay, which set Defendant’s deadline to respond to the
Certification Motion for June 9, 2022.
Amazon's in-house employment counsel who is handling this matter is
out of the country on vacation, without access to email, from June
6, 2022 through June 13, 2022. Therefore, to provide in-house
counsel sufficient time to review Defendant’s response to the
Certification Motion upon his return from vacation, Amazon requests
a brief additional one-week extension of time, to June 16, 2022, in
which to respond to the Certification Motion.
Amazon Services offers many of the Web service platforms that are
Amazon offers.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xh48l1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
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 HERITAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Heritage
Textiles, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Heritage
Textiles, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04564-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 2,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Heritage Textiles -- https://americanheritagetextiles.com/
-- is an American home goods, textile and accessories company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
AMITY HARBOR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amity Harbor Marine,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Amity Harbor Marine, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04640 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Amity Harbor Marine, Inc. -- https://www.amityharbormarine.com/ --
is a boat dealer in Copiague, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antero Resources
Corporation. The case is styled as Treva Kirkbride, as Trustee of
the R and K Trust, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. Antero Resources Corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-02251-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Antero Resources Corporation -- http://www.anteroresources.com/--
is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford N. Sickler, Esq.
SICKLER LAW OFFICE, LLC
508 North Street
Caldwell, OH 43724
Phone: (740) 732-1495
Fax: (740) 732-4139
Email: cliff@sicklerlawoffice.com
- and -
George A Barton, Esq.
Stacy A Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen's Findings of Facts Construed as Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lysengen v. Argent Trust
Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01177 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Michael M. Mihm entered an order directing the Clerk's office to
construe Plaintiff's filing as a Notice.
The Plaintiff filed her Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law Related to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as a
Motion. The Plaintiff had already filed a fully briefed motion on
this issue and the document is not styled as a motion. It appears
this was inadvertently filed as a Motion, the Court says.
The Defendant Argent filed a Motion to Strike, claiming Plaintiff
inappropriately introduces new argument, factual contentions, and
exhibits.
The Court reviewed Plaintiff's findings of facts and Defendants
response to those findings of facts and determined that while there
were some new arguments, they did not change the outcome of the
motion. Moreover, Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governs Motions to Strike at the pre-trial phase of
litigation.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving Recovery of Benefits to Employee.
Argent Trust Co NA operates as an investment management firm.
[CC]
ASA BUILDING: Marty Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASA Building
Maintenance Inc., et al. The case is styled as Luis Marty, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed
FLSA Collective Action v. ASA Building Maintenance Inc., Aref Ajram
also known as: Steve Ajram, Maher Safa also known as: Michael Safa,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04595 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Asa Building Maintenance -- https://www.asabm.com/ -- is a
construction company based in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Fax: (646) 786-3170
Email: joshua@levinepstein.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Workers Sue Over Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Ford, writing for Owensboro Media, reports that about 60 people
who work at Ascension are driving a class action lawsuit over the
hospital's coronavirus vaccine mandate. The lawsuit says people
were forced to choose between their job and their faith. The 60 all
asked for religious exemptions to Ascension's vaccine mandate. The
lawsuit says federal law prohibits companies from forcing people to
choose between their jobs and their faith. Ascension isn't
commenting on the lawsuit. [GN]
AT&T INC: Scott ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Scott, Patricia
Gilchrist, Karen Fisher, Helen Maldonado-Valtierra, John Griffin,
Kenneth Rhodes, Judy Dougherty, John Kelly, Richard Walshon, and
Dan Koval, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. and the AT&T Pension
Benefit Plan, Case No. 3:20-cv-07094-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following classes pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- Retired Class
"All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who are
receiving a Joint and Survivor Annuity that is less
than the value of their Single Life Annuity when
converted to a Joint and Survivor Annuity using the
interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26
U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability period
and November lookback month, excluding those
participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program,
the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV
Program; and
-- Pre-Retirement Class
"All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who have
not commenced receiving benefits, excluding those
participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program,
the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV
Program."
2. appointing them as class representatives; and
3. appointing Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Stris & Maher
LLP, and Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP appointed
as class counsel for the proposed classes under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(g).
This case arises from the systematic underpayment of pension
benefits to married participants in the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan
("Plan"). In summary, the Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Inc. (the
plan sponsor) and AT&T Services, Inc. (the plan administrator)
violate ERISA by paying joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits
to married participants that are worth less than single life
annuities ("SLAs").
The AT&T Pension Benefit Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan"
subject to the The Parties and the Plan requirements of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding
company that is Delaware-registered but headquartered at Whitacre
Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aG486a at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
Kai Ritcher, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
- and -
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
Rachana A. Pathak, Esq.
Victor O'Connell, Esq.
John Stokes, Esq.
Colleen R. Smith, Esq.
10 STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
- and -
Todd Jackson, Esq.
Nina Wasow, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
- and -
Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
5998 Alcala Park Warren Hall
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 260-2347
Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
ATLAS SENIOR: Green Loses Conditional Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNITA GREEN,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ATLAS
SENIOR LIVING, LLC, formerly known as Shepherd Senior Living, LLC,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William
T. Moore entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action and issuance of
court-approved notice.
Atlas's request for oral argument is also denied. Additionally,
Chiquita Brown, Marsha Grant, Kiara Hartwell, Brittany Mitchell,
Tameka Sibert, and Tawanya Richards are dismissed without prejudice
from this action. Only Representative Plaintiff Bernita Green's
individual claims remain pending. The Court reminds the parties
that, in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's November 17, 2021,
order, the parties must submit a new proposed scheduling order
within 15 days of the date of this Order.
On August 20, 2021, Representative Plaintiff Bernita Green,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, instituted
this action seeking unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
According to the complaint. Green worked for Atlas as an
hourly-paid medical technician at the Legacy at Savannah Quarters
senior living facility. Green alleges that Atlas had a policy of
automatically deducting either a 30-minute or one-hour meal period
from its employees' time records, the length of the deduction being
determined by the number of hours the employee worked during each
shift. Atlas allegedly made these deductions despite knowing that
Green and other similarly situated employees were frequently
required to work through their meal breaks.
On November 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to
conditionally certify the case as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) and create an opt-in class comprised of all
hourly employees who worked for Atlas at Legacy from August 20,
2018, to the present. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court
authorize the issuance of notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs
who worked for Atlas at Legacy from August 20, 2018, to the
present.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3muWxKx at no extra charge.[CC]
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action Over Protein Content, Quality
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that consumers
might be getting shortchanged on the protein found in certain items
sold by Beyond Meat, a new lawsuit alleges.
According to the proposed class action, a number of claims made by
the company concerning both protein and nutritional benefits are
"false and misleading."
Specifically, the 46-page complaint out of Illinois alleges that
the plant-based meat substitute company "miscalculates and
overstates" its products' protein content and protein quality.
The suit also alleges Beyond Meat misleads consumers into believing
that its products provide equivalent nutritional benefits to those
afforded by traditional meat-based foods.
According to the suit, Beyond Meat has engaged in unfair and
deceptive business practices by "intentionally misrepresenting" the
nature and quality of its products and failing to follow federal
regulations regarding the appropriate testing methods for
determining protein content.
The case claims that industry-standard testing done by the six
plaintiffs revealed that many Beyond Meat items contained less
protein than indicated on their respective product labels.
"As manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and/or
retailers, Defendant tested, or should have tested, the Products
prior to sale," the lawsuit reads. "As such, Defendant knows or
should have known that the claims are false and misleading on the
Products."
Proper protein testing refutes Beyond Meat's label claims, lawsuit
says
The lawsuit states that the nitrogen content method is typically
used to calculate a given food's protein content.
Federal law, however, requires the disclosure of not only protein
content but protein quality, the case states. Protein quality is
established via a more rigorous testing methodology called the
Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score (PDCAAS), which
provides the "corrected" amount of protein per serving and takes
into account factors such as a human's ability to digest the
protein.
The lawsuit stresses that because Beyond Meat makes a "protein
claim" on its products' front label, the company is required by law
to use the PDCAAS calculation rather than some other
"non-sophisticated method."
"So for a product like [Beyond Meat's products], the protein
content may be calculated using the nitrogen method, but it must be
stated as a percentage of the Daily Reference Value using the
corrected amount of protein," the case relays, adding that federal
regulations acknowledge that the nitrogen method is "not the most
accurate way to describe protein content."
According to the filing, independent testing has revealed that the
quantity of protein in all but four of the products listed in the
following section is "less than what [the] Defendant represented."
Even worse, the suit says, the daily value percentage of protein in
each of the items is "a small fraction" of what Beyond Meat
claims.
Plaintiffs' counsel commissioned testing of Defendant's Products,
which show that the Products do not contain the amount of stated
protein amount and/or protein DV%. For example, Defendant's Beyond
Beef Plant-Based Ground 16oz Patties, which is labeled as '20G Per
Serving' and '40% DV' for protein, actually contains 19G Per
Serving by nitrogen testing, and 7% DV for protein. This represents
an underfill of 5% for protein content and an underfill of 33% for
%DV for protein."
Consumers would not have bought the Beyond Meat products, or would
have paid less for them, had they been aware of the "misleading
labeling," the suit contends, alleging Beyond Meat "intended" for
buyers to be "deceived or misled."
What Beyond Meat products does the suit say are falsely
advertised?
The lawsuit alleges Beyond Meat has misrepresented the protein
quality and/or content, as well as the overall nutritional benefit,
of the following products:
Beyond Meat Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Links Hot Italian 14 oz.;
Beyond Meat Beyond Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Sausage Links Brat
Original 14 oz.;
Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based 16 oz. Patties;
Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground Beef;
Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties
Classic 7.4 oz.;
Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties
Spicy 7.4 oz.;
Beyond Meat Beyond Chicken Plant-Based Breaded Tenders Classic 8
oz.;
Beyond Meat Beyond Meatballs Italian Style Plant-Based Meatballs 12
ct Classic 10 oz.; and
Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Links
Classic 8.3 oz.
Who's covered by the Beyond Meat class action?
The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States
who, during the fullest period allowed by law, bought any of the
Beyond Meat products listed on this page for personal use and not
for resale.
I've bought some Beyond Meat products. What's next?
After a class action suit is filed, there's usually nothing you
need to do to join or be included. For consumers, it's only if and
when a class action settles that action might be needed, typically
by filing a claim online or by mail.
If the Beyond Meat class action settles sometime in the future and
you're "covered," you would most likely receive a notice by mail
and/or email. This notice will contain information on how to file a
claim, your legal rights, any proof you might need to submit, and
more.
Most class action suits take some time to work through the legal
process, usually on their way to a settlement, dismissal or
arbitration. For now, Beyond Meat buyers, and anyone else
interested in class action lawsuit and settlement news, should sign
up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid To Exclude Lange's Report Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN et al v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Edward S. Kiel entered an order that the plaintiffs' separate
motion to exclude the report of Robert C. Lange is administratively
terminated without prejudice, and with leave to plaintiffs to
re-file the Motion To Exclude at the appropriate juncture after
resolution of the Motion For Certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.
BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles.[CC]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Kavon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM KAVON; ERIN CAMDEN; DAVID VENNER; CRAIG GELLER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No.
20-15475 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and
denies in part BMW's motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
I. Background
The named Plaintiffs in the putative class action, Adam Kavon, Erin
Camden, David Venner, and Craig Geller, purchased or leased plug-in
hybrid electric BMW vehicles that were recalled on Sept. 30, 2020,
based on a safety issue with the vehicles' batteries. The
Plaintiffs bring claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the
"MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. 50 Section 2301 et seq., along with state law
causes of action for fraud, breach of express and implied
warranties, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.
The action is about allegedly defective batteries installed as
original equipment in certain BMW hybrid models. From Aug. 20, 2020
through Sept. 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs purchased or leased new 2021
BMW X5 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ("PHEV") in Minnesota,
Texas, California, and Nevada, respectively. Those vehicles came
with an express warranty, along with implied warranties arising
under state law.
On Sept. 30, 2020, BMW notified the Plaintiffs, via a recall
bulletin, that their vehicles and several other models (the "Class
Vehicles"), potentially had the following defect: "Debris may have
entered one or more of the hybrid battery cells during their
production" (the "Recall"). The Recall warned owners and lessees of
the Class Vehicles that the battery defect created a risk of "a
short circuit, increasing the risk of fire or injury."
At the time the Recall was issued there was no available repair or
fix for the battery, so BMW instructed owners and lessees of the
Class Vehicles not to (1) charge their vehicles; (2) drive the
vehicles in manual or sport mode; or (3) use the shift paddles.
This amounted to an instruction that owners and lessees of the
Class Vehicles not use the electric functions of their PHEVs. The
2AC alleges that the Plaintiffs brought their vehicles to the
"seller and/or authorized service dealers of BMW" to repair the
defect, but that BMW "failed to and were unable to remedy the
underlying problem" of the battery.
Plaintiff Kavon filed the initial complaint on Nov. 2, 2020. On
Jan. 25, 2021, Kavon, Camden, and Pamela Hughes filed the Amended
Complaint. The currently operative 2AC was filed on March 22,
2021.
The Plaintiffs seeks to represent (1) a class of all those who
purchased or leased the Class Vehicles nationwide and (2) pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5), subclasses of purchasers or lessees in
California, Nevada, Texas, and Minnesota.
The 2AC asserts the following claims:
a. Breach of express and implied warranty under the MMWA
(Counts I and II), 15 U.S.C. 50 Section 2301 et seq., on behalf of
the nationwide class.
b. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Count VI) on behalf of the nationwide class, and the
California, Nevada, Texas, and Minnesota subclasses.
c. Breach of implied and express warranty under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) (Counts III and IV), Cal.
Civ. Code Section 1790, et seq., on behalf of the California
subclass.
d. Fraud claims under California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL) (Count V), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq., and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Count VIII), Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750, et seq., on behalf of the California Subclass.
e. Fraud claims under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(NDTPA) (Count VII), Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 598.0903 et seq., on
behalf of the Nevada subclass.
f. Breach of express warranty under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code
Section 2.313 (Count IX), and implied warranty of merchantability
under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 2.314 (Count X), on behalf of
the Texas subclass.
g. Fraud claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(TDTPA) (Count XI), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 17.41 et seq., on
behalf of the Texas subclass.
h. Fraud claims under the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer
Fraud Act (MPCFA) (Count XII), Minn. Stat. Section 325F.68 et seq.,
on behalf of the Minnesota subclass.
i. Breach of express warranty under Minn. Stat. Ann. Section
336.2-313 (Count XIII), and implied warranty of merchantability
under Minn. Stat. Ann. Section 336.2-314 (Count XIV), on behalf of
the Minnesota subclass.
On March 26, 2021, BMW moved to consolidate the action with a
related case. Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel consolidated the
cases for purposes of discovery and case management.
BMW then filed the motion to dismiss the 2AC in its entirety. The
Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition and BMW filed a reply. The
motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision.
II. Discussion
A. Standing
BMW contends that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims on
behalf of those who purchased different BMW PHEV model vehicles. It
argues that courts in this District have routinely found that the
"Plaintiffs have no standing to pursue claims on behalf of vehicles
they never leased, purchased, or used."
The Plaintiffs cite decisions in this District that have taken a
more permissive approach to standing in class action cases. In
those decisions, the court analyzed a named plaintiff's standing to
bring claims on behalf of purchasers of different models based on a
three-part test developed by the Third Circuit in Haas v.
Pittsburgh National Bank, 526 F.2d 1083, 1088-89 (3d Cir. 1975)
(herein, the "Haas test").
Under the Haas test, a plaintiff may have standing "to assert
claims on behalf of putative class members regarding products they
did not personally purchase where (1) the basis of the claims is
the same, (2) the products are closely related, and (3) the claims
are against the same defendants."
Judge McNulty opines that all three Haas factors point in the
Plaintiffs' favor. First, the claims share an identical factual
basis. The 2AC, as currently alleged, concerns one type of
allegedly defective battery that was used in different models of
cars. Second, the products are closely related, as the vehicles are
all PHEVs which contain such a battery. Third, BMW is the only
defendant in the case. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have standing to
bring claims on behalf of purchasers of all the Class Vehicles. At
the class certification stage, however, the Plaintiffs will have
the burden of proving that the case is appropriately brought as a
class action.
B. MMWA Claims
BMW argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims must be dismissed on
their face because the 'number of named plaintiffs" in the 2AC is
"less than one hundred." The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert
a counterargument by negative implication from the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"). CAFA, they say, contains express exceptions
which evince "Congress's intent to exempt certain federal statutory
claims," and no others, from the reach of CAFA. Those exceptions,
the Plaintiffs claim, are exclusive, and Congress' choice "not to
exclude MMWA claims from CAFA cannot be deemed inadvertent."
Judge McNulty explains that in Opheim v. Aktiengesellschaft, No.
CV2002483KMESK, 2021 WL 2621689, at *12 (D.N.J. June 25, 2021), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not directly
resolved the question of whether a court may exercise jurisdiction
over an MMWA claim where, as in the present case, the complaint
does not name 100 plaintiffs but the court would otherwise have
jurisdiction to hear the case under CAFA. In the absence of
appellate guidance, courts in this District routinely used to hold
that CAFA could provide "a way around the MMWA's
100-named-plaintiff requirement."
That changed, however, after the Ninth Circuit became the first
Court of Appeals to hold that CAFA does not provide an alternative
basis for jurisdiction in a MMWA class action with fewer than 100
named plaintiffs. Subsequently, every court in this District to
address Floyd has followed its reasoning.
Judge McNulty adheres to his reasoning in Opheim. Because the 2AC
names fewer than 100 plaintiffs, and therefore does not satisfy the
MMWA's procedural prerequisites, the Court must dismiss the MMWA
claims (Counts I and II).
C. State Law Warranty Claims
The Plaintiffs bring state law claims for breach of express and
implied warranties under California's SBA (Counts III and IV),
Texas state law (Counts IX and X), and Minnesota state law (XIII).
Judge McNulty grants the motion to dismiss the express warranty
claims but denies the motion to dismiss the implied warranty
claims. He finds that (i) because the Court has found that it is
possible for BMW to comply with both the Safety Act and
state-warranty laws invoked in the 2AC, and because said laws are
not an obstacle to the Safety Act's purpose, the state-warranty
claims are not preempted; (ii) the 2AC's failure to plead facts
suggesting that the Plaintiffs' vehicles were actually defective is
fatal to their SBA express warranty claim; (iii) the recall
rendered the vehicles, at least until repaired, unfit for their
intended use, so BMW's motion to dismiss the 2AC's implied warranty
claim under the SBA is denied; (iv) the Plaintiffs' express
warranty claims fail under Texas and Minnesota law (Counts IX and
XIII); and (v) insofar as the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claim is
premised upon the Recall requirements rendering the PHEV, at least
until repaired, unfit for its intended use, they have successfully
stated a claim.
D. Consumer-Protection Claims
The Plaintiffs also bring statutory consumer-protection claims
under California (UCL and CLRA, Counts V and VIII), Nevada (NDPTA,
Count VII), Texas (TDTPA, Count XI), and Minnesota law (MPCFA,
Count XII). According to the Plaintiffs, if BMW had revealed that
using the battery system would risk the PHEVs catching fire,
neither the Plaintiffs nor the absent class members would have
purchased their vehicles.
In moving to dismiss, BMW asserts that the 2AC neither (1) pleads
facts suggesting that BMW knew of the defect when the Plaintiffs
purchased or leased the PHEVs; nor (2) alleges that the Plaintiffs
relied on the misrepresentations or omissions. Because the 2AC
plausibly alleges both BMW's knowledge of the defect at the time of
sale and Plaintiffs' reliance on BMW's alleged misrepresentations
and omissions, Judge McNulty denies BMW's motion to dismiss as to
the consumer-protection claims.
E. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that BMW violated the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing implied in their warranties. The 2AC
alleges that "every contract in California contains an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and that BMW breached
this covenant "by, inter alia, failing to notify the Plaintiffs and
the Class Members of the Battery Defects in the Class Vehicles, and
failing to fully properly repair this defect."
While the Plaintiffs allege generally that BMW breached the
warranty, the 2AC does not provide facts suggesting that BMW
"unfairly interfered with their rights to receive the benefits of
the contract." Compensation for an unmanifested defect, for
example, is not properly a benefit of the express warranty at all;
as noted, the express warranty claim fails not because BMW took
some bad-faith action to circumvent it, but only because these
particular plaintiffs have failed to allege that their vehicles had
a nonconformity. The implied warranty claims, by contrast, survive,
and if breached, may support relief. But the Plaintiffs' "labels
and conclusions" do not appear to be distinguishable from
Plaintiffs' claims of actual breach, and do not support an
implied-covenant claim.
Therefore, Judge McNulty finds that the implied-covenant claim is
not plausibly alleged and must be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, Judge McNulty grants in part and denies
in part BMW's motion to dismiss. The MMWA and state express
warranty claims are dismissed in their entirety (Counts I (MMWA),
IV (SBA), IX (Texas), XIII (Minnesota)). The MMWA implied warranty
(Count II) and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(Count VI) claims are also dismissed in their entirety. The motion
to dismiss is denied as to the state implied warranty claims and
state consumer protection claims.
A separate order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/jcnrexhx from Leagle.com.
BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON,
REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA
JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and authorizing
notice to be issued to all persons similarly situated.
Body & Pole offers in-studio and online classes for dance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mxAxyO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
BOSWORTH CO: Dickson Files 2nd Supplement to Collective Action Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON, and all
others similarly situated under 29 USC section 216(b), v. THE
BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff files a second supplement to his motion to proceed as
a collective action and to authorize notice to similarly situated
employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as
follows.
Bosworth served discovery responses after 5:00 o'clock p.m. on June
6, 2022. The Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's preliminary
discovery requests further support Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
as a collective action by conceding that there are at least six
types of employees paid in or in part by ticket hours, as opposed
to actual hours worked.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7LpfZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, Texas 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Racism, Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Byard, writing for Halifax Examiner, reports that Rubin
"Rocky" Coward is "extremely optimistic" about changes he feels are
imminent within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Coward -- along
with JP Menard, Marc Frenette, and Wallace Fowler -- are the
four plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the CAF, and are
are suing for systemic racism and institutional discrimination they
say they faced within the Canadian military.
"Good things come not only to those that are willing to wait but
those that are ready to fight," said Coward in an interview with
the Examiner. "Because we're not asking them to do this, we're
demanding this."
Coward, who is Black, is retired from the air force.
"When I finished serving in Germany back in 1990, I went to
Greenwood and I faced systemic racism there for three years, and I
ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder," Coward said.
"Actually, I think it was the first case diagnosed in the country
for racism within the system."
Coward said the catalyst for the case goes back to May 11, 2011,
when former prosecutor, now judge, Perry Borden introduced him to
Wallace "Wally" Fowler.
"Wally Fowler served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 2000 to
2003, and regrettably he'd encountered systemic and horrific racism
at CFB Borden Ontario, then he went to CFB Esquimalt, and then he
went to Trenton, and at all three bases he faced horrific racism,"
Coward said. "And it's well documented, quite frankly."
Coward said Fowler developed post-traumatic stress disorder and had
two nervous breakdowns because of the racism he faced in the
military.
"He told me his story and he came with a plethora of documents, and
I read through them and I said, 'Yeah, Wally, I think I can help
you but it's going to be probably a marathon. We're not going to be
able to get through this in a couple of days, a couple of weeks,
maybe not even a couple of years.'"
Coward said in 2011 they began to solicit politicians including
then-prime minister Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, who was then
national defense minister, and the chief of defence staff.
On March 14, 2014 Coward and Fowler held a press conference at the
Halifax North Memorial Public Library when they were approached by
three white former members of the CAF -- Dennis Manuge, Rollie
Lawless, and Rob Dobson -- who'd also suffered setbacks through the
military. He said the three men came forward to help support Coward
and Fowler.
"It's interesting to note that subsequent to them saying the exact
same things that I'd been saying for probably almost 20 years, it
began to get traction," Coward said.
Two years later in June of 2016, Coward said he and Fowler
suggested the idea of a class-action lawsuit to the law firm
Stewart McKelvey. He said the firm later agreed to take them on on
a contingency basis. Coward said they were asked if they knew of
anyone else with similar experiences within the CAF.
JP Menard, a young Black man who had been in the military and who
came to their press conferences in 2014, and Marc Frenette, an
Indigenous man who said he's suffered discrimination at CFB
Petawawa, joined on as plaintiffs.
The class-action lawsuit against the CAF was formally filed on
December 16, 2016.
'I'm very optimistic'
Though the details are still being worked out, Coward said an
agreement in principle has been reached.
"I'm very optimistic because we've been working in close
collaboration with the (federal) Department of Justice, which is
the legal counsel for the Canadian Armed Forces and we seem to be
no longer at a crossroads, as it were, but we've implemented
cultural competency and trauma-informed care in our deliberations,
and that gives me significantly great hope," Coward said.
Coward said one of the most important aspects of the lawsuit is to
have systemic and institutional changes within the framework of the
Canadian Armed Forces, and to have oversight from an external
review authority.
"They're serious because they don't have any other option," Coward
said. "Because they're negotiating with us as opposed to going to
court to fight with us. Because they recognize that the …
specific cases that we have, they're so egregious, in my humble
opinion, if it were to go public it would be a national scandal."
The cultural competency component, Coward said, will encompass a
more stringent screening process for people, including white
people, who are not only entering the military, but also for those
already serving within the military.
The external review authority will be an independent body of
racially visible and Indigenous people — Coward's team are in the
process of selecting those members — that will function "like an
oversight for the Canadian Armed Forces as it relates to systemic
racism and institutional discrimination." People of colour in the
military will now be able to file complaints directly to the
external review committee rather than with their superior ranking
officers within the CAF.
"The change is going to be in seeing how these institutions act
subsequent to being monitored, and subsequent to being provided
with information that . . . is going to show that there've been
breaches to the agreement, and by seeing expressly and specifically
what they're going to do," Coward said.
Apology to the No. 2 Construction Battalion
In March, the government held a virtual press conference where
National Defence Minister Anita Anand reaffirmed Canada's
commitment to apologize to the former members of the No. 2
Construction Battalion. The apology is set to take place on
July 9 in Truro.
The initial commitment was announced over a year ago by Anand's
predecessor Harjit Sajjan. Since then, a National Apology Advisory
Committee was formed to help advise the government on what the
apology should entail and/or if it should be expanded to include
other Black members of the Canadian military who faced
discrimination, and other Black Canadians who were outright denied
the right to serve in in the Canadian military.
Douglas Ruck is a member of the National Apology Advisory
Committee. He spoke at the virtual press conference back in March.
"The men of the Battalion enlisted in obscurity. They trained in
obscurity. They served in obscurity. And they came home to a
country that was quite willing to allow their service and their
sacrifice to fall into obscurity," said Ruck.
"The apology is important. Let us in no way diminish that. The
words that are spoken, the way they are delivered, the person who
delivers them -- all this is significant. But equally so, and
perhaps of greater importance, is what comes after that. That's the
unknown."
"The consultation made it very clear that if, in fact, the apology
is not followed by substantive measures, then those words, despite
the best of intentions, will have no meaning, and minimal impact."
"The minister's words are important. They must make a difference.
But if things remain the same, then all of this is for naught,"
said Ruck.
When asked about the apology to the No. 2 Construction Battalion,
Coward's thoughts echoed those of Ruck's.
"If they're sincere in it -- and I put a caveat over that -- if
they're sincere in it, it could be the road to healing," Coward
said. "Because as you can well appreciate, Harper apologized to the
Indigenous people but we didn't see any significant change. We've
seen Trudeau apologize to the Indigenous people, and some of them
up in Northern Ontario, 28, 29 years, still (have) no clean
drinking water. That's unconscionable. We see empty platitudes in
those apologies, in my opinion, and so if there's going to be an
apology it should come from the head of the government, and it
should be done in sincerity."
"There's a disingenuousness that we've seen over centuries from
European people, so I'm under no illusion that they're going to do
a 180-turn and tomorrow everything is gonna be kumbaya. I'm not
naive in the slightest sense."
"I'm saying let them give the apology and let's see how they move.
Let's see how they treat us subsequent to the apology."
"Under section 15 of the Charter we are promised that we have the
right to work in an environment free from discrimination on
prohibited grounds, and essentially we are demanding that that not
just be a statute, but be a reality for racially visible and
Indigenous people in this country, because it's gone on far too
long." [GN]
CAREDX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in CareDx? If so, please visit
CareDx, 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 acquired the common stock of
CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNA) between
February 24, 2021, and May 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CareDx is a diagnostics company that offers diagnostic testing
services, products, and digital healthcare software for organ
transplant patients and care providers. Testing services for kidney
and heart transplant recipients represented at least 85% of
CareDx's total revenues, and the Company's AlloSure blood test for
transplant recipients was the Company's primary source of revenue.
Additionally, the higher reimbursement payment rates for its
Medicare-approved tests drove growth of the Company's average sale
price ("ASP"), an important metric for investors. Throughout the
Class Period, CareDx reported growing revenue and strong demand in
the Company's testing services segment. Defendants also emphasized
to investors the success of the Company's RemoTraC service -- a
remote, home-based, blood-drawing service that the Company launched
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period Defendants misled
investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had
engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes to inflate
testing services revenue and demand, including pushing a
surveillance protocol through inaccurate marketing materials,
offering extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and
other providers, and improperly bundling expensive testing services
with other blood tests as part of the RemoTraC service; (2) these
practices, and others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of
regulatory scrutiny; and (3) these practices rendered the Company's
testing services revenue reported throughout the Class Period
artificially inflated.
The truth began to emerge on October 28, 2021, when CareDx revealed
for the first time that it was the subject of at least three
government investigations related to its "accounting and public
reporting practices." In response to this news, CareDx's stock
price fell 27%, from a closing price of $70.34 per share on October
28, 2021, to a closing price of $51 per share on October 29, 2021.
On April 15, 2022, CareDx's former Head of Community Nephrology,
Dr. Michael Olymbios, filed a complaint in California Superior
Court that provided extensive detail about: (1) Defendants'
misconduct, including the use of RemoTraC to improperly bundle the
Company's most expensive testing services, including AlloSure, with
other blood tests, that led to the government investigations; (2)
Defendants' knowledge of the misconduct throughout the Class
Period; and (3) their attempts to conceal the misconduct. In
response to this filing, CareDx's stock price fell an additional 8%
the next trading day.
Finally, after the markets closed on May 5, 2022, CareDx issued a
press release announcing financial results for the first quarter of
2022, reporting a near 5% decline in the ASP of the Company's
testing services. In response to this news, CareDx's stock price
fell 18.5%, from a closing price of $31.66 per share on May 5,
2022, to a closing price of $25.87 per share on May 6, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 22, 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 does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased CareDx common stock, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit CareDx, 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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
CARVANA LLC: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Delivery Fee for Used Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAJAE BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 220600355
(Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations
of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law and Pennsylvania's Consumer Credit Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
practice of charging delivery fees to consumers in Pennsylvania,
including the Plaintiff, who purchased used cars. The Defendant
knew or should have known that it was impermissible to charge or
collect a delivery fee from its customers at it is unlawful under
Pennsylvania law. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers lost money and paid more in interest and fees than they
would have had the Defendant acted lawfully and charged or
collected the interest and fees it was permitted by law to charge
and collect, says the suit.
Carvana, LLC is a used car dealership company, headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 877-5220
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
CENTENE CORPORATION: Jones Seeks Payment of Earned Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINCSTON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00603 (E.D. Mo.,
June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Texas Minimum Wage Act, the Louisiana's Wage Payment Act, and
applicable state wage and hour laws by failing to properly pay
promised commissions to employees.
The Plaintiff worked as a benefits consultant and sales agent for
the Defendants from November 2016 until April 2021.
Centene Corporation is a publicly traded managed care company based
in St. Louis, Missouri.
Centene Management Company LLC is a managed care organization based
in St. Louis, Missouri.
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. is an American health insurance company
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
Comprehensive Health Management, Inc. is a medical practice company
headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
- and –
Brandon Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE
818 Lafayette Avenue, Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered in Fox
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN FOX, et al, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. trading and doing business as
CHIPOTLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-01448-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
William S. Stickman, IV entered a second amended case management
order as follows:
-- Counsel shall meet and confer on July 1, 2022
the date, manner, and protocols
governing (a) the secure viewing
of the data model and data
dictionary for Chipotle's rewards
program database and Enterprise
Data Warehouse, and (b) the viewing
Chipotle's video footage for a day
of Plaintiffs' choosing on or
before:
The viewing of these items shall July 25, 2022
be completed by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall have until August 1, 2022
to articulate specific requests
for additional information after
review of the data dictionary/model,
and/or to request the viewing of
additional video footage:
-- Chipotle shall have until August 8, 2022
to advise Plaintiffs' counsel
whether it will produce the
additional information or object
(articulating reasons for the
objections, if any):
If Chipotle objects, Plaintiffs August 15, 2022
shall file any motion seeking to
compel the additional information
on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' final expert September 5, 2022
report relating to certification
(or confirmation that the
preliminary report, previously
filed, is deemed final) shall be
filed by:
-- The Defendant's expert report September 28, 2022
relating to certification shall
be filed by:
-- Any depositions of class October 14, 2022
certification experts shall be
completed by:
-- Discovery relating to class October 14, 2022
certification shall close on:
Chipotle, is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France,
specializing in tacos and Mission burritos that are made to order
in front of the customer.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zpGEg4 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHOP'T CREATIVE SALAD: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chop't Creative Salad
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chop't Creative Salad
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03295-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 3,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chop't Creative Salad Company -- https://www.choptsalad.com/ --
provides packaged food services. The Company offers prepared foods,
salad, bowls, and other related food specialties.[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
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Files Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Coca-Cola
Company. The case is styled as Glenn Coe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00428-UNA (W.D.N.Y., June 5, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an
American multinational beverage corporation, best known as the
producer of Coca-Cola.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00254-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman
entered an order granting the joint motion to extend briefing
schedule on Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification as
follows:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs June 20, 2022
amended motion for class
certification is:
-- The deadline for the Defendants' July 11, 2022
amended motion for class
certification is:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff's July 25, 2022
reply brief in response to the
Defendants' opposition to
the Plaintiffs' amended motion is:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O71Qf8 at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT ONE: S.D. New York Grants Anderson's Bid for Sanctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Orrin S. Anderson, Chapter 7, Debtor. Orrin S.
Anderson, a/k/a Orrin Anderson, a/k/a Orrin Scott Anderson, Debtor
and Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A. Defendant, Case No. 14-22147
(RDD), Adv. Pro. No. 15-08214 (RDD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Robert Drain
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
issues a Corrected Memorandum of Decision:
(1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions; and
(2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
I. Background
Plaintiff Anderson brought the adversary proceeding for himself and
as a putative class action to enforce his and the other class
members' bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(b) of
their unsecured debts to Defendant Credit One and its successors
and assigns, and the injunction protecting the discharge under 11
U.S.C. Section 524(a)(2). The basis for the claimed discharge
violation was Credit One's conceded systematic refusal after the
discharge of an unsecured debt upon which it was a reporting entity
to notify credit reporting agencies of the debt's changed status
from "charged off" to being subject to the bankruptcy discharge.
As noted in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 884
F.3d 382, 385 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 144 (2018),
"charging off" a delinquent debt "means the bank changed the debt
from a receivable to a loss on its own accounting books." The fact
that such a debt has been charged off thus does not mean that it is
uncollectible as a matter of law. In contrast, an obligor on a debt
discharged under section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and subject
to the statutory injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the
Bankruptcy Code cannot be compelled to pay it.
Credit One acknowledged the distinction, notwithstanding its
repeated contention (including as recently as its objection to the
present class certification motion) that a "charge off" is no
different than a bankruptcy discharge. Extensive case law and
commentary recognize that, given the importance of accurate credit
reporting to consumers' access to credit (or at least consumers'
widely held belief in its role), the pressure to pay debt exerted
by the repeated, unexcused refusal to correct a credit report to
reflect a bankruptcy discharge subjects the violator to contempt
sanctions under Taggert v. Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1801-02
(2019).
In the case, Credit One never offered a legitimate reason for
persisting in its policy not to correct obligors' credit reports to
reflect their bankruptcy discharge, with the exception that it had
sold the underlying debt before the discharge and therefore
allegedly had no duty to update the reports and its related
contention that because of such sales it had no continuing motive
to pressure its former obligors to pay.
II. Discussion
In his Memorandum of Decision, Judge Drain explains the Court's
reasons for granting the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (the
"Sanctions Motion") based on Credit One's repeated, lengthy, and
willful discovery failures, including its submission of false
affidavits and repeated misrepresentations to the Court -- made as
late as the middle of oral argument on the Sanctions Motion --
before it conceded the falsity of such affidavits and
representations, which thwarted the Plaintiff's efforts to disprove
Credit One's "no duty" and "no motive to collect" defenses. Thus he
enters a default judgment on liability and a partial judgment on
sanctions against Credit One in favor of the Plaintiff under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vi), incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7037.
Judge Drain also explains the Court's reasons for granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
by (a) certifying an opt-out class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),
incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7023, comprising "all individuals
who: after May 2, 2007, have had a consumer credit report relating
to them prepared by any of the credit reporting agencies in which
one or more of their Tradeline unsecured accounts or debts with
Credit One was not reported as discharged despite the fact that
such debts had been discharged as a result of their bankruptcy
under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code," with customary carve-outs,
and (b) denying to certify an injunctive class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(2) comprising the same people, on the basis that such
request is now, albeit belatedly, moot in the light of a
Stipulation and Order agreed by Credit One on March 29, 2017 after
its discovery failures came to light.
III. Conclusion
Judge Drain has determined that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (a)
Credit One will be held in violation of the Plaintiff's discharge
injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b)
Credit One will be sanctioned under section 105(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code employing the standard for contempt with respect to
such violation (i) for actual damages comprising Plaintiff's
reasonable fees and expenses, including legal fees and expenses, in
enforcing the discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2), and
(ii) a mild non-compensatory sum between $50 and $1,000, such
amount to be determined in the light of Bmw of N. Am. v. Gore, 517
U.S. at 559, and Jennings v. Yurkiw, 18 F.4th 383, 390 (2d Cir.
2021), after the Court decides the specific amount of the
Plaintiff's reasonable fees and expenses and the size, after the
time to opt out, of the class certified therein.
Judge Drain has also determined that a damages class will be
certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) comprising "all
individuals who after May 3, 2007, have had a consumer credit
report relating to them prepared by any of the credit reporting
agencies in which one or more of their tradeline accounts or debts
with Credit One was not reported by Credit One as discharged or
included in bankruptcy but, rather, as charged off or -$0- balance
notwithstanding the fact that such debt(s) had been discharged as a
result of their bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code;
provided, that such debt(s) will have been (i) unsecured and (ii)
not the subject of a valid and enforceable reaffirmation
agreement," with a sub-class comprising the forgoing people who, in
addition, paid any of such debt(s), with the members of such
sub-class to be entitled to repayment of such debt payments in
addition to the sanctions set forth in 1(b) above if such repayment
is shown to have been proximately caused by Credit One's credit
reporting policy. Such class members, including the members of the
sub-class, will have the right to opt out of the class/sub-class,
in which case, as to such opt outs, the Court's findings as to
liability and damages will not be binding on Credit One.
Judge Drain's determination of the sanctions to be imposed under
(1)(b)(i)-(ii) (the amount of sanctions under (1)(b)(ii) being
applied per each class member who does not timely opt out) and
under (2) as to the subclass will be binding on each
class/sub-class member who does not timely opt out of the
class/sub-class.
The Plaintiff will promptly file and serve the proposed notice to
the class/sub-class and schedule a hearing on his request for
approval of such notice and notice procedures for the class. Such
notice will clearly set forth the consequences of opting out of the
class/sub-class, namely, the fact that (a) any class members who do
not opt out of the class/sub-class will be bound by the Court's
decision herein, and (b) any class member who opts out of the
class/sub-class will have to separately establish Credit One's
liability and, if established, the proper sanction therefor,
including the potential for proving additional damages than those
that would be awarded to class members who do not timely opt out of
the class/sub-class.
The Plaintiff will also schedule a hearing on the amount of his
reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses,
in enforcing the discharge, and on the calculation of the
non-compensatory sanction in (1)(b)(ii), that would apply to
himself and, separately, as to each class/sub-class member that
does not timely opt out of the class.
The Plaintiff will promptly email a proposed order and judgment to
the Court consistent with the foregoing, copying the counsel for
Credit One on such email.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Corrected Memorandum
of Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zxhwju5 from
Leagle.com.
BOISE, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, by George F. Carpinello, Esq. --
gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- and Adam R. Shaw, Esq. --
ashaw@bsfllp.com -- and CHARLES JUNTIKKA & ASSOCIATES LLP, by
Charles Juntikka, Esq., for Plaintiff Orrin S. Anderson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated.
WHITE & CASE, by J. Christopher Shore, Esq. -- cshore@whitecase.com
-- and Andrew E. Tomback, Esq. -- atomback@mclaughlinstern.com --
for Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Select CBD Wellness Drops
------------------------------------------------------------------
MJBizDaily reports that a 77-year-old Oregon resident sued
marijuana multistate operator Curaleaf Holdings, seeking class
action status for hundreds of consumers who bought Select CBD
wellness drops last summer that instead contained "substantial
amounts" of THC.
The 13-page lawsuit, filed on May 30 in U.S. District Court in
Portland, Oregon, alleges that Curaleaf engaged in unlawful trade
practices, gross negligence and "utter lack of reasonable and
adequate safety and protocols when it manufactured, bottled,
labeled, shipped, and sold its tainted products. . . ."
The suit asks that each consumer who bought the mislabeled drops
receive their actual damages or $200, whichever amount is greater.
Massachusetts-based Curaleaf said in a statement on May 26 that it
is aware of the new class action lawsuit, but "neither the lead
plaintiff in this suit, nor his attorney has reached out to
Curaleaf prior to filing this additional suit.
"Curaleaf has provided appropriate compensation to nearly every
customer who has reported being affected by the mislabeled product,
and the company believes that seeking to resolve remaining
customers concerns through such a class action will only enrich
lawyers and not benefit customers and patients."
The company previously apologized for the mix-up, attributing it to
"unintentional human error."
Curaleaf worked with Oregon regulators to recall the mislabeled
batches. About 500 bottles of the CBD drops containing elevated THC
were sold to consumers prior to the recall, according to the
company.
A number of customers required medical attention. Curaleaf
reportedly settled 10 individual suits earlier this year, including
one for $50,000.
Curaleaf said it made significant changes to its operation and
protocols to prevent future mistakes.
"The health and safety of our patients and customers remains our
number one priority and we feel confident about the changes made to
ensure this doesn't happen again," Curaleaf said in the May 26
statement.
Oregon marijuana regulators are seeking a 70-day suspension and
$200,000 fine against Curaleaf, according to The Oregonian.
Curaleaf said in its statement that it is near a final resolution
with regulators. [GN]
DANCEFIT INTERACTIVE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dancefit Interactive
LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Dancefit Interactive LLC, d/b/a
Body Wrappers, Case No. 1:22-cv-04643 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dancefit Interactive -- https://dancefitinteractive.com/ -- offers
clothing to fit a dance lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
DENVER, CO: Exclusion of Plaintiffs From Epps' Arrest Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELISABETH EPPS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY AND COUNTY
OF DENVER, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01878-RBJ,
Consolidated with No. 1:20-cv-01922-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke
Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
denies the 13 Individual Plaintiffs' motion to exclude them from a
plaintiff class certified by the Court on June 28, 2021.
I. Introduction
The matter is before the Court on a motion filed by (1) Benjamin
Baily; (2) Asa Briggs; (3) John Cameron; (4) Dan Delany; (5) Ailyn
Havens; (6) Lily Knowles; (7) Jon Pflazer; (8) David Seaver; (9)
Sable Spottswood; (10) Jonathan Ziegler; (11) James Sweetman; (12)
Gregory Trickle; and (13) Cody Schmitt. These 13 individuals
("Movants") request exclusion from a plaintiff class certified by
the Court on June 28, 2021.
II. Background
The Plaintiffs in the case sued the City and County of Denver
(Denver) for Denver Police Department (DPD) actions during
racial-justice protests in downtown Denver in the wake of George
Floyd's murder. A group of Plaintiffs moved for class
certification.
The Court certified the following class, called the Arrest Class,
on June 28, 2021: Those persons who were present during the
protests in downtown Denver, Colorado, from May 30, 2020 through
June 5, 2020, who were arrested for violation of emergency curfew
(D.R.M.C. 1-13), and in some cases were also arrested on an
accompanying charge of failure to obey a lawful order (D.R.M.C.
38-31(c)), who were taken into police custody and detained for some
period of time, but who were not charged with any other violations,
and whose charges were dismissed.
The Court appointed Elizabeth Wang and Makeba Rutahindurwa of Loevy
& Loevy as the class counsel. The parties proposed, and the Court
approved, a notice letter to potential class members.
The first page of the approved notice informed potential class
members that they had two options: "DO NOTHING: Stay in this
lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain rights," or "ASK TO BE
EXCLUDED: Get out of this Lawsuit. Get no benefits from it. Keep
rights." The cover page also informed potential class members that
"their options are explained further in this notice" and that, "to
ask to be excluded, they must act before September 13, 2021." The
notice's second page contained a table of contents indicating that
page six answered the question "how do I ask the Court to exclude
me from the Class?"
On page six, the approved class notice laid out clear requirements
for exclusion from the Arrest Class: To ask to be excluded, you
must send an Exclusion Request in the form of a letter sent by
mail, stating that you want to be excluded from Fitouri v. Denver.
Be sure to include your name and address, and sign the letter. You
must mail your Exclusion Request postmarked by September 13, 2021,
to: Fitouri v. Denver Exclusions, Loevy & Loevy, 2060 Broadway,
Suite 460, Boulder, CO 80302. You may also get an Exclusion Request
form at the website www.loevy.com.
The class counsel mailed the approved notice to class members,
including the Movants, on July 31, 2021.
Before the opt-out period ended, 13 members of the Arrest Class
(the Movants) had arranged to be represented by attorneys
Baumgartner Law, LLC and Been & Isley, PC (collectively, B&B). The
Movants had each been sent the approved class notice. B&B learned
"in the summer of 2021" that at least one of their clients had
received the class notice. The client sent B&B a photograph of the
notice's first page.
On Aug. 4, 2021, B&B sent the class counsel a letter stating that
B&B represented 57 people in protest-related claims against Denver,
representing that some of B&B's clients' claims may overlap with
the Arrest Class' claims, listing B&B's clients, requesting class
counsel inform B&B of whom the class counsel had contacted, and
asking the class counsel to refrain from future direct contacts
with B&B clients. The class counsel did not respond.
On Sept. 13, 2021 -- which happened to be the last day to opt out
of the Arrest Class -- B&B filed complaints against Denver (Agwu v.
Denver, No. 21-cv-02478-RBJ (D. Colo.); Barbour v. Denver, No.
21-cv-02477-KLM (D. Colo.)). A few months later, Defendant Denver
informed B&B that the Movants had not opted out of the Arrest Class
and their arrest-related claims in the Agwu and Barbour cases
should therefore be dismissed.
In January 2022, B&B informed the class counsel that they believed
they had opted the thirteen movants out of the Arrest Class. The
class counsel disagreed. On Feb. 11, 2022, B&B asked the Court to
issue an order removing the Movants from the Arrest Class. The
class counsel and class representatives opposed the motion.
III. Discussion
The dispute boils down to two questions: First, did B&B's Aug. 4,
2021 letter opt movants out of the Arrest Class? Second, should the
Court exclude movants from the Arrest Class anyway?
To both questions, the answer is "no," Judge Jackson holds. He does
not doubt that the Movants would prefer B&B represent them on their
arrest-related claims. But in the legal system, it is a lawyer's
job to jump through procedural hoops on their client's behalf. When
busy lawyers neglect to dot i's and cross t's, clients sometimes
forfeit claims. That happened in the present case. The Movants can
litigate their non-arrest-related claims separately, and they will
have the opportunity to opt-out of any settlement reached by class
counsel. But Judge Jackson will not remove them from the Arrest
Class at this point.
IV. Disposition
For these reasons, Judge Jackson denied the motion to exclude 13
Plaintiffs from the Arrest Class.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3sjsueey from Leagle.com.
DIA STYLING CO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dia Styling Co. The
case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Dia Styling Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-04660 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dia & Co -- https://www.dia.com/ -- offers personal styling and
plus size clothing for women exclusively in sizes 10-32.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Connecticut Court Certifies Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nolan S. McCready, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that four former employees of
Eversource Energy Company recently obtained partial class
certification of their claims. However, the District of Connecticut
ruled that because the named plaintiffs are all former participants
in the plan, they could not seek prospective relief, and only
granted certification with respect to claims for retrospective
relief.
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint sought prospective injunctive
relief as well as retrospective relief for damages related to
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty for charging excessive
recordkeeping fees, investing in a suite of actively managed target
date funds known as the Fidelity Freedom Funds instead of the lower
cost, passively managed Freedom Index Funds, and imprudently
investing in and retaining other specific investment options.
Overall, 14 of 19 investment options in the plan were challenged,
and all challenged options were invested in by at least one of the
four named plaintiffs.
Defendants opposed class certification on the grounds that the
named plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to: (1) seek
prospective relief as they were not current participants in the
plan; and (2) claim losses on behalf of funds in which they did not
personally invest. The Court agreed with the defendants on their
first argument, but disagreed as to the second.
First, the Court found that although the plaintiffs satisfied the
statutory definition of "participants" in order to bring a cause of
action under ERISA, they were still required to show the likelihood
that they were subject to future harm when seeking prospective
injunctive relief to satisfy Article III standing. Because the
plaintiffs were no longer enrolled in the plan, the Court found
"the defendant's future management of the Plan does not pose a
'real or immediate threat' to the plaintiffs and they have no
Article III standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief."
Second, the Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the different
approaches to determine the extent of a plaintiff's Article III
standing to seek relief when suing in a derivative capacity under
section 502(a)(2). One approach finds that a plaintiff has standing
by simply participating in the plan and alleging injury to the
entire plan, regardless of individual loss. The second approach
requires a plaintiff to show sufficient injury of individual loss
and then can only sue for losses for funds in which the plaintiff
invested.
Here, the Court did not opine on the correct approach, but
concluded the plaintiffs had constitutional standing because their
Second Amended Complaint identified individual losses stemming from
the defendants' alleged breaches. Further, the Court found
plaintiffs could also bring claims on behalf of putative class
members who invested in the non-challenged funds (i.e., funds that
none of the named plaintiffs invested in) because the alleged
imprudence of defendants' investment process implicated the "same
set of concerns" of all putative class members and the derivative
actions under Section 502(a)(2) are brought on behalf of the entire
plan. Finally, although the Court denied certification
prospectively, it did grant plaintiffs leave to amend to add a
current plan participant with standing to seek such relief as a
named plaintiff within thirty days.
With nearly 200 similar lawsuits filed in the past few years, this
decision provides significant insight into the Article III analysis
district courts undertake in the class certification context and
highlights an argument all employers should make when former plan
participants are seeking prospective relief. [GN]
EVOLENT HEALTH: Wants to Present Live Testimony at Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA POLICEPENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., FRANKWILLIAMS, NICHOLAS MCGRANE, and SETH
BLACKLEY, Case No. (), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an
order granting them leave to present live testimony from their
expert economist, Lucy Allen, at the June 24, 2022 hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendants additionally seek leave to file a short supplemental
brief responding to two reports Plaintiffs' expert, Mr. Coffman,
has written (or willhave written) before the June 24 hearing. The
Defendants ask the Court to permit them to file a short
supplemental brief -- not to exceed six pages in
length—addressing this new evidence.
The Plymouth County Retirement System provides retirement,
disability, and survivor benefits to approximately 11500
participants from 24 municipalities.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MtnsRC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert R. Vieth, Esq.
Abigail J. Johansen, Esq.
HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC
8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700
Tysons Corner, VA
Telephone: (703) 584-8366
Facsimile: (703) 584-8901
E-mail: rvieth@hirschlerlaw.com
ajohansen@hirschlerlaw.com
- and -
Ashley C. Parrish, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006-4707
Telephone: (202) 626-2627
Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
E-mail: aparrish@kslaw.com
- and -
Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
Michael J. Biles, Esq.
Jill R. Carvalho, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1800
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 457-2050
Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com
mbiles@kslaw.com
jcarvalho@kslaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Smith, Esq.
Peter M. Starr, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5140
E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com
pstarr@kslaw.com
FAIRLIFE LLC: Milk Cow Mistreatment Class Action Settled for $21MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Fairlife, parent company Coca-Cola
and other defendants agreed to pay $21 million to resolve claims
that they lied to consumers about mistreating cows.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Fairlife or Fair
Oak Farms milk products on or before April 27, 2022. The settlement
covers milk, ice cream, butter, yogurt and other dairy products
from both Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms. A full list of included
products is available on the settlement website.
According to a multidistrict litigation against Fairlife, Fair Oak
Farms, Coca-Cola and other companies, Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms
milk products use false advertising that promises the milk comes
from dairy cows that are treated humanely. Specifically, labeling
on Fairlife milk products reportedly claims the cows are treated
with "the utmost care" and "extraordinary care and comfort."
Despite these marketing claims, Fairlife allegedly mistreats cows
and lies to customers about this conduct. Plaintiffs in the
Fairlife class action lawsuit accuse the dairy brand of "horrific
animal abuse." Instead of treating its cows fairly as customers
expect, Fairlife allegedly lies to consumers and creates an ethical
marketing facade in order to charge a higher price for its
products.
"Plaintiff's payment of the Fairlife Milk Products was at a premium
since the Products were not worth their advertised prices because
the statements were false and misleading," the Fairlife class
action lawsuit contends.
According to the plaintiffs, they and other customers would not
have paid a premium price for Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms milk
products if they knew the truth about the brand's treatment of
dairy cows.
Fairlife, Fair Oak Farms, Fairlife's parent company -- The
Coca-Cola Co. -- and other defendants named in the case haven't
admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the consolidated
class action lawsuit with a $21 million settlement.
Under the terms of the deal, class members can collect a cash
payment based on the Fairlife products they purchased.
The settlement allows for refunds of up to 25%, though the deal
caps payments for class members at $80 with proof of purchase or
$20 without proof of purchase. Class members who claim purchases
both with and without proof of purchase can collect payments of up
to $100. Actual payment amounts may be higher or lower depending on
the number of claims filed with the settlement.
Proof of purchase included with a claim could be a store receipt,
physical milk bottle or other records that document purchases of
eligible Fairlife or Fair Oak Farms products.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 25, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 28, 2022.
In order to benefit from the settlement, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form with the administrator by Dec. 27, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Fairlife or Fair
Oak Farms milk products on or before April 27, 2022. The settlement
covers milk, ice cream, butter, yogurt and other dairy products
from both Fairlife and Fair Oak Farms. A full list of included
products is available on the settlement website.
Potential Award
Up to $100
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase required but need receipts for maximum award.
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
12/27/2022
Case Name
In re fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2909, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-03924-RMD-MDW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Final Hearing
09/28/2022
Settlement Website
fairlifeMilkSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
In re fairlife Milk Products Litigation
P.O. Box 5569
Portland, OR 97228–5569
info@fairlifeMilkSettlement.com
855-604-1865
Class Counsel
Amy E Keller
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Melissa S Weiner
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
Michael R Reese
REESE LLP
Defense Counsel
Mark S Mester
Robert C Collins III
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Timothy B Hardwicke
Brian P Borchard
GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP
Jeffrey S Cashdan
KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]
FARRIN PC: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in Garey, Hatch Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, WILLIAM PARKER GAREY; AARON KENT CRUTHIS; JUSTIN
BRENT BLAKESLEE; ADILAH HANEEFAH-KHADI McNEIL; CHARLOTTE MOFFAT
CLEVENGER; BELINDA LEE STEINMETZ, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. JAMES S.
FARRIN, P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of James Scott Farrin; MARCARI,
RUSSOTTO, SPENCER & BALABAN, P.C.; RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, L.L.P.;
WALLACE PIERCE LAW, PLLC; R. BRADLEY VAN LANINGHAM; LANIER LAW
GROUP, P.A.; JAMES S. FARRIN; DONALD W. MARCARI; SEAN A. COLE;
JARED PIERCE; VAN LANINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, d/b/a Bradley Law
Group; LISA LANIER; CHRIS ROBERTS; CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP; HARDISON &
COCHRAN, PLLC; BENJAMIN T. COCHRAN; TED A. GREVE & ASSOCIATES,
P.A.; TED A. GREVE; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, L.L.P.;
MICHAEL A. DEMAYO; HARDEE & HARDEE, LLP; CHARLES HARDEE; G. WAYNE
HARDEE; KATHERINE E. ANDREWS-LANIER, Defendants-Appellees, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor. JOHNATHAN HATCH; MARK F.
DVORSKY; KELLY EPPERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and SHATERIKA
NICHOLSON, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL A. DEMAYO; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL
A. DEMAYO, L.L.P; THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, P.C.; JASON
E. TAYLOR; LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.; BENJAMIN T.
COCHRAN; HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC; CARL B. NAGLE; NAGLE &
ASSOCIATES, P.A.; JOHN J. GELSHENEN, JR.; DAVIS & GELSHENEN, LLP;
MARK I. FARBMAN; MARK FARBMAN, P.A.; TED A. GREVE; TED A. GREVE &
ASSOCIATES, P.A.; CHRISTOPHER THOMAS MAY; ESTWANIK ANY MAY,
P.L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor, and MICHAEL J. LEWIS; LEWIS & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT
LAW, P.A.; THOMAS KREGER, Defendants, Case Nos. 21-1478, 21-1480
(4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment to the
Defendants.
I. Background
When law enforcement officers respond to a car crash in North
Carolina, they generate an account of the accident on a
standardized form. The form includes the type of information one
might expect: the time and location of the accident, the make and
model of the involved vehicles, a description of any injuries, a
brief narrative of the crash, and so on. Crucially, the form also
includes the names and home addresses of the drivers. Underneath
the address field in the form is the text: "Same Address on
Driver's License?" followed by "Yes" or "No" checkboxes. Law
enforcement agencies store these accident reports, which are public
records under North Carolina law. In addition, some private data
brokers obtain and sell these accident reports.
The Defendants are attorneys who wish to represent people involved
in car crashes in North Carolina. They obtained accident reports
from North Carolina law enforcement agencies or private data
brokers and used the names and addresses on the reports to mail
unsolicited attorney advertising materials to the drivers involved
in those crashes. Two groups of drivers who received such mailings
-- the Plaintiffs -- sued, invoking Section 2724(a) of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA").
Both groups of Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and injunctive
relief, and one group also sought a declaratory judgment.
After a flurry of motions and amended complaints, the district
court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the damages claims
for lack of standing but granted those motions insofar as the
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief. Ultimately, the district court
ruled for the Defendants on cross-motions for summary judgment. The
court reasoned that the DPPA applies only to persons who obtain
personal information directly from a state DMV.
In the case, the court noted, the "Defendants either obtained these
reports directly from a local law enforcement office or they
subscribed to third-party services that aggregated crash records."
Because the Defendants never obtained records from a DMV, the court
concluded that their "conduct thus falls outside the ambit of the
DPPA, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
The Plaintiffs then appealed.
II. Discussion
A.
The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' standing to seek monetary
and injunctive relief. The district court held that the Plaintiffs
had standing to pursue damages but lacked standing to obtain an
injunction.
Consistent with TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2204
(2021), the district court found standing because the "Plaintiffs'
alleged harms are closely related to the invasion of privacy, which
has long provided a basis for recovery at common law." The Fourth
Circuit agrees. Indeed, it recently rebuffed a nearly identical
standing challenge in a case arising under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), another consumer privacy statute that,
like the DPPA, provides a private right of action against
offenders, citing Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 925 F.3d 643,
652-54 (4th Cir. 2019).
Applying the same analysis as Krakauer, the Fourth Circuit reaches
the same result. The Plaintiffs have alleged a legally cognizable
privacy injury. The Defendants point out some differences between
the common law privacy torts and the DPPA, but our inquiry "does
not require an exact duplicate in American history and tradition."
At bottom, the DPPA is aimed squarely at "the right of the
plaintiff, in the phrase coined by Judge Cooley, 'to be let
alone.'" Therefore, the Plaintiffs have Article III standing to
pursue claims for damages.
B.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to damages. "A
plaintiff can 'satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for
prospective relief' either by demonstrating 'a sufficiently
imminent injury in fact' or by demonstrating 'an ongoing injury.'"
The district court rejected the Garey Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief on standing grounds because "there is no showing
either in the Second Amended Complaint or in the Plaintiffs'
Response to the Motion to Dismiss that the named Plaintiffs are
subject to any imminent harm."
The Fourth Circuit holds that having narrowed their case to
"obtaining," the Garey Plaintiffs must allege that the Defendants
are currently obtaining their personal information or will do so
imminently, unless they receive injunctive relief. But under their
theory of the case, the obtaining of their personal information is
a fait accompli; the Garey Plaintiffs were already in car
accidents, and the Defendants already obtained the relevant
accident reports. That is enough for retrospective monetary relief,
but it does not establish an ongoing or imminent injury.
The Fourth Circuit says a future "obtaining" violation would only
occur if a Plaintiff is involved in a future car accident in North
Carolina, if law enforcement generates another crash report, and if
the Defendants obtain that hypothetical report. But that mere
possibility is hardly the kind of non-speculative, imminent danger
that can support injunctive relief. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit
affirms the district court's dismissal of the Garey Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief for lack of standing.
The Hatch Plaintiffs' standing to seek injunctive relief presents a
slightly different story, although the ending is the same. Unlike
the Garey Plaintiffs, the Hatch Second Amended Complaint (the
operative complaint) did not disavow a "use" theory of liability.
Indeed, the operative Hatch complaint plainly alleges that the
"Defendants knowingly obtained and used one or more Plaintiff's
protected personal information from a motor vehicle record." Thus,
although the Hatch Plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief
under an "obtaining" theory for the same reasons as the Garey
Plaintiffs, the Hatch Plaintiffs (unlike the Garey Plaintiffs)
might establish standing for injunctive relief against the ongoing
or future use of their previously obtained personal information.
To do so, however, the Hatch Plaintiffs would have to allege that
at the time of the operative complaint, the Defendants were using
their personal information or were about to do so. To be sure, as
the Hatch Plaintiffs note they also alleged that the "Defendants
regularly and knowingly obtain and use personal information from
motor vehicle records for purposes of marketing their services,"
and that some Defendants kept sending mailings like those sent to
the named Plaintiffs even after this case commenced. But there is
no allegation that the Plaintiffs were continuing to receive such
mailings at the time of the operative complaint, nor that they are
imminently likely to receive such mailings in the future. Instead,
the allegations of ongoing conduct relate to the Defendants'
practices in general, rather than specifically in connection with
the named Plaintiffs.
Thus, because the Hatch Plaintiffs (and, for that matter, the Garey
Plaintiffs) have not alleged an ongoing or imminent "obtaining" or
"use" violation vis-a-vis their own personal information, the
district court properly dismissed their request for injunctive
relief.
C.
The Fourth Circuit turns to the merits. On cross-motions for
summary judgment, the district court ruled for the Defendants and
against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' primary contention is that
a driver's license is a motor vehicle record.
Courts are divided on this question and the Fourth Circuit need
take no position on this debate, because whether or not a driver's
license is a "motor vehicle record," it is undisputed that none of
the Defendants obtained any information "from" a driver's license.
The Plaintiffs alternatively argue that even if the Defendants did
not obtain their personal information from a license, "the
information came from a driver's license," because the crash
report's address field indicates whether the address is the same as
that on the license.
The Fourth Circuit finds that the legislative history clarifies the
plain text: The DPPA imposes civil liability only on a defendant
who obtains personal information from a motor vehicle record, but
not on a defendant who merely obtains personal information that can
be linked back to (i.e., derived from) such a record. Hence, the
district court properly rejected the Plaintiffs' contentions to the
contrary.
Next, the Plaintiffs argue that a DMV database is or contains
"motor vehicle records," such that "the name and address" on a
driver's license, and thus on an accident report, "originate from
the DMV" database. A DMV database may well constitute or contain a
"motor vehicle record." But there is no allegation that the
Defendants accessed a DMV database, as has occurred in other cases.
Instead, the Defendants obtained accident reports from local law
enforcement agencies or private data brokers. So regardless of
whether a given DMV database is or contains "motor vehicle
records," the Defendants here did not "obtain" any information
"from" such a database.
The Plaintiffs have one final theory as to the identity of the
"motor vehicle record" in the case "from" which the Defendants
obtained personal information: The accident report itself. This
presents a difficult question. On the one hand, there is a
non-frivolous textual argument that an accident report is a "record
that pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit," because the
report indicates whether a driver's address is the same as that
shown on their license.
It is well established that the Court Circuit 'does not consider
issues raised for the first time on appeal,' 'absent exceptional
circumstances.' "Rather, when a party in a civil case fails to
raise an argument in the lower court and instead raises it for the
first time before it, it may reverse only if the newly raised
argument establishes "fundamental error" or a denial of fundamental
justice." "This rigorous standard is an even higher bar than the
'plain error' standard applied in criminal cases, and the burden is
on the party who has failed to preserve an argument to show that
the standard is met."
The Fourth Circuit holds that neither set of the Plaintiffs comes
close to meeting this standard, and neither set of Plaintiffs has
met their heavy burden of convincing it to consider for the first
time on appeal their argument that an accident report is a "motor
vehicle record." First, considering arguments in a civil case for
the first time on appeal requires an extraordinarily compelling
reason to do so. The procedural history provides extraordinarily
compelling reasons not to do so. Second, the district court did not
err in declining to revisit its prior decision, holding that the
Hatch Plaintiffs had "failed to rebut the Court's original
statement" that "there are no allegations that the accident reports
are 'motor vehicle records.'"
III. Conclusion
The Fourth Circuit's holding is narrow and straightforward. The
district court correctly held that the Plaintiffs have standing to
seek damages, but not prospective relief. On the merits, the DPPA
imposes civil liability only on "a person who knowingly obtains
personal information, from a motor vehicle record," or one who uses
or discloses personal information so obtained. That means what it
says: A DPPA plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant
obtained the plaintiff's personal information "from a motor vehicle
record."
Given that holding, the Fourth Circuit must affirm. Whether or not
driver's licenses or DMV databases constitute "motor vehicle
records" (questions on which the Fourth Circuit takes no position),
the Defendants did not obtain the Plaintiffs' personal information
from licenses or DMV databases. The Defendants obtained the
Plaintiffs' personal information from accident reports -- but the
Plaintiffs failed to preserve the argument that those accident
reports are "motor vehicle records." Therefore, the judgment of the
district court is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yu68957n from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: J. David Stradley -- stradley@whiteandstradley.com -- WHITE
& STRADLEY, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Matthew
Nis Leerberg -- mleerberg@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP,
in Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Appellees. Amanda Mundell,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., for the
Intervenor.
ON BRIEF: Robert P. Holmes, IV -- rob@whiteandstradley.com -- WHITE
& STRADLEY, LLP, in Raleigh, North Carolina; John F. Bloss HIGGINS
BENJAMIN, PLLC, in Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Reid
C. Adams, Jr., Jonathan R. Reich, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP,
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Bradley M. Risinger --
brisinger@foxrothschild.com -- Troy D. Shelton --
tshelton@foxrothschild.com -- Jeffrey R. Whitley --
jwhitley@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, in Raleigh, North
Carolina; Harold C. Spears, CAUDLE & SPEARS, P.A., in Charlotte,
North Carolina; David Coats, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for the Appellees. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., for the Intervenor.
FCA US: Nuwer Seeks July 28 Extension to File Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
0:20-CV-60432-SINGHAL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting an enlargement of time to file their reply
in support of class certification, up to and including July 28,
2022.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law on April 5, 2022.
By agreement of the parties, and pursuant to Court order, Defendant
FCA filed its response opposing class certification and its expert
reports on June 5, 2022. The Plaintiffs' reply comes due on June
26, 2022.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXYBGs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
Robert J. Neary, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
hst@kttlaw.com
gam@kttlaw.com
rs@kttlaw.com
rn@kttlaw.com
- and -
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante, III, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: LACERA Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp.
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Lead
Plaintiff Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association,
together with Plaintiffs Amalgamated Bank, City of Irving
Supplemental Benefit Plan, and Wisconsin Laborers' Pension Fund
move the Court for an order certifying under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), a class consisting of the following:
"All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired FirstEnergy
Securities during the period from February 21, 2017 through
July 21, 2020, inclusive;"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the
officers and directors of FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Solutions
Corp. ("FES"), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
("FENOC") and Energy Harbor LLC, Energy Harbor Corp., and
Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. at all relevant times; and (iii)
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity
in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
The motion relates to all actions in re FIRSTENERGY CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION.
FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. It
was established when Ohio Edison acquired Centerior Energy in 1997.
Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the distribution,
transmission, and generation of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H6HW1d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles County Employees
Retirement Association and Plaintiffs Amalgamated Bank, City of
Irving Supplemental Benefit Plan, and Wisconsin Laborers' Pension
Fund, are:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL
+ BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
- and -
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Mark Solomon, Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
marks@rgrdlaw.com
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
FIVE BELOW INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Below, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03294 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Five Below Inc. -- https://www.fivebelow.com/ -- is an American
chain of specialty discount stores that sells products that cost up
to $5, plus a small assortment of products from $6 to $25.[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
FLOWERS FOODS: District of Maine Enters Final Judgment in Noll Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine enters Final Judgment in the case, TIMOTHY NOLL,
individually and, on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS INC, LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC.,
and CK SALES CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00493-LEW (D.
Me.).
The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Class Action Settlement and Release dated Oct. 21, 2021, and all
terms used therein will have the same meanings as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are
fully incorporated in the Final Judgment as if set forth fully
therein.
For the reasons set forth in the Corrected Order Granting Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and
Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expenses and Service Awards, the
Settlement of the Action on the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, along with the Exhibits thereto, proposed by the Parties
has been approved by the Court.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3), all
Settlement Class Members who have not timely and validly filed
Requests for Exclusion are thus Settlement Class Members who are
bound by the Final Judgment, by the Order Approving Class Action
Settlement, and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Walker dismisses with prejudice the Action and all Released
Claims against each and all Released Parties and without costs to
any of the Parties as against the others.
Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court
reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of this Final Judgment and the Agreement, and all
matters ancillary thereto.
Judge Walker, finding that no reason exists for delay, directs the
Clerk to enter the Final Judgment forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2bth9jp5 from Leagle.com.
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost-Arnett Company.
The case is styled as Hindy Spitzer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Frost-Arnett Company, Case No.
7:22-cv-04573 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Frost-Arnett -- https://www.frost-arnett.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency that resolves the patient-pay balance of accounts
receivable for healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FUBU THE COLLECTION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUBU The Collection,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. FUBU The Collection, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04605 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FUBU -- https://fubu.com/ -- is an American hip hop apparel
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FUTURE FINS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Fins, LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Future Fins, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Futures Fins -- https://futuresfins.com/ -- is a sporting goods
company specialized in manufacturing, surfing, and technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GERON CORP: Delaware Court Stays Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GERON CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0684-SG (Del. Ch.), Vice
Chancellor Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
stays the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The case is at its core quite simple. The Plaintiffs are
stockholders of Geron. The Company at present has no products, but
is attempting to develop and monetize an anti-cancer drug. It was
party to a contract with Janssen Biotech Inc. to assist in moving
the drug, imetelstat, through clinical trials and, it was hoped,
FDA approval and marketing. Janssen's impetus for entering the
contract was based, in part, on results of a second-phase clinical
trial (the "Phase Two Trial"). If those results proved
disappointing, Janssen was likely to exit its agreement to develop
imetelstat, which would be catastrophic for Geron.
Per the Complaint, the Phase Two Trial was not successful. The
board of directors was made aware of the ongoing failures
(profound, but not complete) of the clinical trial. Nonetheless,
the directors approved misleading disclosures in 10-K filings and
in other public communications with investors, overstating the
positive results and understating the risks. Eventually, Janssen
exited the agreement.
The Plaintiffs bring this claim for breach of fiduciary duty. They
allege that the Defendant directors' dissemination of "corporate
lies" states a breach of duty claim based on two different
theories. The most obvious is a false disclosure claim under the
theory of Malone v. Brincat. The Plaintiffs also attempt to plead
an oversight claim under the Caremark rubric.
II. Discussion
The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 23.1. That rule
seeks to vindicate the fundamental principle that directors deploy
corporate assets, including litigation assets. The Rule,
accordingly, requires a demand for legal action on the board. An
exception to that requirement is recognized where demand would be
futile. Where, as in the present case, demand futility is alleged
to rest on the Defendant directors themselves being liable in the
litigation, demand may be excused, but the pleading standard is
rigorous. A plaintiff must plead specific facts that raise a
substantial likelihood that the directors would face liability
before Rule 23.1 is satisfied, demand is excused, and the
stockholder-plaintiff may proceed to litigate the claims on behalf
of the entity.
In the present action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
directors intentionally misled investors and stockholders. That is
a conclusion, not a factual pleading. The Plaintiffs also plead
facts from which they contend I may infer the same conclusion, for
purposes of the analysis under Rule 23.1. The Defendants point to
different interpretations of the facts pled -- as opposed to the
conclusory allegations of the Complaint -- and seek a dismissal
despite inferences being drawn in the Plaintiffs' favor.
Judge Glasscock notes that a separate securities action, based on
the same facts and similar to the Malone theory pled, is
well-advanced in a California federal court. That action, which is
scheduled for trial in a few months, will establish a number of
facts necessary to litigation in the present case. It may obviate
the need to address this motion to dismiss, or establish the
predicate for successful assertion of demand futility. It may
obviate the need for this action altogether.
Judge Glasscock has said that the California securities class
action most nearly replicates the issues the Plaintiffs promote
under the common-law Malone claim. Again, the Plaintiffs also
assert a cause of action under In re Caremark Int'l Inc. Deriv.
Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), asserting that the Defendant
directors ignored "red flags" of the failure of the Phase Two
Trial. The Plaintiffs repeat what has become the shibboleth of the
"mission critical" nature of the subject of the directors' alleged
misfeasance regarding the drug imetelstat.
The viability of the drug is critical to Geron, no doubt. But Judge
Glasscock confesses to not understanding the allegations of
oversight liability. According to the Complaint, the directors were
aware that the clinical trial was proceeding poorly. He asks, what
could the Defendant directors have done in good faith in the face
of this knowledge to avert corporate trauma? The only thing the
Plaintiffs point to is to not lie to investors. That, of course, is
the Malone claim addressed. Judge Glasscock does not see how the
Plaintiffs may shoehorn this into a claim under Caremark. In
essence, the Plaintiffs make a single claim -- the Defendant
directors knew the clinical trial results were bad, but misled
investors into thinking all was well. If such actions were taken in
bad faith, they are actionable, despite the rubric applied to the
claim.
III. Conclusion
In any event, as Judge Glasscock stated, the action is most
efficiently handled after the imminent federal trial. And a stay
will have the added advantage of avoiding potentially inconsistent
rulings. Accordingly, he is staying further consideration of the
matter. Should circumstances change -- for instance, should a
decision in the federal action be delayed -- any party may seek to
lift the stay.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is stayed. Any party
may seek to lift the stay upon the ultimate resolution of the
Securities Action, or as otherwise appropriate.
The parties should submit an appropriate form of order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zhvyfchr from Leagle.com.
P. Bradford deLeeuw -- brad@deleeuwlaw.com -- of DELEEUW LAW LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Kip B. Shuman --
kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- of SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER, in San
Francisco, California; Rusty E. Glenn, SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER,
Denver, Colorado; Brett D. Stecker, of SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER,
Ardmore, Pennsylvania; Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsllp.com
-- Craig W. Smith, Shane P. Sanders, and Emily R. Bishop, of
ROBBINS LLP, in San Diego, California; Richard A. Maniskas , of RM
LAW, P.C., in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard DiLaura, Ernesto Elizalde, Jr., and Joseph Oriente.
D. McKinley Measley -- mmeasley@morrisnichols.com -- and Sarah P.
Kaboly -- skaboly@morrisnichols -- of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
TUNNELL LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Brett De Jarnette
-- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- John C. Dwyer, of COOLEY LLP, in Palo
Alto, California; Ryan E. Blair, of COOLEY LLP, in San Diego,
California, Attorneys for Defendants John A. Scarlett, Karin
Eastham, V. Bryan Lawlis, Susan M. Molineaux, Robert J. Spiegel,
Daniel M. Bradbury, and Hoyoung Huh and Nominal Defendant Geron
Corporation.
GOOGLE LLC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Scheduled Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that Illinois residents could soon receive a check
as part of a new settlement in a class action lawsuit against
Google, claiming the company violated a state privacy law.
The lawsuit, which mirrors one recently settled with Facebook that
resulted in many residents receiving checks last month, claimed the
company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
"collecting and storing biometric data of individuals who, while
residing in Illinois, appeared in a photograph in the photograph
sharing and storage service known as Google Photos, without proper
notice and consent."
A settlement agreement was reached in the case earlier this year
and now, eligible residents can file their claims. Google did not
immediately respond to NBC 5's request for comment, but did not
admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement agreement and denied
all claims made in the lawsuit.
Here's what you need to know if you want to submit a claim:
Who is eligible?
According to the settlement website, residents are eligible "if, at
any time between May 1, 2015 and April 25, 2022, you appeared in a
photograph in Google Photos while you were an Illinois resident."
Eligible residents can submit a claim now through Sept. 24. All
claims must submitted by that date to be eligible for a payment.
For those wishing to object or exclude themselves from the
settlement, that deadline is Aug. 10.
A final approval hearing is slated for Sept. 28.
How do I submit my claim?
Those looking to submit a claim can do so here.
How much money could I get?
Those who are eligible will receive a portion of the $100 million
settlement fund, after court fees, costs and expenses are deducted.
But how much each person will get remains unclear.
"No one knows in advance how much each valid claim payment will be
until the deadline for submitting claims passes and the Court
awards the Fee and Expense Award and Service Payments," the
settlement website states. "Each Class Member who submits a valid
claim will receive an equal proportionate share of the Net
Settlement Fund."
Attorneys in the case estimate, based on their experience and
similar cases, that each claim could be worth between $200 and
$400.
When would I get my payment?
If the final approval is granted and any potential appeal process
is completed, eligible participants could receive their payments
within 90 days. The final approval hearing is set for 10:30 a.m. on
Sept. 28.
Attorneys warn, however, that even if the court approves the
settlement, there may still be appeals in the case.
"It is always uncertain whether and when appeals can be resolved,
and resolving them can take time," the website states.
What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act?
Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act prohibits private sector companies
and institutions from collecting biometric data from unsuspecting
citizens in the state or online, no matter where the business is
based. Data cannot be sold, transferred or traded. Unlike any other
state, citizens can sue for alleged violations, which has sparked
hundreds of David-and-Goliath legal battles against some of the
world's most powerful companies.
If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can
collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by
the number of people affected and days involved. No state
regulatory agency is involved in enforcement.
Since BIPA is an Illinois law, it only applies to state residents.
Which other companies are being accused of violating the Illinois
law?
Most recently, more than one million Illinois Facebook users begin
receiving checks following a $650 million settlement in a
class-action suit alleging it violated residents' rights by
collecting and storing digital scans of their faces without
permission. Microsoft, Amazon and Google are among the companies
that have also been accused of violations.
A class-action lawsuit has also been brought against Snapchat's
parent company, accusing the social network of violating the act.
[GN]
GREENSKY MGMT: Order Partly Granting Wright's Bids to Compel Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXISS WRIGHT, an individual, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENSKY MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, GREENSKY, INC., GREENSKY HOLDINGS, LLC, and GREENSKY,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-62441-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.),
Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida overrules the Defendants' Objections to and
Appeal from Magistrate's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel.
I. Introduction
The case is before the Court upon GreenSky's Objections. Plaintiffs
Alexiss Wright, Jerrick Buck, and Yvonne Buck (collectively, the
"Bucks") filed a Response in Opposition, to which the Defendants
filed a Reply. Judge Bloom has carefully considered the Objections,
the record in the case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise
fully advised.
II. Background
On July 17, 2020, Wright initiated the class action against the
Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida. The Defendants thereafter
removed the case to the Court, alleging jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
On Dec. 16, 2020, Wright filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint"), which added the Bucks and Maria C. Poza as
named Plaintiff. The Complaint asserts the following three counts
against Defendants: Count I — Violations of Florida's Loan Broker
Law ("FLBL") (Fla. Stat. Section 687.14, et seq.); Count II -
Violations of Florida's Credit Service Organizations Act ("CSOA")
(Fla. Stat. Section 817.7001, et seq.); and Count III - Injunctive
Relief.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants are financial technology
companies that allow various types of merchants to apply for
point-of-sale loans on behalf of their customers through the
Defendants' mobile application that streamlines the entire lending
process. The Defendants fund these loans through partnerships with
lending institutions that serve as the lenders. They orchestrate
the loan origination process from the initial loan application
through funding, and after brokering the loan, they act as the loan
servicer.
In July 2016, the Bucks purchased a solar system financed by a
$25,000 Greensky loan. Greensky took a merchant fee of
approximately 13% of the principal that was not disclosed to the
Bucks. The Bucks repaid the loan entirely within the first year and
unknowingly paid some or all of the undisclosed merchant fee. In
June 2016, Wright purchased an air-conditioning system financed by
a $9,522 Greensky loan. Greensky took a merchant fee of
approximately 16% of the principal that was not disclosed to
Wright. Wright repaid the loan in late 2018 and unknowingly paid
some or all of the undisclosed merchant fee. In November 2016, Poza
contracted with Paradise Exteriors to purchase and install storm
shutters, which were financed by a Greensky loan. Poza unknowingly
paid some or all of Greensky's merchant fee of approximately 6.75%
of the principal.
The claims asserted in the Complaint are premised on the allegation
that Defendants concealed the nature and amount of the merchant
fees charged to consumers and failed to comply with loan broker
disclosure requirements, in violation of the FLBL. The Complaint
also alleges that Defendants acted as a credit service organization
("CSO") without a surety bond, accepted valuable consideration for
referring customers to lenders who were offering substantially the
same loan terms to the general public, and made false or misleading
statements in violation of the CSOA. On June 14, 2021, the Court
directed the Defendants and Poza to arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration provision in Poza's loan documents. However, the loan
documents for the remaining named Plaintiffs Wright and the Bucks
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") do not have a similar arbitration
provision.
On Dec. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Strike
Defendants Untimely Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of
Discovery Requests and to Compel Request for Production of
Documents ("RFPD Motion"). On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed
their Motion to Compel Complete Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories to Defendants ("Interrogatory Motion"). Magistrate
Judge Alicia Valle thereafter held a hearing on the two Motions.
Following a two-hour hearing, Magistrate Judge Valle granted in
part and denied in part the RFPD Motion and the Interrogatory
Motion.
The Defendants now appeal Magistrate Judge Valle's Order and raise
several arguments. First, they argue that Magistrate Judge Valle
ignored the voluminous case law under Local Rule 26.1(g) and
erroneously held that the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was timely. They
specifically contend that (1) the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was
untimely; (2) Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in excusing the
Plaintiffs' untimeliness; and (3) the merits of the RFPD Motion
lack any legal or factual basis.
In the alternative, the Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge
Valle clearly erred in ruling on issues that the Plaintiffs did not
assert in the RFPD Motion and, therefore, were not before
Magistrate Judge Valle. More specifically, they argue that
Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in ruling on the temporal
scope of the RFPDs, which the Plaintiffs did not raise in the RFPD
Motion.
The Defendants' argument on this matter rests on the following
contentions: (1) because the Plaintiffs never complained about the
Defendants' objections to the temporal scope in the RFPD Motion,
Magistrate Judge Valle erred in considering the unbriefed issue;
(2) the Plaintiffs failed to raise the temporal scope issue in the
RFPD Motion, thereby waiving it for purposes of determining the
timeframe governing the search for production of documents; (3)
because the Plaintiffs cannot represent a class beyond October
2016, there is no basis for a six-year discovery period; and (4)
regardless, there is no basis to impose a six-year discovery period
given the current status of the case.
Further, the Defendants submit that Magistrate Judge Valle ruled on
several additional unbriefed issues. They argue that the RFPD
Motion did not raise concerns regarding: (1) the production of
Greensky's lender documents related to putative class members; (2)
the identification of and information concerning putative class
members; and (3) boilerplate objections. Lastly, the Defendants
appeal Magistrate Judge Valle's Order on the Interrogatory Motion
for similar reasons and because one particular interrogatory
regarding incentive payments is impertinent to the Plaintiffs' core
theory of the case.
The Plaintiffs respond by arguing that Magistrate Judge Valle
properly exercised her discretion and take the contrary position to
each of the arguments raised. They submit that (1) Magistrate Judge
Valle properly exercised her discretion in finding that the
Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was timely; (2) Magistrate Judge Valle
appropriately rejected Defendants' attempt to restrict discovery to
a 102-day period in 2016; (3) both sides had a fair opportunity to
present arguments on the temporal scope issue before Magistrate
Judge Valle; (4) the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion by Magistrate
Judge Valle; (5) the Defendants will not be unduly burdened by
Magistrate Judge Valle's ruling; (6) the Defendants'
proportionality arguments identify no clear error; (7) Magistrate
Judge Valle properly exercised her discretion in compelling
production of loan data; (8) Magistrate Judge Valle did not clearly
err by compelling Defendants to produce their agreements with
lending partners; (9) Magistrate Judge Valle properly struck
Defendants' boilerplate objections; and (10) Magistrate Judge Valle
properly compelled the production of information regarding
incentive payments.
III. Discussion
A. Timeliness and Merits of the RFPD Motion
First, the Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in
addressing the timeliness and the merits of the RFPD Motion. They
submit that (1) the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion was untimely; (2)
Magistrate Judge Valle clearly erred in excusing the Plaintiffs'
untimeliness; and (3) the merits of the RFPD Motion lack any legal
or factual basis. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge
Valle properly exercised her discretion.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. She determines that
Magistrate Judge Valle correctly noted that any delay on the
Plaintiffs' part in filing the RFPD Motion was in part due to the
Plaintiffs' attempt to confer and resolve discovery matters by
repeatedly contacting the Defendants' counsel, rather than having
the Court unnecessarily intervene and issue a discovery order.
Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the case was
administratively closed from June 14, 2021, to Aug. 17, 2021. Thus,
even if the RFPD Motion could be considered untimely, there was
good cause for the delay.
Next, the Defendants argue that because the Court compelled Poza to
arbitration and denied the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief, the RFPD Motion lacks any legal or factual basis -- an
argument that the Defendants develop further in the latter part of
their Objections. Because the Defendants develop the argument
further in the latter part of their Objections, Judge Bloom
analyzes their objection to Magistrate Judge Valle's ruling on
merits of the RFPD Motion.
As a final note, to the extent that the Defendants argue in a
footnote, and again in the Reply, that a motion to strike is
reserved for pleadings, not discovery responses, Judge Bloom
agrees. She says, a motion to strike is reserved for pleadings, not
discovery responses or objections to discovery requests. However,
it appears that Magistrate Judge Valle did not grant the
Plaintiffs' request to strike the objections. Rather, Magistrate
Judge Valle effectively overruled the objections, and Judge Bloom
affirms Magistrate Judge Valle's overruling of the Defendants'
objections for the reasons that follow. To the extent that it must,
she makes clear that the Plaintiffs' request to strike Defendants'
objections is denied as procedurally improper. Judge Bloom
considers the Plaintiffs' RFPD Motion only to the extent that it
seeks to compel the Defendants' response.
B. Temporal Scope of Discovery
The Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in
addressing the temporal scope of discovery by allowing the
timeframe of the RFPDs to extend from July 17, 2016, to the
present. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate Judge Valle
appropriately rejected the Defendants' attempt to restrict
discovery to a 102-day period in 2016.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. First, it is evident that
the RFPD Motion clearly raised the temporal scope issue. Second,
the Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery responses to determine
whether their Motion for Class Certification should include loans
after Oct. 26, 2016. Third, Magistrate Judge Valle's decision not
to follow a non-binding out-of-circuit decision is not clear error
that warrants reversal. Next, Judge Bloom is not persuaded that the
Defendants would be prejudiced. Lastly, the Defendants have not
provided any discovery pertaining to the time period after Oct. 26,
2016, the Plaintiffs have argued that discovery is necessary for
that time period, and the Court has already determined that class
certification discovery into the time period is necessary based on
the needs of the case.
In sum, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing. Magistrate Judge
Valle properly determined the temporal scope of the RFPDs to extend
from July 17, 2016, to the present.
C. Production of Greensky's Lender Documents
The Defendants argue that that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in
ordering the Defendants to produce all agreements with program
lenders. They contend that the production of lender agreements for
individuals who are not presently before the Court was not raised
in the RFPD Motion. They also submit that Magistrate Judge Valle
"rewrote" the Court's Scheduling Order requiring the bifurcation of
discovery by compelling discovery of lender documents. The
Plaintiffs respond that the issue was raised in the RFPD Motion.
Moreover, Magistrate Judge Valle did not rewrite the Court's
Scheduling Order and that the lender documents are relevant to
class certification.
Judge Bloom again agrees with the Plaintiffs. She reiterates that
in the RFPD Motion, the Plaintiffs expressly sought "(vi) the
agreements between GreenSky and lenders for the loans at issue."
Therefore, the Plaintiffs did raise the issue in the RFPD Motion,
and the Defendants did have an opportunity to brief the issue.
Further, the information is plainly relevant to the issue of class
certification as the lender documents may reveal the Defendants'
role on behalf of program lenders in charging undisclosed, unlawful
fees with respect to all of Defendants' loans and establish the
existence of common questions for a certifiable class. Thus,
because the discovery sought is pertinent to class certification,
Magistrate Judge Valle did not disturb the bifurcation of discovery
in the Court's Scheduling Order.
In sum, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing. Magistrate Judge
Valle properly required the production of the Defendants' lender
documents.
D. Identification and Information of Putative Class Members
The Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in ordering
them to produce all documents reflecting the fees received in
connection with any Greensky loans and, separately, documents
showing various identification information for putative class
members. They argue that discovery regarding such information was
not briefed. The Plaintiffs reiterate their previous arguments and
contend that each of the Defendants' arguments are unavailing.
Plaintiffs further argue that Magistrate Judge Valle did not compel
the production of identification information and previously
determined that the parties could re-visit the issue post-class
certification.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. First, with regard to
identification information, it is apparent that Magistrate Judge
Valle did not compel the production of identification information
until after class certification. Next, with respect to documents
reflecting the fees received in connection with any Greensky loans,
she reiterates that the Plaintiffs raised the issue in the RFPD
Motion, and the Defendants did have an opportunity to brief the
issue. Further, a non-binding decision from the Western District of
Missouri is not a basis to find clear error. Finally, because the
discovery sought is pertinent to class certification, Magistrate
Judge Valle did not disturb the bifurcation of discovery in the
Court's Scheduling Order.
In sum, Magistrate Judge Valle properly required the production of
documents reflecting the fees received in connection with any
Greensky loans and properly denied as moot the production of
documents showing various types of identification information for
putative class members.
E. Boilerplate Objections
The Defendants also argue that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in
ruling on boilerplate objections. They contend that the Plaintiffs
never raised arguments regarding boilerplate objections and
Magistrate Judge Valle did not identify the particular objections
that she was ruling on. The Plaintiffs respond that Magistrate
Judge Valle was ruling on the Defendants' general overbreadth and
burden objections throughout the Defendants' responses to the
RFPDs.
Judge Bloom finds that it is apparent that Magistrate Judge Valle
was instructing the Defendants to revise their generalized
objections that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests are overbroad
and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, whether they objected to the
boilerplate nature of the objections is immaterial. The Court is
unaware of, and the Defendants fail to cite to, any legal authority
indicating that a court cannot sua sponte reject boilerplate
objections.
F. Interrogatory Motion
Lastly, the Defendants repeat their arguments regarding the merits
of the RFPD Motion in arguing that Magistrate Judge Valle erred in
allowing discovery beyond October 26, 2016 for the Interrogatory
Motion. They further submit that the interrogatory concerning
incentive fees paid by the Defendants' bank partners to Defendants
is not relevant to Plaintiffs' theory of the case. The Plaintiffs
respond that Magistrate Judge Valle noted that the Complaint
alleges that the incentive fees are ultimately passed down to the
customer. Therefore, the incentive fees are pertinent to the
Plaintiffs' theory of the case.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiffs. With regard to the temporal
scope argument, the Court already addressed the merits of the
Defendants' arguments in its Order denying the Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. Judge Bloom reiterates that the Court permitted
further class certification discovery, including class
certification discovery for the time period in question. With
regard to the Defendants' arguments about the incentive fees, she
similarly determines that the incentive fees are part of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' theory of the case. As such,
the Defendants' arguments regarding the Interrogatory Motion are
unavailing.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Bloom affirms Magistrate Judge Valle's Order,
and overrules the Defendants' Objections. The Defendants will
provide the Plaintiffs all discovery responses no later than June
17, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/33ue6c8v from Leagle.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Court Grants in Part Bid to Compel in Plavin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN PLAVIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-1462 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Robert D.
Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
Motion to Compel.
I. Background
The lawsuit is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons who were enrolled in Group Health
Inc.'s ("GHI") Comprehensive Benefit Plan for the employees and
retirees of the City of New York at any time from 2011 to 2015. The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of GHI Plan members and assert
a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices in which GHI allegedly
engaged which falsely described the Plan as providing extensive
coverage for services by non-participating providers and falsely
representing that reimbursements rates for most out-of-network
services would be far less than the actual cost of the service so
that the out-of-network coverage promised by GHI was, as has been
alleged by the Plaintiffs, "functionally illusory."
The Plaintiffs' Complaint further alleges numerous other
misrepresentations and misleading statements by GHI, including
deceptive marketing of the GHI Plan, misrepresentations as to the
levels of reimbursement for out-of-network coverage, fraudulent
promises as to "catastrophic coverage", misrepresentations
regarding the Enhanced OON Rider and the issuance of other
deceptive marketing materials and benefit descriptions.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint presents a claim of unjust enrichment on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and the putative class, a claim of
deceptive acts and business practices in violation of New York
General Business Law Section 349, a claim of false advertising in
violation of New York General Business Law Section 350, and a claim
of misrepresentation in violation of New York Insurance Law Section
4226.
Presently before the Court are discovery disputes arising out of
GHI's request for production of documents, specifically requests
Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 and the Plaintiffs' objections thereto. Also
before the Court are GHI's second set of interrogatories and the
Plaintiffs' objections to interrogatories numbers 10 and 11.
GHI's requests for production in Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 are as
follows:
56. All Documents and Communications sent by You or on Your
behalf, including from Your counsel, to any Person or group of
Persons in order to Solicit participation in this Lawsuit either as
a named plaintiff, class representative or potential class member.
57. All Documents and Communications that You or Your counsel
received in response to the Solicitations described in Request No.
56.
58. All Documents and Communications Concerning the materials
described in Requests Nos. 56 and 57, including but not limited to,
and by way of example only, distribution lists, requests for
distribution lists and Documents requesting permission to post or
distribute the Solicitations described in Request No. 56.
The Plaintiffs object to these three requests for production,
asserting with respect to each that the request is "vague,
ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome." Plaintiffs further
state that the terms "solicit" and "solicitations" are vague and
ambiguous and that the requests seek information or documents that
are protected from discovery "by the attorney-client privilege, the
work-product privilege, the common-interest privilege, spousal
privilege, or other applicable privilege." They additionally assert
the lack of relevancy of the requested information as it relates to
the issues in the case and assert that the requests are "not
proportional to the needs of the case."
With respect to GHI's second set of interrogatories, Paragraphs 10
and 11 are at issue by virtue of the Plaintiffs' objections. These
Interrogatories state:
10. Identify all Persons You or Your counsel Solicited, or
attempted to Solicit, to join this Lawsuit either as a plaintiff,
class representative or potential class member and describe in
detail the nature of those interactions.
11. Identify all Persons with whom Your counsel discussed
this Lawsuit and describe the contents of those discussions
including, by way of example only, any factual information such
Persons provided that supports or refutes Your allegations, or the
reasons such Persons did not become a named plaintiff or class
representative.
The Plaintiffs' objections to these interrogatories assert that the
information sought by GHI is neither relevant to any of the issues
in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. They claim
that both interrogatories seek information covered by the
attorney-client privilege or work product privilege. They further
object to the use by GHI of the term "solicit" because that term is
"vague" and "because it calls for the Plaintiffs to identify all
Persons their counsel 'attempted to solicit', whatever that
means."
The counsel for the parties then filed a sequential series of
letters to the Court each of which further asserted the validity of
their position and offered rebuttal of opposing the counsel's
letters. Among other things, GHI's counsel's letter of April 5,
2022 characterizes its requests for documents and interrogatories
as seeking "documents and communications concerning the
solicitation of the Plaintiffs or putative class members for the
lawsuit, including those materials sent, received or maintained
solely by Plaintiffs' counsel."
In response to the letter of GHI's counsel, counsel for the
Plaintiffs by letter dated April 6, 2022 informed the Court that
"the parties have not met and conferred and no ripe dispute exists
for the Court's consideration." By letter dated May 4, 2022, the
Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that, after meeting and
conferring, "the parties were able to resolve all issues except the
following GHI demands: (1) the identity of and communications with
any individuals who contacted Plaintiffs' counsel for legal advice
regarding potential representation in the lawsuit; and (2) GHI's
interrogatory request for a narrative from Plaintiffs' counsel
regarding communications with prospective clients, namely the
reasons such persons did not become a named plaintiff or class
representative."
On May 9, 2022, the Court issued an Order providing notice to the
parties that the Court would construe GHI's first letter as a
Motion to Compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and affording the
parties one week to file any supplementations to their positions
set forth in the letters. Neither party filed any additional
supplementation.
II. Analysis
Preliminarily, Judge Mariani notes that neither the Plaintiffs nor
the Defendant has requested an evidentiary hearing with respect to
the issues raised in their correspondence submitted to the Court.
Thus, when the Plaintiffs' counsel represents to the Court that it
can confirm to the Court and GHI that "any putative class members
who contacted counsel about the possibility of joining the lawsuit
as named plaintiffs sought legal advice," absent a request for an
evidentiary hearing on the issue, the Court assumes that the
Plaintiffs' counsel has fulfilled its ethical responsibility to
provide candor to the Court and has accurately stated that those
members of the putative class who contacted counsel sought legal
advice about the possibility of their joining in the action.
Likewise, the Plaintiffs' counsel has denied that it sent any
questionnaires, flatly stating that the "Plaintiffs' counsel didn't
send any questionnaires. Judge Mariani opines that it isn't a case
involving factual responses to a questionnaire with no request for
legal representation. There was nothing even remotely resembling a
questionnaire, and communications that the Plaintiffs' counsel
received from prospective clients sought legal advice and are
privileged." Because, on the facts presented to the Court, it
appears that there was no document that, in the words of the
Plaintiffs' counsel, "even remotely resembled a questionnaire", the
decisions in Morisky v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 191 F.R.D. 419
(D.N.J. 2000) and Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2006 WL 3420591, *2
(E.D. Pa. 2006) have limited application in the present case.
As to the specific issues remaining in dispute between the parties
as identified in the Plaintiffs' counsel's letter of May 4, 2022,
in accordance with the decisions cited therein which consistently
hold that the attorney-client privilege does not protect against
disclosing clients' identities, the identities of the Plaintiffs'
clients and prospective clients must be disclosed to GHI. Further,
because the attorney-client privilege only protects disclosure of
communications but does not protect disclosure of the underlying
facts, GHI is not entitled to the communications engaged in by the
Plaintiffs' counsel with any individuals who contacted the
Plaintiffs' counsel for legal advice regarding potential
representation in the lawsuit but purely factual information
obtained from such communications is discoverable from the
party/client through interrogatories and the normal processes of
discovery.
Nonetheless, and in any case, such discovery, if engaged in, must
be undertaken so as to protect against the disclosure of the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of the
Plaintiffs' counsel or other representative concerning the
litigation.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Compel is granted in
part and denied in part as set forth. A separate Order will be
issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ed4r5pw from Leagle.com.
HABITUAL INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habitual, Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Habitual, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04567 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Habitual -- https://habitual.com/ -- offers clothes for tween girls
and little fashionista from girls swimwear to dresses & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HAIDER FAMILY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haider Family Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Haider Family Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04568 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Haider Family LLC is located in Elizabethtown, Kentucky and is part
of the Lessors of Real Estate Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HALMEN LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halmen, LLC. The case
is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Halmen, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04661
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Halmen, LLC is located in Fredericksburg, Virginia and is part of
the Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Student's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student A, et al., v.
Harvard University, Case No. 1:20-cv-10968 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Angel Kelley entered an Scheduling Order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs motion for class October 3, 2022
certification due by:
-- The Defendants response to October 24, 2022
Plaintiffs motion for class
certification due by:
-- All final and supplemental November 4, 2022
requests for production,
interrogatories, and requests
for admission must be served by:
-- The Plaintiffs reply in support November 7, 2022
of their motion for class
certification due by:
-- Close of fact discovery on: January 9, 2023
-- Expert disclosures on January 18, 2023
issues for which any party
bears the burden of proof
served by:
-- Remaining expert disclosures February 22, 2023
and rebuttal reports served
by:
-- Close of expert discovery on: March 31, 2023
-- Summary judgment motions are May 1, 2023
due on and shall not be
filed prior to:
-- Oppositions to summary May 22, 2023
judgment motions due:
-- Replies in support of June 5, 2023
summary judgment motions
due:
Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE LEVINS AND WILLIAM
LEVINS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION
SERVICES; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1 to 25, Case No.
1:17-cv-00928-CPO-MJS (), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an
Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
HRRG is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aEj1pE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel. & Fax: (201) 273-7117
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Amended Phase I Case Mngt, Sched Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an amended
phase one case management and scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for providing mandatory June 21, 2022
initial disclosures:
-- Deadline for moving to join a July 21, 2022
party or amend the pleadings:
-- Deadline for disclosing expert November 21, 2022
reports (incorporating the
parties' agreement re: deposition
dates)
Plaintiff: January 30, 2023
Defendant: March 2, 2023
Rebuttal:
-- Deadline for completing discovery March 30, 2023
and filing motions to compel:
-- Deadline for moving for class April 20, 2023
certification:
Heartland Payment is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NZY2fA at no extra charge.[CC]
HENKEL CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Goldstein Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldstein v. Henkel
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Alvin W. Thompson Judge entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures: May 20, 2022
-- Deadline to amend pleadings August 26, 2022
and join parties:
-- Non-expert discovery deadline, May 26, 2023
including fact witness
depositions:
-- Deadline to move for class May 26, 2023
certification and submit
certification expert report:
-- Defendants' opposition to July 25, 2023
motion for class certification
and deadline to submit rebuttal
to certification expert report:
-- The plaintiffs' reply in further August 8, 2023
support of class certification:
Henkel is a German multinational chemical and consumer goods
company headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Forsyth Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its current Form 10-K Report
for fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that its subsidiaries HP, Inc.
and HPE are facing case captioned "Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)."
In August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
(WFR) plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of
termination. The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or
after December 2014. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age
or older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.
In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a
motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in
plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR
packages. In September 2017, the court denied the partial motion to
dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs. The court
stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these individuals,
and administratively closed the case.
A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time. A settlement
was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were employed by
former business units of HPE that are now owned by the company. In
June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional opt-in
plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to their
release agreements. In December 2019, a settlement was reached with
142 of the opt-in plaintiffs, 35 of whom were employed by former
business units of HPE that are now owned by the company, and for
which the company was liable.
In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
certification of the collective action, which Defendants opposed.
In April 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
certification and lifted the previously imposed stay of the action.
In November 2021, notice was sent to putative members of the ADEA
collectives regarding participation in the case. In February 2022,
the notice period closed.
DXC is a global IT services provider formed by the merger of
Computer Sciences Corporation and Enterprise Services business of
the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Jarrell Suit Over Concealed Seat Belt Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRIS JARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, HYUNDAI
MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, and KIA
MOTORS MEXICO, S.A. de C.V., Defendants, Case No.
6:22-cv-00990-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud by concealment
or omission, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unfair, misleading,
deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in failing to
disclose the defect of Hyundai vehicles' seat belt pretensioners.
The seat belt pretensioners could explode, projecting metal
fragments through the vehicle which could strike and injure the
vehicle's occupants. Despite having knowledge of the exploding seat
belt pretensioners, Hyundai concealed this information, delayed
issuing a recall, and still to this day has not sent notification
letters to owners of the defective vehicles. Had the Plaintiff and
Class members known of the safety defect in the seat belts, they
would not have purchased or leased those vehicles, or would have
paid substantially less for them, says the suit.
Hyundai Motor America Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hyundai Motor Company, headquartered in Fountain Valley,
California.
Hyundai Motor Company is an automotive manufacturer headquartered
in Seoul, South Korea.
Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC is an automobile company
headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama.
Kia Motors Mexico, S.A. de C.V. is an automobile company based in
Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
Sarah J. Schultz, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE 3rd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com
jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
sarah@schlesingerlaw.com
INJURED WORKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Email Account Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the
law firm Morgan & Morgan against Injured Workers Pharmacy (IWP)
over a breach of the personal information of 75,771 customers.
IWP is an Andover, MA-based pharmacy that serves employees who were
injured at work and receive workers' compensation benefits. On May
11, 2021, IWP discovered several employee email accounts had been
accessed by an unauthorized individual, and those email accounts
contained sensitive information such as names, addresses, and
Social Security numbers. The first email accounts were compromised
in January 2021, which allowed unauthorized access to the
information in the accounts for 4 months before the breach was
detected and the accounts were secured. Affected individuals were
offered complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft
protection services for 24 months.
Plaintiffs Alexsis Webb and Marsclette Charley allege IWP failed to
implement appropriate data security safeguards to ensure the
privacy of their personal information and that of the class
members, had not followed industry security best practices and had
not provided security awareness training to the workforce. IWP
failed to issue notification letters about the breach until
February 2022, 9 months after the breach was detected. The lawsuit
alleges negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract
and fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs claim they face an imminent and ongoing risk of
identity theft and fraud due to the exposure of their sensitive
data to cybercriminals and have had to spend time and money
protecting themselves against identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit
seeks class action status, a jury trial, damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket expenses, and legal costs.
IWP is no stranger to legal action. In 2020, IWP agreed to settle a
case with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to resolve
allegations the company played a role in shipping thousands of
illegitimate opioid painkiller prescriptions across the United
States between 2006 and 2012. The case was settled for $11 million.
[GN]
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.:
Shareholders who purchased shares of IIPR during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27905&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: May 7, 2020 to April 13, 2022
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innovative Industrial
Properties' focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a
REIT; (2) that the true values of the Company's properties are
significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties
represents; (3) there are existential issues in its top customers;
(4) as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue
making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and the Company
would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) 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.
DEADLINE: June 24, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27905&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of IIPR during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 24, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ) in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired IonQ securities between March 20, 2021 and May 2, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
August 1, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report
alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony
statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and
business." It further claimed that the Company reported
"[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party
round-tripping."
On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.71, or 9%, to close at
$7.15 per share on May 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum
computer; (2) that the Company's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered
from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's
quantum computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not
accessible despite being available through major cloud providers;
(4) that a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from
improper round-tripping transactions with related parties; 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 at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ 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]
IRONNET INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) between
September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important June 21, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased IronNet 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 IronNet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5641 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 21, 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) IronNet had materially overstated its business and financial
prospects; (2) IronNet was unable to predict the timing of
significant customer opportunities which constituted a substantial
portion of its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (3)
IronNet had not established effective disclosure controls and
procedures to reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely,
accurate, complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false,
misleading, and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the IronNet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5641 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]
ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned STJEPAN NOVOSELAC, et al., v.
ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al.,Case No. 5:21-cv-08654-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that:
1. The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted with leave
to amend on the basis that all claims against Moving
Parties appear to be time-barred and Plaintiffs have not
alleged facts showing tolling of the applicable
limitations periods; and
2. Any amended complaint shall be filed by June 24, 2022.
Leave to amend is limited to facts relating to statute of
limitations and tolling. The Plaintiffs may not add
parties or claims without express leave of the Court.
The Court said, "It appears on the face of the complaint and from
judicially noticeable filings in the Lesnik actions that
Plaintiffs' claims against Moving Parties are time-barred, even
assuming that American Pipe tolling and equitable tolling under
California law apply in this case. The Court will grant Moving
Parties' motion to dismiss on this basis. While Moving Parties urge
the Court to grant the motion without leave to amend, the Court
finds that leave to amend is warranted under the standard set forth
in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) and Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). If they choose to
amend, Plaintiffs must in essence draw a road map explaining how
tolling saves their otherwise time-barred claims against Moving
Parties."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXimOA at no extra charge.[CC]
ISS FACILITY: Mendoza Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NORMA MORALES MENDOZA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC.;
ISS SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 to 100 inclusive, Case No.
22CV010707, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-03256 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to indemnify employees for
employment-related losses/expenditures, failure to timely pay
earned wages, failure to provide complete and accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages and final
paychecks, and unfair and unlawful business practices.
ISS Facility Services, Inc. is a facility management company, doing
business in California.
ISS Services of California is a facility management company, doing
business in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John L. Barber, Esq.
Julie W. O'Dell, Esq.
Rochelle C. Rotea, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 545-9200
Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
Julie.ODell@lewisbrisbois.com
Rochelle.Rotea@lewisbrisbois.com
JOHN C. HEATH: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath,
Attorney At Law PC, et al. The case is styled as Jermaine Stewart,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John
C. Heath, Attorney At Law PC doing business as: Lexington Law, Does
1 through 10 inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-03768
(C.D. Cal., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
John C. Heath, Attorney At Law PC doing business as Lexington Law
-- https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/ -- is a credit repair firm and is
one of the most well-known credit repair companies and has been
serving clients since 2004.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
KALAHARI SNACKS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalahari Snacks, LLC.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kalahari Snacks, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04569 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kalahari Snacks -- https://eatbiltong.com/ -- offers biltong and
crisps, the air dried beef jerky alternative.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LA MARIA PIZZERIA: Martinez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Maria Pizzeria
Corp., et al. The case is styled as David Martinez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Maria Pizzeria
Corp., 1455 Nepperhan Rest Corp. doing business as: Bella Rosa
Pizzeria, Ali Ozturk, Albert Tranquillo also known as: Ally, Laurie
Tranquillo, Case No. 1:22-cv-04578 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
La Maria Pizzeria Corp. doing business as Bella Rosa Pizzeria --
https://www.bellarosapizzeria.com/ -- is a pizza restaurant in
Yonkers, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Ave., Ste. 1512
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (510) 734-9579
Email: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com
LEGAL SEA: Labby Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers & Bartenders
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON LABBY and SARAH RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGAL SEA FOODS RESTAURANT
GROUP, INC. and LSFW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10853 (D.
Mass., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers
their earned minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law.
Plaintiff Labby worked for the Defendants at the Legal Sea Foods
restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts as a server from
approximately July 2019 to December 2019.
Plaintiff Ryan worked for the Defendants at the Legal Sea Foods
restaurant in Burlington, Massachusetts as both a server and
bartender from approximately August 2018 to January 2021.
Legal Sea Foods Restaurant Group, Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal place of business located in Boston,
Massachusetts.
LSFW, LLC is a limited liability company that maintains its
principal place of business located in Foxboro, Massachusetts.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C.
1350 Main Street, Suite 302
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (877) 443-0999
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
- and –
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
whogg@hftrialfirm.com
- and –
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
LLR INC: Ponkey Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Arbitration Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jessica Ponkey filed an appeal from a court ruling
compelling the parties to arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
JESSICA PONKEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE,
LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a
Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM, an individual;
DEANNE S. BRADY a/k/a DEANNE STIDHAM, an individual; and DOES 1-30,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00518-AB-SHK, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
According to the complaint filed on March 24, 2021, LuLaRoe is an
unlawful, fraudulent pyramid scheme which preys on stay-at-home
mothers, promising them they can generate substantial income while
still being able to spend time at home with their families. LuLaRoe
recruits these mothers to become "consultants." When joining, these
recruited "consultants" believe that they will be able to sell
LuLaRoe's various clothing items to a retail market.
LuLaRoe's unlawful conduct has affected tens of thousands of
consultants all across the U.S. and has been recognized by
governmental agencies as an illegal scheme, asserts the complaint.
Given Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, as well as
breaches of contract, Plaintiff is further bringing breach of
contract, California Corporations Code violation, and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against Defendants.
On June 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration which Judge Andre Birotte Jr. granted on August 5,
2021.
The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Ponkey v. LLR, Inc., et
al., Case No. 22-55532, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 31, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jessica Ponkey Mediation Questionnaire was due on
June 7, 2022;
-- Appellant Jessica Ponkey opening brief is due on July 26,
2022;
-- Appellees Deanne S. Brady, Does, LLR, Inc., Lennon Leasing,
LLC, LuLaRoe, LLC and Mark A. Stidham answering brief is due on
August 25, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JESSICA PONKEY, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
575 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 556-1700
Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE,
LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a
Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM; and DEANNE S.
BRADY, AKA Deanne Stidham, are represented by:
Elizabeth Martori Weldon, Esq.
Steven Graham, Esq.
Jing Hua, Esq.
William S. O'Hare, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 427-7000
LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc.
("LMP" or the "Company) (NASDAQ: LMPX) and certain of its officers,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired LMP
securities between June 29, 2021 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lmpx.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/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: investors: (1) that the
Company engaged in the improper identification and elimination of
intercompany transactions; (2) that the Company used incorrect
estimates for chargeback reserves for finance and insurance
products; (3) that the Company had misclassified certain items in
its financial statements which impacting balance sheet and income
statement financial statement captions; (4) that there were
material weaknesses in LMP's internal control over financial
reporting; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company
overstated its revenue; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company would restate certain of its previously issued financial
statements and results; and (7) 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/lmpx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Clients Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in LMP you have until July 26, 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 represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. 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]
MAZIE SLATER: Martino Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ANTHONY MARTINO is taking an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Anthony Martino, Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. David
Mazie, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-21-cv-20056, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit,
removed from New Jersey Superior Court to the New Jersey District
Court on November 17, 2021, demands a recalculation of the
Olmesartan Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) settlement contingency
fees according to New Jersey State Court Rules, in particular, Rule
1:21-7(i), and a refund of excess fees paid to the Defendants.
Martino alleges the Defendants' violation of New Jersey State Court
Rules because of the receipt of contingency fees from the MDL
settlement program, which Martino claims were greater than allowed
by the Rule.
The Olmesartan Multi-District Litigation, which began in April
2015, concerned whether ingestion of the hypertensive Olmesartan
caused gastro-intestinal injury that mimicked celiac disease.
On December 20, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice all claims in the Plaintiff's complaint, which Judge
Robert B. Kugler granted on May 6, 2022. The Court also made moot a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment filed by the Plaintiffs.
The appellate case is captioned Anthony Martino v. David Mazie, et
al., Case No. 22-2019, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on May 27, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY MARTINO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
NAGEL RICE
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
- and -
Robert H. Solomon, Esq.
NAGEL RICE
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: rsolomon@nagelrice.com
Defendants-Appellees DAVID MAZIE, et al., are represented by:
Adam M. Slater, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 207
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
E-mail: aslater@mskf.net
META PLATFORMS: Illinois Residents Set to Receive Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that 1.4 million people in Illinois stand to
receive a check in the mail from Facebook as part of a seven-year,
$650 million Class Action Lawsuit against the company.
In the suit, Class Members allege the company broke the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting and storing
biometric data -- also known as physical characteristics -- of
users without their consent, through things like facial recognition
technology.
Facebook users might more commonly know this as "Tag Suggestions"
notifications.
Checks in the amount of $397 to more started getting mailed out May
9, according to the settlement administrator, and it will take
about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and processing the
electronic payments.
If you haven't received a check yet, but believe you are due one,
here's what to know.
I'm an Illinois Facebook User. Am I Part of the Class Action
Lawsuit?
According to the settlement website, Facebook's records were used
to identify certain Class Members.
Those people should have received notice through email or on
Facebook.
You might have gotten a notice if you are a current or former
Facebook user in Illinois who uploaded a photograph of yourself or
were "tagged" in a photograph on Facebook after June 7, 2011.
If photographs of you that were uploaded to Facebook after June 7,
2011 did not result in the creation of a face template while you
lived in Illinois, you were not notified to take part in the
lawsuit.
Not everybody in Illinois who uses Facebook is included, and only
Class Action Members will receive a payout from the lawsuit.
Is There a Way I Can Check to See if I Am Part of the Lawsuit, and
if I Will Get a Payout?
According to the settlement website, "Facebook users located in
Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after
June 7, 2011" are eligible for a payout.
To have filed a valid claim under the Settlement, you must have
lived in the State of Illinois for a period of at least 183 days (6
months).
The deadline to file a claim form was November 23, 2020.
If you did not file a claim by that date -- even if you are an
Illinois Facebook user, and meet the above above criteria—you are
not a Class Action Member, and you will not receive a payout.
If you don't remember, whether or not you filed out a claim form,
here's who to contact:
Settlement Administrator: 1-844-799-2417
Edelson PC, lawyer appointment to the case: 1-866-354-3015
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lawyer appointed to the case:
1-800-449-4900
Labaton Sucharow LLP, lawyer appointed to the case: 1-888-219-6877
How Much Are the Checks For?
According to the settlement website, final checks are in the amount
of $397.
Previously, the settlement administrator stated that checks would
be between $200-$400. A document titled "Order re: Final Approval,
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, And Incentive Awards" dated Feb. 26,
2021, states that "it is one the largest settlements ever for a
privacy violation, and it will put at least $345 into the hands of
every class member interested in being compensated."
When Will I Receive My Check?
Payments started getting mailed out to members on May 9, 2022.
"It will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and
processing the electronic payments," the settlement website
states.
"If you are expecting a payment but haven't yet received it, we ask
that you wait until mid-June before making an inquiry."
What the Illinois Facebook Lawsuit Says, and How Facebook
Responded
According to the Settlement Administrator, "Facebook users in
Illinois sued Facebook claiming that its "Tag Suggestions" feature
and other features involving facial recognition technology,
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
That law, passed in 2008, says companies are not allowed to
collect, store, or give out "biometric data," which includes things
like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and
obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to
specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be
destroyed
This case alleges that Facebook specifically broke the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial recognition
technology to create face templates that can be used to identify
users in photos without the proper notice and consent.
Facebook denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.
Facebook changed its technology in 2019, replacing the tool with a
broader facial recognition setting, which was turned off by
default. The website announced it would shut down its recognition
software entirely in 2021.[GN]
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Greene Sues Over Gang Foremen's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE GREENE, LAMELL ARMOR and FABIAN SAUGAR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, METRO-NORTH
RAILROAD, STATEN ISLAND RAILWAY, MTA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT,
MTA REGIONAL BUS OPERATIONS, MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS, and NEW YORK
CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03300
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Jamie Greene has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since
2001, first as a machinist and then as a gang foreman.
Lamell Armor has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since
2009, first as an electrician and then as a gang foreman.
Fabian Saugar has been employed by the Long Island Railroad since
1999, first as a machinist and then as a gang foreman.
Metropolitan Transit Authority is a public benefit corporation
chartered by the New York State Legislature under the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.
Long Island Railroad is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan
Transit Authority, which operates a commuter rail system running
from Manhattan to the eastern tip of Suffolk County on Long Island,
New York.
Metro-North Railroad is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan
Transit Authority, which operates a commuter rail system running
between Manhattan and northern New York City suburbs in New York
and Connecticut.
Staten Island Railway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metropolitan
Transit Authority, which operates a rapid transit line in Staten
Island, New York.
MTA Construction and Development is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Metropolitan Transit Authority, which manages construction and
development of major transportation capital projects in the New
York City metropolitan area.
MTA Regional Bus Operations is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates surface transit in
New York, New York.
MTA Bridges and Tunnels is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates toll bridges and
tunnels in the New York City metropolitan area.
New York City Transit Authority is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates public
transportation, including subways and bus services, in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
- and –
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Suite 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
- and –
Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
Joshua Goodbaum, Esq.
GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
405 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 777-4425
MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Cir. Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Leffel, Esq., and Jessica Walker, Esq., of Foley & Lardner
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Seventh Circuit
rejected emotional distress and other intangible injuries as a
basis for Article III standing in a class action seeking statutory
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In
Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Nos. 19-2993 & 19-3109,
2022 WL 986441 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022), relying on the recent
Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct.
2190 (2021), the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It
is just the latest in a growing number of appellate court decisions
addressing Article III standing in class actions based on statutory
damages claims.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Renetrice Pierre accumulated and defaulted on a credit
card account. Years later, in 2015, defendant Midland Credit
Management, Inc. (Midland Credit) sent Pierre a letter seeking
payment of the debt in its role as a collector for Midland Funding
-- which had purchased Pierre's debt. The letter stated she was
approved for a discount program that would save her money, and
included an expiration date of 30 days. The debt was so old that
the statute of limitations had run -- Midland Credit, therefore,
could ask for payment but could not sue for payment. Its letter
concluded, "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt.
Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, we
will not report it to any credit reporting agency, and payment or
non-payment of this debt will not affect your credit score."
Pierre reacted to the letter with surprise, confusion, and concern,
yet she did not pay any of the debt or agree to pay any of the
debt. She alleged she suffered emotional distress and confusion
based on the letter and that she had to contact Midland Credit to
contest the debt collection and hire a lawyer. She sued Midland
Credit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) on
behalf of a class of Illinois residents who received similar
letters. The Northern District of Illinois certified the class and
entered summary judgment for the class, and a jury awarded more
than $350,000 in damages.
The Majority Determined Pierre Failed to Establish Article III
Standing
Addressing the concreteness requirement of Article III standing,
the Seventh Circuit noted that recent decisions had hinted "the
mere 'risk of real harm' could concretely injure plaintiffs seeking
money damages." However, the Seventh Circuit held that under
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), a risk of harm
can only serve as a concrete injury for forward-looking, injunctive
relief, and "[a] plaintiff seeking money damages has standing to
sue in federal court only for harms that have in fact
materialized."
Pierre's asserted harm, that the letter she received created a risk
that she might make a payment on a time-barred debt, or restart the
limitations period by either paying or promising to pay, represents
only a risk of future harm, not any actual, experienced harm such
as making a payment. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Pierre had
therefore not established standing. Consistent with prior
decisions, the Seventh Circuit also held that calling to dispute a
debt and contacting a lawyer for advice were not legally cognizable
harms, and that psychological states such as confusion and worry
caused by the letter were likewise insufficiently concrete. Based
on this analysis, the Seventh Circuit vacated the lower court's
judgment and remanded the case for dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Dissent Raised Concerns about Deference to Congress and a
Growing Circuit Split
Circuit Judge Hamilton dissented and raised concerns about "zombie
debt," such as Pierre's, and a greater circuit split on "whether
Congress has the power under the Constitution to create private
causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
other consumer protection statutes for injuries that are intangible
but quite real." The dissent asserted that Congress has authorized
private actions to seek damages for harm such as emotional
distress, stress, anxiety, confusion, and fear. In Judge Hamilton's
view, in passing the FDCPA, Congress specifically prohibited
actions likely to cause intangible and emotional harm, such as fear
and confusion, by including threats, obscene language, and false or
misleading statements.
The dissent reasoned that Pierre's claim satisfied Article III
standing under both Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 340
(2016), and TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. 2190, "by offering evidence of
harms that, first, lie close to the heart of the protection
Congress reasonably tried to offer consumer debtors in the FDCPA,
and second, bear close relationships to harms long recognized under
the common law and constitutional law."
The dissent pointed to the Third, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits as
being less restrictive in allowing standing for intangible injuries
such as emotional or psychological harm under the FDCPA, and the
Sixth and Eighth Circuits as issuing decisions with a broader
approach toward standing for similar injuries.
Impact On Businesses Facing FDCPA Lawsuits Alleging Only Emotional
or Psychological Harm
Businesses litigating FDCPA lawsuits within the Seventh Circuit
should review this decision closely, as it may provide fruitful
grounds for dismissing cases for a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction based on the failure to establish standing under
Article III. However, as the dissent demonstrated, other circuits
have interpreted standing more broadly and found emotional distress
to be concrete enough to establish standing. Moreover, dismissal
for lack of Article III standing may simply mean that the case
moves forward in state court. Because of the differing approaches
across the circuits and the important question raised regarding the
power of Congress to protect consumers from a multitude of harms
through legislation, we expect this to remain a contested area of
law until the Supreme Court provides further guidance. [GN]
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Denial of Goyette's Bid to Amend Schedules Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota affirms the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022
Order issued in the lawsuit styled Jared Goyette, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. City of Minneapolis, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-1302 (WMW/DTS) (D. Minn.).
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' appeal of the
Feb. 8, 2022 Order of United States Magistrate Judge David T.
Schultz, which denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pretrial
scheduling order in the case.
Background
The Individual Plaintiffs are journalists, photographers, and other
members of the press, who filed this lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff
Communications Workers of America (CWA) is an international labor
union that represents news media workers. Defendant Medaria
Arradondo is the former Chief of Police for Defendant City of
Minneapolis (collectively, City Defendants). Defendant Robert Kroll
was a Minneapolis Police Lieutenant and President of the Police
Officers Federation of Minneapolis. Defendant David Hutchinson is
the Hennepin County Sheriff. The factual details pertaining to the
Plaintiffs' allegations against the Defendants are addressed in
several of the Court's prior orders, including the Oct. 28, 2021
Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction.
The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class-action lawsuit against
the State Defendants, City Defendants, and Kroll in June 2020. All
of the Plaintiffs' claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, alleging various constitutional violations, civil conspiracy
and a failure to intervene. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Jared
Goyette moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent
the Defendants from further violating the constitutional rights of
the press.
The Court denied the motion without prejudice because the protests
had ceased and Goyette failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of
harm. Goyette also filed a first amended complaint in June 2020,
joining additional plaintiffs and factual allegations but no
additional legal claims. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second
amended complaint in July 2020, joining additional plaintiffs and
legal claims.
The Magistrate Judge issued the now-operative pretrial scheduling
order on Jan. 14, 2021. The pretrial scheduling order required,
among other things, all fact discovery to be completed by Dec. 1,
2021. Thereafter, the parties exchanged initial disclosures on
March 29, 2021. These initial disclosures included more than 6,000
pages of documents produced by City Defendants.
The Plaintiffs filed a second motion for a TRO against the State
Defendants on April 14, 2021. The Court granted the Plaintiffs'
second motion for a TRO, concluding that the Plaintiffs had
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims
against the State Defendants, a threat of irreparable harm absent a
TRO, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighed in
favor granting a TRO.
Subsequently, the parties agreed to extend the duration of the TRO
until the date of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction. On July 28, 2021, the Court held an
evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction and ordered a supplemental briefing.
While the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was
pending, the Plaintiffs served discovery requests on the State
Defendants, Kroll, and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in July
and August 2021. The Plaintiffs did not serve discovery requests on
the City Defendants during this time. In September 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed the now-operative third amended complaint, joining
three additional plaintiffs and Defendants Hennepin County Sheriff
David Hutchinson and Minnesota State Patrol Major Joseph Dwyer. The
third amended complaint adds no new legal claims.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction against the State Defendants on Oct. 28, 2021. More than
a week later, on Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs for the first time
attempted to serve discovery requests on the City Defendants,
providing insufficient time for the City Defendants to respond
before the Dec. 1, 2021 fact-discovery deadline. Thereafter, the
City Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that, because the discovery
requests were untimely, the City Defendants would not be
responding.
The Plaintiffs moved to modify the pretrial scheduling order on
Nov. 30, 2021. In doing so, the Plaintiffs sought to extend the
fact-discovery deadline by eight months--to July 31, 2022--and to
extend other discovery and motion deadlines by several months. The
City Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' motion. Although the State
Defendants, Kroll, and Sheriff Hutchinson did not oppose the
Plaintiffs' motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order, these
Defendants did not separately file motions on behalf of themselves
or formally join the Plaintiffs' motion.
Following a hearing, the Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiffs'
motion in a Feb. 8, 2022 Order. The Magistrate Judge concluded that
the Plaintiffs had not established good cause to amend the pretrial
scheduling order because the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that
they diligently attempted to comply with the scheduling order's
deadlines. The Plaintiffs now appeal the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8,
2022 Order.
Analysis
I. Legal Standards
The Plaintiffs challenge the Magistrate Judge's denial of the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order.
Judge Wright notes that a district court has broad discretion in
establishing and enforcing the deadlines in a pretrial scheduling
order.
II. Magistrate Judge's Findings and Conclusions
In a Feb. 8, 2022 Order, the Magistrate Judge found that the
Plaintiffs had not demonstrated diligence for several reasons.
First, the Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that
some of the Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion,
concluding that this fact has no relevance to whether the
Plaintiffs acted diligently. Second, the Magistrate Judge found
that the filing of a third amended complaint in September 2021 did
not excuse the Plaintiffs' failure to complete discovery before the
Dec. 1, 2021 fact-discovery deadline.
Among other things, the Magistrate Judge observed that the
Plaintiffs served discovery on numerous Defendants and non-parties
before filing the third amended complaint, and the three new
plaintiffs and two new defendants named in the third amended
complaint were involved in this case for several months before the
Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. Third, because
prejudice is not relevant to the Plaintiffs' diligence, the
Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that the City
Defendants would not be prejudiced by an extension of the pretrial
deadlines. Nor is the Plaintiffs' strategic decision to delay
serving discovery requests relevant to this analysis.
The Magistrate Judge also observed that the City Defendants'
initial disclosures, which included more than 6,000 pages of
documents, were produced eight months before the fact-discovery
deadline and the Plaintiffs had a team of 12 attorneys, who could
have pursued timely discovery from the City Defendants. Fourth, the
Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' assertion that the "need
for the discovery" weighs in favor of granting the Plaintiffs'
motion, because this argument is irrelevant to whether the
Plaintiffs acted diligently.
III. Plaintiffs' Objections
The Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's findings and
conclusions on two grounds. First, the Plaintiffs argue that the
Magistrate Judge erred by disregarding the fact that some of the
Defendants agreed to the requested modifications to the pretrial
schedule and instead focusing on whether the Plaintiffs could have
served discovery on the City Defendants earlier. Second, the
Plaintiffs argue that significant changed circumstances warrant
amending the pretrial scheduling order.
A. Defendants' Agreement
The Plaintiffs first argue that they were unquestionably diligent
in prosecuting this case and that the Magistrate Judge erred by
concluding otherwise and misapplied the applicable legal standard.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge erroneously
disregarded the fact that every defendant other than the City
Defendants agreed that the pretrial scheduling order should be
modified and instead focused on whether the Plaintiffs could have
served timely discovery requests on the City Defendants.
For at least three reasons, the Plaintiffs' argument is contrary to
the legal standard, which the Magistrate Judge correctly applied,
Judge Wright holds. First, the fact that some of the Defendants
agreed that the pretrial scheduling order should be modified is
irrelevant to the applicable legal standard, which hinges on
whether the moving party was diligent in attempting to comply with
the pretrial scheduling order.
Second, even if agreement from the Defendants were relevant to the
good-cause analysis, it would hold little persuasive weight in the
circumstances presented here, Judge Wright opines. Third, contrary
to the Plaintiffs' objections, the Magistrate Judge did not err by
focusing his analysis on whether the Plaintiffs could have served
discovery on the City Defendants earlier.
The Plaintiffs' purported need to modify the pretrial schedule, as
reflected in the memorandum of law accompanying their motion,
arises from the Plaintiffs' need to seek discovery from the City
Defendants. As such, Judge Wright finds, the Magistrate Judge
correctly focused his analysis on whether the Plaintiffs diligently
sought discovery from the City Defendants, as opposed to whether
the Plaintiffs diligently litigated other aspects of this case.
Judge Wright points out, among other things, that the undisputed
facts do not demonstrate diligent efforts to seek discovery from
the City Defendants within the confines of the pretrial scheduling
order. Indeed, the Plaintiffs concede in their objections that they
"could have" sought discovery from the City Defendants sooner.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order on this basis lack merit, Judge Wright
holds.
B. Changed Circumstances
The Plaintiffs next object to the Magistrate Judge's purported
failure to consider the significant changed circumstances that
occurred after the entry of the Scheduling Order.
The Plaintiffs contend that they spent months seeking injunctive
relief against the State Defendants, which prevented them from
seeking discovery from the City Defendants before the
fact-discovery deadline. But litigation strategy decisions do not
excuse a party from the obligation to diligently attempt to comply
with a pretrial scheduling order, Judge Wright holds.
In summary, the Plaintiffs have identified no change in the law,
newly discovered facts or other significant change in circumstance
that prevented them from even attempting to comply with the
pretrial scheduling order by seeking timely discovery from the City
Defendants, Judge Wright opines. As such, the Magistrate Judge did
not err by concluding that the Plaintiffs did not establish good
cause to modify the pretrial scheduling order.
C. Alternative Relief
The Plaintiffs request, in the alternative, an order modifying the
pretrial scheduling order in two respects: first, to provide
additional time for all parties other than the City Defendants to
complete fact discovery based on mutual stipulation, and second, to
compel the City Defendants to respond to the untimely discovery
requests that the Plaintiffs served in November 2021.
Judge Wright notes that the Plaintiffs did not request from the
Magistrate Judge the alternative relief they now seek. The
Plaintiffs could have, but did not, move to compel discovery from
the City Defendants or seek a more limited modification of the
pretrial scheduling order. And Defendants Kroll and Sheriff
Hutchinson could have, but did not, appeal the Magistrate Judge's
order or separately move to modify the pretrial scheduling order.
Granting such relief now, after the Plaintiffs have waived such
arguments, would be contrary to the Magistrate Judge's sound
conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend
the pretrial scheduling order, Judge Wright points out.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for alternative relief is
denied.
Order
Based on this analysis and all the files, records and proceedings,
Judge Wright holds that the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2022 Order
is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p92n3ue from Leagle.com.
MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER DYE, et. al., v. MLD
MORTGAGE, INC., dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No. 1:19-cv-03304-ELH (D.
Md.), the Parties jointly move to withdraw as moot Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to reinstatement
of the Motion and the associated briefing on motion of any party.
On May 27, 2022, the Parties reached an Agreement settling both the
individual and class claims alleged in the Complaint.
The Agreement proposes and will seek approval of a Settlement Class
thereby rendering the pending motion for class certification moot.
The Parties therefore move the Court for withdrawal of the pending
motion for class certification without prejudice to any party
moving to reinstating Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
and the associated briefing, if the Parties' Agreement does not
reach final approval.
MLD provides financing services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tp11pT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
vnannis@jgllaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Melissa L. English, Esq.
SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 821-0070
Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
menglish@sgs-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Harry Levy, Esq.
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS P.C.
Dulaney Center II
901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 825-5426
Facsimile: (410) 825-5426
E-mail: hlevy@shumakerwilliams.com
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Certification Hearing Set for March 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Lawyers LLP disclosed that Roundup was a spray weed killer
developed and manufactured by Monsanto in the 1970s. First
registered for use in Canada in 1976, Roundup is a chemical
herbicide that could be used for both personal and commercial
purposes. Over the decades, it became one of the most popular and
widely used chemical herbicides in the world. It has been used by
farmers, professional landscapers, groundskeepers, gardeners, and
homeowners for decades.
The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, which is a form of
isopropylamine salt. It is a non-selective herbicide, meaning its
effectiveness lies in its ability to kill most types of plants. It
kills plants by disrupting the enzymatic pathways, thus preventing
them from creating critical proteins that are necessary for growth
and survival. Its popularity has resulted in billions of pounds of
weed killers containing glyphosate being used on everything from
large-scale crops to personal home gardens over the years.
In an effort to promote the large-scale use of Roundup in crop
fields, Monsanto also developed genetically engineered crops that
would allow a farmer to liberally spray the product on their crops
without any fear it would damage them. They called these
genetically modified crops "Roundup Ready." These included crops
like corn and soybeans.
How Safe Is Glyphosate?
Though created to kill weeds and unwanted plants, questions have
long been posed about the safety of glyphosate to humans. A large
body of research has indicated that, when used over the course of
many years, glyphosate is a probable carcinogenic agent to humans.
This chronic exposure may lead to serious illnesses and diseases.
Glyphosate use has been linked to several forms of Non- Hodgkin's
lymphoma, including:
-- B-cell lymphoma
-- T-cell lymphoma
-- Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)
-- Hairy cell lymphoma
These forms of cancer originate in the lymphatic system, which is a
part of the immune system. The lymphatic system uses nodes and
vessels to move white blood cells contained in lymph throughout the
body. These white blood cells help to fight infections.
As early as the 1980s, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may have suspected that glyphosate could be dangerous
after researchers began to note the increase in the number of
farmers who were being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A
2008 Swedish study published in the International Journal of Cancer
found that a person's risk for developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
doubled after less than a decade's worth of exposure to products
containing glyphosate. In 2015, the World Health Organization's
International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate
as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) cited approximately 1,000 studies and
concluded that there was a risk of glyphosate cancer in humans.
Research also suggests that glyphosate may impact the environment
and pose a threat to various endangered species, pointing
specifically to the Monarch butterfly whose population has declined
significantly over the last two decades.
The Monsanto Company
Originally founded as a chemical company in 1901 in the United
States, Monsanto enjoyed early success in the production of food
additives, rubber, and plastics. It didn't start producing the
agricultural chemical products for which it is known today until
the 1940s. Even before it began producing Roundup in the 1970s,
Monsanto had a long history of manufacturing products that have
serious health implications for humans and animals alike.
In the 1930s, Monsanto purchased Swann Chemical Company who
produced Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs were widely used in
electrical apparatus. Production was banned in the United States in
1978 after the chemical was linked to cancer in humans and animals.
However, because PCBs were so widely used and have such a long
lifespan, they are still present in rivers, buildings, and soil
even today.
In the mid-1940s, it started producing the popular herbicide
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which has been classified
by both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and
the World Health Organization as a possible carcinogen to humans.
In the mid-1940s, it started producing DDT, an insecticide used to
kill malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. DDT was later banned by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early
1970s, citing adverse environmental effects to wildlife, along with
the potential risks to human health.
In the 1960s, it produced Agent Orange as a wartime contractor for
the United States government.
Monsanto's pattern of producing dangerous products has resulted in
many large lawsuits throughout the company's life. The class action
lawsuit regarding Roundup is only the most recent.
In 2018, Monsanto was purchased by pharmaceutical giant Bayer for
over $60 billion.
Class Action Filed Against Monsanto and Bayer by Klein Lawyers
In 2019, Klein Lawyers was hired to file a class action against the
manufacturers of Roundup Monsanto and Bayer regarding injuries
caused by using Roundup. The proposed class consists of any person
who was exposed to Roundup in British Columbia after 1976 and after
that exposure developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In the Notice of
Civil Claim, the plaintiff states that "Roundup is defective,
dangerous to human health, unsuitable for its purpose, and lacked
proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its use." The
plaintiff alleges that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and
that Monsanto and Bayer falsified scientific research to prove it
was safe. That lawsuit seeks to obtain relief for the class members
including general damages, special damages, punitive damages,
pre-judgement interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and recovery of health care and other costs.
Klein Lawyers is working with a group of law firms in different
provinces across Canada who represent Canadians who used Roundup.
We have joined forces with these firms to move these lawsuits
forward in a coordinated manner. The class may include thousands of
Canadians who have been harmed by Roundup. A certification hearing
has been set for March 28-30, 2023.
The Honourable Justice A.D. Grace of the Ontario Superior Court
will hear the certification application. The certification hearing
is an important step in the lawsuit. For a lawsuit to proceed as a
class action, the judge must decide that this case is suitable for
consolidation as a class action. The judge will consider such
factors as: are the claims from class members common, is this the
best method to hear these cases or are there better methods such as
individual lawsuits. If the judge certifies the case, the lawsuit
will move forward as a class action for all class members.
The defendants, Monsanto and Bayer, have denied all of the
allegations made in the filed lawsuits, including that Roundup
causes cancer. They have promised to "vigorously defend" their
products. In a statement, they said, "Glyphosate has been
extensively studied globally by scientists and regulators, and
results from this research confirm it is not carcinogenic. We
firmly stand behind the safety of glyphosate-based products and as
a company devoted to life sciences, assure Canadians that their
health and the environment are our top priority."
Calls for Bans of Products Containing Glyphosate
A few countries have chosen to ban all products containing
glyphosate, and more countries have plans to phase out the product,
including Germany who will ban glyphosate-containing products by
2023. Other countries have chosen to implement restrictions on
glyphosate including Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, and the
Netherlands. Other national governments continue to maintain that
glyphosate-containing products, including Roundup, do not cause
cancer.
There is no ban yet in Canada for glyphosate-containing products,
although some cities and provinces have put restrictions in place.
Many are concerned that Monsanto and Bayer have unduly influenced
the decisions of various government entities regarding the safety
of Roundup and other glyphosate-containing products. In the class
action lawsuit filed by Klein Lawyers it is alleged that the
defendants' embarked on a strategy to discredit the IARC's 2015
determination that a positive association existed between Roundup
exposure and the development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. After the
IARC's determination, Monsanto hired Intertek, a testing,
inspection, and certification firm in Canada, to coordinate an
independent panel of fifteen experts. They published five
scientific papers in 2016. The experts and the papers they
published all serve to contradict IARC's determination and
establish, instead, that Roundup and glyphosate are safe. These
papers were relied upon and even cited in the reports and decisions
made by various government entities, including Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency and the European parliament.
Contact Klein Lawyers If You've Been Harmed by Roundup Weed Killer
Class action lawsuits seek to help victims of huge corporations
like Monsanto and Bayer. Not only do these lawsuits help victims
obtain compensation for their injuries, they also serve to hold
these entities accountable for their wrongdoing and shine the media
spotlight on them. [GN]
MORPHE LLC: Brooks Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valerie Brooks v. Morphe
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01219-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order denying without prejudice to renewal motion for
class certification.
Any renewed motion must be filed within thirty days. Because Brooks
has not proven the proposed class meets the prerequisites of Rule
23(a), the court does not consider whether the class could be
certified under one of the categories in Rule 23(b), the Court
says.
Valerie Brooks, who is legally blind, brought this action on behalf
of a proposed class of visually impaired internet users. She
alleges Morphe LLC operates a website that is not accessible to the
visually impaired, and she moves now to certify the proposed class.
Because she has not shown the class is "so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable," and that class counsel will
"fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," the
motion is denied without prejudice to renewal, as explained in this
order.
According to Brooks's complaint, Morphe operates morphe.com, a
website for affordable makeup. She alleges morphe.com is not
accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. For
example, she claims the website lacks alt-text that would permit
screen reader software to describe the graphics and images on each
page, and she alleges the website has empty links with no text,
which prevents screen readers from communicating the link's
purpose.
Brooks asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and she seeks damages and
prospective relief on behalf of a proposed class of visually
impaired people who encounter the alleged barriers on morphe.com.
Morphe manufactures beauty care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpx2y7 at no extra charge.[CC]
MTA NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Prunella Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH A. PRUNELLA, ADRIAN A. BUTLER, DANIEL D. JARVIS, GERMAN F.
OVIEDO, JEREMIAH P. WHOLEY, ANTHONY F. ALLIA, ROBERTO APONTE,
VICTOR BAPTISTE, SERGEY S. BYCHKOV, DOMINICK M. COSTAGLIOLA, THOMAS
DINARDO, CARLOS M. FERNANDEZ, BRIAN FOGMEG, PHILLIP J. GOODWIN,
JAMES C. LOIACONO, MICHAEL P. MCGRORY, WILLIAM MONTANO, MICHAEL P.
O'CONNOR, CHARLES E. PICCIOTTO, JOSEPH D. PORTER, VERNON O. RAMSAY,
and JOSEPH A. TLOCZKOWSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04657 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
properly calculate regular rate of pay, and failure to timely pay
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant,
who work or have worked in the position of High Pressure Plant
Tender.
MTA New York City Transit is a company that operates bus, subway,
and other rail transit systems, with its principal office and place
of business located at 130 Livingston Plaza, Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sara Faulman, Esq.
John W. Stewart, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
slf@mselaborlaw.com
jws@mselaborlaw.com
- and –
Hope Pordy, Esq.
Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas
20th Floor New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
esprotzer@spivaklipton.com
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Case Management Deadlines in Davis Reset
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis, et al v. Multnomah
County, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02041 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the parties' joint
request to reset case management deadlines as follows:
-- Class certification motion Oct. 7, 2022
to be filed by:
-- Response is due by: Nov. 18, 2022
-- Reply is due by: Dec. 16, 2022
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of
Oregon.[CC]
MYLAN NV: Settlement Hearing in Price Fixing Suit Set for July 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen St. John, writing for abc10News, reports that folks with
serious allergies know: EpiPens are a lifesaving, essential
medicine. So if you purchased an EpiPen between Aug. 24, 2011, and
Nov. 1, 2020, you may be awarded a portion of a major settlement by
the drug manufacturer.
The $264 million class action settlement is the result of a 2017
lawsuit that alleged price-fixing by Mylan, EpiPen's manufacturer.
If you're a longtime EpiPen user, you probably remember that the
price of the product steadily rose over time, putting a huge pinch
on patients' wallets.
In 2007, an EpiPen prescription cost $100. By 2016, the price had
skyrocketed to $608.
The suit's plaintiffs allege that Mylan worked with pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer to artificially bump up the price of EpiPens.
"Defendants devised an illegal scheme to monopolize the market for
epinephrine auto-injector devices," the lawsuit claims. "As a
result, millions of Americans relying on this life-saving device
have paid exorbitant prices for EpiPens that are in no way tethered
to or constrained by a competitive market."
The EpiPen contains a pre-measured dose of epinephrine, a powerful
synthetic hormone. Instead of drawing up medicine into a syringe,
users simply press the "pen" against their body, triggering a
needle to pop out and invisibly inject the medication.
Epinephrine helps buy time in the case of a life-threatening
allergic reaction. Users still need emergency medical attention,
but the epinephrine helps relax the airway muscles as the reaction
sets in.
Drugmaker Pfizer agreed to pay $345 million in a class-action
settlement that opened to claims last year. Now, Mylan has not
admitted wrongdoing in its response to the price-fixing suit, but
the company has agreed to pay the $264 million settlement.
If you think you qualify for a portion of the settlement, you can
visit EpiPenClassAction.com and file a claim. The site notes that
if you've already submitted a proof of claim for the Pfizer
settlement, you don't need to submit another now — you'll
automatically be included as a member of the Mylan settlement.
There are a few caveats in place -- people who work for any of the
pharma companies involved are excluded from the class, for instance
-- but many consumers who purchased an EpiPen or its generics can
join.
Filing a claim takes just a few minutes. You don't have to provide
any proof of purchase right away, though you may be asked to submit
documentation in the future.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is set for July 6.
The amount individuals may be awarded is yet to be determined. (It
depends on how many customers join the suit.)
Customers have until July 25 to submit a claim. If you're an EpiPen
patient, add your name to the class and go dig up a receipt! [GN]
NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Chiropractic Seeks Leave to File Rejoinder
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.,
a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN
CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE CENTER OF
FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L.,
Florida limited liability companies, Case No. 2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file a
rejoinder in support of its Motion for Class Certification.
If allowed, the Plaintiff will file its rejoinder, not to exceed 2
pages, on the same day an Order is issued granting this motion.
This case is a putative class action brought pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
section 227, against the Defendants National Spine and Pain
Centers, LLC, Spine Center of Florida, LLC, and Pain Management and
Consultants of Southwest Florida, P.L. regarding 16,227 unsolicited
fax ads sent to 8,147 unique fax numbers.
On April 8, 2022, the Court entered an Order on Plaintif's
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Page Limitation granting each
side leave to file a brief of no more than 35 pages in support of
and in opposition to class certification.
The Plaintiff timely filed its motion for class certification on
April 18, 2022, and Defendants timely filed their opposition on May
16, 2022.
National Spine provides health care services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mwb0FX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Ross M. Good, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
rgood@andersonwanca.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Basch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Mozes Basch, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03264-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Nationwide Credit Inc. -- https://ncirm.com/ -- is a small-sized
collection agency in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron R Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Phone: (908) 237-1660
Fax: (908) 237-1663
Email: aeasley@sessions.legal
NETFLIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Netflix? If so, please visit
Netflix, 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 acquired the common stock or
call options, or sold put options of Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: NFLX) between October 19, 2021 and April
19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Netflix primarily operates an entertainment platform that offers TV
series, documentaries, feature films, and mobile games across a
variety of genres and languages. It also offers a DVD-by-mail
service in the U.S.
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
misleading statements about Netflix's business. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements were materially false
and misleading when made because: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower
acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by
customers and increased competition from other streaming services;
(2) the Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers;
(3) the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis; and (4) as a
result, the Company's financial results were being adversely
affected.
On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3
million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The
Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and
engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers
during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the
prior year period. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
over 21% to close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022.
Then, on April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported
that it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022,
compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million
net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to
four factors, including account sharing and competition with other
streaming services.
On this news, the price of Netflix stock declined over 35% to close
at $226.19 per share on April 20, 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 NFLX common stock or call options, or sold put
options, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options
please visit Netflix, 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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
NETFLIX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Netflix, Inc.:
Shareholders who purchased shares of NFLX during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=27909&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock or call
options, or sold put options, between October 19, 2021 and April
19, 2022, inclusive.
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix was exhibiting slower
acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by
customers and increased competition from other streaming services;
(2) the Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing
subscribers on a net basis (4) as a result, the Company's financial
results were being adversely affected; and (5) 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.
DEADLINE: July 5, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=27909&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of NFLX during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 5, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
NETFLIX 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 Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX)
between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important July 5, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Netflix 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 Netflix class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5912 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) Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among
other things, account sharing by customers and increased
competition from other streaming services; (2) Netflix was
experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Netflix was losing subscribers on a net basis; (4)
as a result, Netflix's financial results were being adversely
affected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Netflix'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 Netflix class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5912 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]
NEW INDY: Seeks Dismissal of Foul Odor Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Indira Eskieva and James Brierton, writing for WCNC, report that
the New-Indy Containerboard company, the facility at the center of
a years-long issue over the alleged emission of toxins and foul
odors, asked a judge on June 1 to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
against the company.
The lawsuit alleges the paper plant is emitting a foul smell and
toxins into the air, which is impacting homes as far as 20 miles
outside of the Catawba, South Carolina plant. Plaintiffs argue the
smell is impacting people's health and livelihood.
Attorneys allege complaints of a foul odor began in early 2020
after the facility switched from manufacturing white paper to brown
paper.
WCNC Charlotte has covered this story for more than a year.
On June 1, Wednesday, cameras and phones were prohibited inside of
the courthouse, but WCNC Charlotte's Indira Eskieva was in the
courtroom during the arguments.
New-Indy argued several points to the judge as to why the lawsuit
should be dismissed, and while the judge has not made a decision
yet, attorneys representing thousands of impacted residents feel
like she'll rule in their favor.
What started as complaints in early 2020 has turned into a class
action lawsuit with almost 2,000 plaintiffs. New-Indy attorneys
told a judge on June 1 she should dismiss the lawsuit.
Some of the arguments made included that the lawsuit is not
specific enough, that it's not possible that homes as far as 20
miles away from the plant could be affected, or that parent company
New-Indy Containerboard should be named in the lawsuit when
New-Indy Catawba is an LLC.
The judge made it clear she disagreed with New-Indy's arguments –
something attorneys for residents view as a good sign.
"You know people that are impacted by New-Indy's operations are
dealing with this every single day so the best way we can represent
them is to do everything we can to move this case along and push
the case along," Chase T. Brockstedt, the attorney for the
plaintiffs, said. "Today was a step in that process."
It's unclear when the judge will have her decision ready. New-Indy
attorneys did not want to comment, but a spokesperson for the
company provided the following statement:
"New-Indy Catawba has kept the public regularly updated on its
substantial progress on odor remediation efforts. Hydrogen sulfide
emissions from the facility have been negligible or zero for many
months due to upgrades and improvements New-Indy Catawba has made.
New-Indy Catawba will continue to cooperate with the federal and
state authorities. We strive to be a good neighbor, desirable
employer and major economic driver for the region. Our cutting-edge
technology has made the mill a model for the industry."
Residents like Kerri Bishop tell WCNC Charlotte they are still
experiencing the same health issues and a foul odor.
"All they have to do is drive around when the wind hits," Bishop
said. "And they'll see – it is. I mean I'm 13 miles. I can drive
seven miles away and still smell it."
State agencies have received 22,000 complaints from residents about
New Indy.
"Obviously there are other environmental contamination cases that
are pending in other parts of the state, but certainly have not
seen something this widespread," Brockstedt said.
Attorneys say in addition to the class action lawsuit, there's
another case that's the EPA versus New Indy. Attorneys for
residents say they are trying to intervene with that case so they
can be more involved in decisions that are made. [GN]
NEW YORK: Court Interpreters Sue Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
MultiLingual reports that a group of courtroom interpreters has
proposed a class action suit against the New York State Unified
Court System for discriminatory pay practices targeting immigrant
groups.
In a complaint issued May 25, 28 court interpreters working in the
state of New York alleged that pay rates for courtroom interpreters
are not proportionate to the amount of education and work required
from them. The complaint notes that courtroom interpreters in the
state are not only paid significantly less than their counterparts
in the federal court system, but are also paid less than other
courtroom personnel, particularly court reporters.
Because a much larger portion of court interpreters are
foreign-born than other courtroom employees, the complaint alleges
that the disparity in pay rates discriminates on the basis of
nationality.
"Though highly skilled, those interpreters are paid significantly
less than all other courtroom personnel employed in New York City
courts, because many of them are foreign-born, are of foreign
ancestry and because their skills are used to provide court access
to non-English speaking, limited-English speaking or persons with
hearing disabilities," the complaint alleges.
In addition to the disparities between interpreters at the state
and federal level, the interpreters note that the pass rates for
civil service exams for interpreters are particularly low compared
to other legal professionals. Court reporters, for example, have a
55% pass rate for their civil service exam. Moreover, 68% of
candidates passed the New York State Bar Exam in 2017, according to
the complaint.
Candidates to become court interpreters, on the other hand, have a
mere 10% pass rate for their civil service exam. Since court
interpreting was first professionalized as a formal career path in
the mid-20th Century, states have adopted very rigorous screening
processes. In theory, court interpreters only need a high school
degree or equivalent (according to the job description for New York
state court interpreters), but this is often not the case.
In order to pass the civil service exams and succeed as
interpreters, candidates need cognitive and linguistic abilities
typically developed in higher education. Despite this rigor,
interpreters in New York are generally paid less than the state's
court reporters, who perform a similar task without the added
challenge of working in two languages.
According to the complaint, the minimum salary for a court reporter
in New York is just about $4,000 less than the maximum salary for a
court interpreter, at $85,886. The maximum salary for a court
reporter, on the other hand, is $131,923. A disproportionate number
of interpreters were born and/ or raised abroad compared to court
reporters -- the interpreters believe this disparity is a result of
discriminatory practices in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. [GN]
NEW YORK: Shomo Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. NYSDOCCS
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jose J. Shomo filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JOSE J. SHOMO, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEW
YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-128, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff Jose Shomo, currently incarcerated in Fishkill
Correctional Facility, commenced this action on January 7, 2021
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, alleging that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition
and denied him certain medical treatment.
On November 19, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case which the Court granted on May 4, 2022 through a Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered by Judge Philip M. Halpern and Clerk's
Judgment, thus dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Shomo v. State of New York
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No.
22-1186, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on May 31, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Jose J. Shomo, and all those like and similarly
situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees State of New York Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision; Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of
DOCCS; Dr. John Morley, Chief Medical Officer of DOCCS; and Dr.
Gaetan Zamilus, are represented by:
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
NIGHTFOOD INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NightFood, Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NightFood, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04570-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nightfood -- https://nightfood.com/ -- is a nighttime snack company
that produces and distributes ice creams.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NIKOLA CORP: Stockholder Derivative Suit Put on Hold
----------------------------------------------------
Leslie A. Pappas, writing for Law360, reports that Electric truck
company Nikola Corp. and its criminally charged former CEO
convinced the Delaware Chancery Court on June 1 to put a
stockholder derivative class action on holding pending the
resolution of related legal actions in New York and Arizona. [GN]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kendall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KENDALL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEVIN C. TANG, MICHAEL HEARNE, JOHN G.
LEMKEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Marilyn L. Huff entered an order certifying the Settlement Class
and granting final approval of the settlement:
The Court said, "All persons who satisfy the class definition are
Settlement Class Members bound by this Order. The form and method
of notice satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the United States Constitution, including the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Court grants Co-Lead Counsel $4,250,000 in attorneys' fees and
$56.147.94 15 costs. The Court also grants class representative Mr.
Kevin Kendall an incentive award of $5,000. The attorneys’ fees,
costs, and incentive award will be paid out of the Settlement Fund.
The Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation,
administration, and enforcement of this settlement. The Court
dismisses the action with prejudice, and no 20 shall be awarded
other than those specified in this Order or provided by the
settlement agreement. The Clerk of the Court shall close this
case.
The Plaintiff alleges that significant safety concerns regarding
tesetaxal arose during the Phase 3 study, which Plaintiff alleges
Defendants were aware of but did not disclose to investors or the
public.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants made false and
misleading statements containing misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the tesetaxel Phase 3 study, patient outcomes and
experiences while using tesetaxel, and the likelihood of
tesetaxels' approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
On March 22, 2021, Odonate issued a press release announcing it was
discontinuing tesetaxel's development following feedback from the
FDA that the clinical data package for tesetaxel was unlikely to
support FDA approval.
Odonate is a pharmaceutical company based in San Diego. Odonate's
single, primary drug candidate was tesetaxel, an orally
administered chemotherapy agent developed to treat patients with
locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The Defendants Tang,
Hearne, and Lemkey were officers and collectively the majority
shareholder of Odonate during the relevant period.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aQDTKC at no extra charge.[CC]
OKTA INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSCR), if they
purchased the Company's securities between March 5, 2021 and March
22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until
July 19, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities
class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/okta-inc-nasdaqgs-okta/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Kuznicki Law PLLC
Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]
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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
PARKASH 1630: Seeks Extension to Respond to Diaz Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delfino Adan Diaz v.
Parkash 1630 LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court for an extension of time for them to
respond to the motion to certify class filed by Plaintiff on May
26, 2022.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xu6WMJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin S. Johnson, Esq.
Michael Steven Samuel, Esq.
HAMRA LAW GROUP, PC.
WWW.HAMRALAWGROUP.COM
32 Broadway, Ste. 1818
NEW YORK, NY 10004
E-mail: KJOHNSONHAMRALAWGROUP.COM
Telephone: (646) 590-0571
Facsimile: (646) 590-0571
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Pegasystems Inc.:
Shareholders who purchased shares of PEGA during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27914&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased PEGA common stock between May 29, 2020 and May 9,
2022, inclusive.
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate
espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete
against Appian, a principal competitor; (2) defendants' product
development and associated success was, in significant part, not
the result of its own research and product testing but rather the
result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3)
defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets,
which was not only known to, but carried out through, the personal
involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the Company's CEO and other
officers and employees did not comply with the Company's written
Code of Conduct, including its express prohibition on "stealing"
confidential information from a competitor and "misrepresenting
your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information"; (5)
the Company was "unable to reasonably estimate damages" in the
lawsuit filed by Appian as a result of the foregoing misconduct
(the "Appian Litigation"); and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about PEGA's business, operations,
prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the
Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis when made.
DEADLINE: July 18, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27914&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of PEGA during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 18, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Pegasystems Inc. (NasdaqGS: PEGA), if they
purchased the Company's shares between May 29, 2020 and May 9,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until July
18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities
class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-pega/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Kuznicki Law PLLC
Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Pegasystems Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA)
between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important July 18, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased PEGA 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 PEGA class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6286 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 18, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate
espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete
against Appian; (2) Defendants' product development and associated
success was, in significant part, not the result of its own
research and product testing but rather the result of such
corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had
engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not
only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of
PEGA's CEO; (4) PEGA's CEO and other officers and employees did not
comply with PEGA's written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was "unable to
reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about PEGA's
business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential
damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made.
The truth regarding PEGA's fraudulent conduct was revealed after
the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press
release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had
awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA's misappropriation of
trade secrets. In response to this news, PEGA's stock price fell
21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a
closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to
digest the verdict, PEGA's stock price dropped another 8% to close
at $48.07 per share the following day.
To join the PEGA class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6286 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]
PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE: Guerra Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KRIS GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PHARMACA INTEGRATIVE PHARMACY, INC.
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 22CV396906, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03259 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse all business expenses, failure to timely pay
all wages due upon termination/separation of employment, and unfair
business practices.
Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, Inc. is a company that operates
retail pharmacy and health stores in the U.S., including
California, with its principal place of business in Colorado. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
- and –
Kevin Ha, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Kevin.Ha@jacksonlewis.com
PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, d/b/a PILOT FLYING
J, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18278 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including
overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to pay an additional hour of pay or accurately pay
an additional hour of pay in lieu of providing a rest period,
failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from
employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and failure to reimburse expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a guest service
leader from approximately July 2020 until March 2021.
Pilot Travel Centers LLC, doing business as Pilot Flying J, is an
operator of a travel center across the United States, including
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
PNC BANK: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by July 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY J. POLONOWSKI and
BARBARA A. POLONOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National
Banking Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-00151-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order that Defendant's
opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is due on or
before July 11, 2022.
On June 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendant's
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion is currently due on June 29, 2022.
The Plaintiffs' depositions are currently scheduled to occur on
June 20, 2022.
PNC Bank offers a wide range of personal banking services including
checking and savings accounts, credit cards, mortgage loans, and
auto loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvcISJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq.
WESTBROOK LAW PLLC
Centennial Plaza, Suite 205
2851 Charlevoix Dr. SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Telephone: (616) 288-9548
E-mail: ted@westbrook.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Fredrick S. Levin, Esq.
BUCKLEY LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 424-3984
E-mail: flevin@buckleyfirm.com
PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Public Consulting Group, Inc., Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00012198-CU-OE-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
June 2, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00813-WQH-MDD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Public Consulting Group (PCG) --
https://www.publicconsultinggroup.com/ -- is a leading public
sector solutions implementation and operations improvement firm
that partners with health, education, and human services agencies
to improve lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Campbell, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel Alan Wong, Esq.
LEXICON LAW PC
Aegis Law Firm
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
khaque@aegislawfirm.com
swong@aegislawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie Anne Gonell, Esq.
Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 830-0600
Fax: (714) 830-0700
Email: cgonell@morganlewis.com
joseph.govea@morganlewis.com
PVH RETAIL: Gamboa Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESUS GAMBOA-ACOSTA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PVH RETAIL STORES LLC and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00016377-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on June 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00818-LAB-NLS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.
PVH Retail Stores LLC is an American clothing company,
headquartered in New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq.
JONES DAY
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 314-1200
Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com
- and –
Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile: (949) 533-7539
E-mail: aileenkim@jonesday.com
QUEENSLAND: 2011 Brisbane Flood Victims Start Receiving Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that victims of the 2011 Brisbane floods have
started receiving part of the $450 million settlement won in a
class action against dam operator SunWater and the state of
Queensland.
Key points:
Victims of the 2011 Brisbane floods have started receiving
compensation payouts
Maurice Blackburn won a case against a dam operator and the state
of Queensland in 2019
Final settlement amounts will be made at the end of 2022 or early
2023
In November 2019, the Supreme Court in New South Wales found flood
engineers operating the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams in Queensland
were negligent and failed to follow the manual they had helped
draft.
While the court ruled in favour of the negligence claim against the
Queensland government of the day, as well as Seqwater and SunWater,
other aspects of the case failed.
The class action alleged the dam operators failed to follow their
own manual and did not make enough room for heavy rainfall until it
was too late, heightening flood levels and damaging more
properties.
Maurice Blackburn lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan told ABC Radio Brisbane's
Steve Austin some of the almost 7,000 claimants had received an
interim payment.
Blonde short haired woman in black suit
She said the total payout would not be distributed until all legal
matters associated with the case were finalised.
That could take until the end of this year or early 2023.
"We are releasing partial payments now so people can get
something," Ms Gilsenan said.
"We've paid about 300 people so far and we are paying on a rolling
basis -- when people accept their loss assessment, we can pay
them."
Maurice Blackburn developed a settlement scheme which informed how
the money would be distributed among the claimants and took into
account their location and the damage sustained.
Ms Gilsenan said most people accepted their assessment and wanted
to "move through the process".
"There are a small number of people who have appealed and asked us
to look at that assessment again and we've done that," she said.
"They're only ever going to get half of what they lost, at most,
because we only settled half the case, half the case we lost, so I
can understand why some people are angry.
"But more than 95 per cent understand and accept what's being
allocated."
Describing the initial payouts as a "conservative amount", Ms
Gilsenan said most were valued at just several thousand dollars.
She acknowledged the decade-long legal process was too long and
left victims without a sense of closure for many years.
Insurers to receive payouts
Ms Gilsenan said some insurers were entitled to a payout as well.
She said some members of the class action were brought in by their
insurers who wanted to recoup money they had paid out.
"Like individuals, insurers paid out in a instance where there was
a wrongdoer who ended up settling, so they're entitled to a portion
of that as well," Ms Gilsenan said.
"A bit less than half of the money will go to insurers. There's no
disputing the fact a huge amount of money was paid out by them.
"If you've got a house and a car and both of those were
significantly damaged in the floods, and your car might not have
comprehensive insurance but your house does . . . sometimes we've
got claims brought by the group member and the insurer together for
both of the parts they've footed the bill for."
Experience will never be forgotten
Lynette Lynch's Fernvale home flooded to the ceiling in 2011 and
she lost everything.
She described the end of the court battle as a relief.
"We are finally getting closure on all of this and it won't be in
the back of our mind so much. It's been very stressful and for so
many people it's been awful," Ms Lynch said.
"We never got paid by our insurer. We took it to the ombudsman and
even then you only get a percentage of your claim.
"The amount [from Maurice Blackburn] was nowhere close to recouping
our losses. But we got more going through a class action than we
would have individually."
Since the inundation, Ms Lynch said she could only afford insurance
premiums if she underinsured her home.
"It was a brick exterior, the brick stayed there, but it had to be
Gernied [high water-pressure cleaned] and Gernied and Gernied," she
said.
"The walls and the doors had to be removed and we had to slowly
rebuild. I had a cottage out the back of my home so it was a double
rebuild.
"It felt bittersweet because I had to use cheaper materials to
rebuild the house. I had to cut back on the cost because I just
couldn't afford it."
The flood event may have been 11 years ago now but Ms Lynch said
some people would "never get past it".
"Some people suffer really badly," she said.
"They just relive that day over and over, and when they got back in
their homes all their possessions were destroyed. The loss is too
great. [GN]
RHODE ISLAND: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Munir Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HASIM MUNIR, et al., Plaintiffs v. The Rhode Island
Superior Court Corporation, Defendant, C.A. No. 22-039-MSM-PAS
(D.R.I.), Judge Mary S. McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island refuses to reconsider the Court's March
22, 2022 Judgment to adopt dismissal from Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Patricia Sullivan.
The lawsuit is a civil complaint, filed by Hasim Munir and Gregory
Hampton-Boyd, on behalf of themselves and a class of prisoners they
purport to represent. They contend that they and others suffered
improper indictments leading to criminal convictions in the state
courts of Rhode Island, and they make vague allegations of
misconduct, racial and gender animus, and other improper
practices.
On March 22, 2022, the Court accepted and adopted the Report &
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sullivan which recommended
dismissal after finding, pursuant to the screening required by 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), that the Complaint failed to
state a plausible claim for relief. The Court also noted, in
accepting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, what appeared at
the time to be an absence of objection by the Plaintiffs.
Apparently, the Court's Order and the Plaintiffs' objection crossed
in the mail, as the latter was received and docketed on the same
day as the Order. The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and filed a
timely Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The
effectiveness of the Notice of Appeal is delayed while the Court
rules on the Motion to Alter Judgment.
Although the Motion is captioned one to Alter Judgment, it actually
asks the Court "to reconsider its March 22, 2022 Judgment to adopt
dismissal from Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Patricia
Sullivan." The basis of the Motion is that a timely Objection was
in fact filed.
Whether treated as a Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59,
or as one for reconsideration pursuant to the Court's inherent
authority to reconsider its own rulings, Judge McElroy holds that
the case will remain dismissed, and the Motion is denied. She has
considered again the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to dismiss,
as well as the substance of the Objection and finds no cause to
reconsider. Upon the same review, she finds no manifest error
warranting an alteration of the judgment.
The Objection cites a plethora of alleged facts, and court
opinions, that the Plaintiffs complain were not specifically
catalogued by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and
Recommendation. They infer from those omissions that she failed to
sufficiently consider the record. To the contrary, the Magistrate
Judge's Recommendation reveals a sufficiently thorough review of
the state court record. More importantly, the Objection does not
counter any of the legal reasons requiring dismissal. Chief among
them is that both Plaintiffs currently have pending applications
for post-conviction relief in the state courts challenging their
convictions. Because there are outstanding convictions whose
integrity is questioned by this civil action, the action is barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-89 (1994).
Neither does the Objection address another major finding of the
Magistrate Judge: That the Complaint fails to state a person who
has violated any rights of the Plaintiffs. Instead, the Complaint
sues the Superior Court of Rhode Island, an entity that is not a
"person" under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and cannot be sued for
damages. As the Magistrate Judge noted, to the extent the Complaint
intends to sue the judges of the Superior Court, they enjoy
absolute immunity.
For the reasons she expressed, and others appearing in the Report
and Recommendation adopted by the Court, Judge McElroy denies the
Motion to Alter Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/42ajpdtk from Leagle.com.
RISKIFIED LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 1 disclosed that
investors with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Riskified Ltd.
("Riskified" or the "Company") (NYSE: RSKD).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 1, 2022
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Riskified lawsuit,
you can submit your contact information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/riskified-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.
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (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) 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 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]
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Snyder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled D C SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; ROCKET
COMPANIES, INC.; QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; and QUICKEN LOANS, LLC; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV14382, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 3,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03840 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and
the Fair Labor Standards Act including unpaid overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition.
Rocket Mortgage, LLC, formerly known as Quicken Loans, LLC, is a
mortgage loan provider based in Michigan.
Rocket Companies, Inc. is a consumer lending company based in
Michigan.
Quicken Loans, Inc. is a mortgage loan provider based in Michigan.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad D. Bernard, Esq.
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
Martin Vigodnier, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Chad.Bernard@jacksonlewis.com
Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com
ROOSEVELT FIELD: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sapuy v. Roosevelt Field
Mall Dental, P.C., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00322 (E.D.N.Y.),
Roosevelt Field Mall Dental, P.C. and Stomatcare DSO, LLC with
counsel for Plaintiff Rainier Sapuy and the proposed class, and
counsel for Defendant Care Angel, Inc., jointly move the Court
seeking an extension to the deadlines to respond and reply to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which was filed June 1,
2022.
The Parties have agreed to the following extension to the briefing
schedule for the Motion:
Event Original New
Deadline Deadline
-- Response to Motion June 15, 2022 June 29, 2022
(pursuant to Local
Rule 6.1(b))
-- Reply to Motion June 22, 2022 July 6, 2022
(pursuant to Local
Rule 6.1(b))
Roosevelt Field Dental PC is a medical group practice located in
Garden City, New York.
A copy of the Parties motion dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6F0En at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kierstan Schultz, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
nixonpeabody.com
900 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03101-2031
Telephone: (603) 628-4031
Facsimile: (844) 675-4275
E-mail: kschultz@nixonpeabody.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Attys. Fees in Antitrust Suit Partly Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CONNER
ERWIN, Objector-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-16291 (9th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum
affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding for further
proceedings, the order granting attorneys' fees.
The case concerns attorneys' fees awarded to Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP (HB), class counsel for a class of Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs (IPP) in a lengthy multidistrict antitrust suit.
The Court of Appeals previously vacated the district court's
decisions awarding a total of $52,780,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to HB and remanded for the recalculation of the award. See
In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig., 959 F.3d 922, 926
(9th Cir. 2020) (ODD I); and In re Optical Disk Drive Prods.
Antitrust Litig., 804 F. App'x 443, 444 (9th Cir. 2020) (ODD II).
On remand, the district court awarded HB $31,026,000 in attorneys'
fees. Erwin now appeals the district court's order granting these
attorneys' fees and denying his motion to "Enforce Settlement,
Return Class Funds, and Disgorge Fees."
Mr. Erwin challenges the newly entered award on three grounds.
First, he alleges that violations of the settlement agreements and
breaches of ethical and fiduciary duties by HB require forfeiture
of the fee award. Second, Erwin argues that the district court
miscalculated HB's initial fee bid, rendering the court's
calculation of the overall fee award unreasonable. Finally, Erwin
contends that the district court abused its discretion by relying
upon impermissible grounds to justify its upward departure from
HB's bid amount.
I.
In common fund class action cases like the one at bar, the Court of
Appeals review for abuse of discretion the district court's award
of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel as well as its method
of calculating the fees. The factual findings underlying these
decisions are reviewed for clear error.
II.
Mr. Erwin first challenges HB's treatment of the funds it received
as a result of the district court's original fee awards. He makes
two arguments: (1) that the settlement agreements required HB to
return immediately the fees to the settlement fund after this court
vacated the awards in ODD I and ODD II; and (2) that California's
ethical rules required HB to place immediately the fees into a
client trust account following vacatur. The Court of Appeals
rejects these arguments and affirms the district court's denial of
Erwin's motion to "Enforce Settlement, Return Class Funds, and
Disgorge Fees."
The applicable local rule provides that attorneys' practicing
before the district court must be familiar and comply with the
standards of professional conduct required of members of the State
Bar of California, N.D. Cal. Local Rule 11-4(a)(1). Each of the
settlement agreements at issue include provisions requiring HB to
return promptly funds approved as part of attorneys' fees awards in
the event the order making the Fee and Expense Award is reversed or
modified.
Because the Court of Appeals did not reverse or modify--but rather
vacated--the fee award orders, the district court did not err in
determining that HB was under no clear obligation per the terms of
the settlement agreements to refund immediately the fees.
Mr. Erwin further argues that the district court erred by declining
to order disgorgement for purported breaches of ethical and
fiduciary obligations. The Court of Appeals disagrees. The Court of
Appeals notes that it has held that, in determining what fees are
reasonable, a district court may consider a lawyer's misconduct,
which affects the value of the lawyer's services, citing Rodriguez
v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 653 (9th Cir. 2012).
In order for disgorgement of attorneys' fees to be warranted, the
client must have suffered harm resulting from the alleged
misconduct, Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.
Here, the class suffered no prejudice from the alleged conduct, the
Court of Appeals finds. Contrary to Erwin's claim that the class
suffered harm by not collecting interest on the entirety of the
$52,780,000 distributed to HB, the class was entitled to interest
only on the portion of the funds that ultimately belongs to the
class.
The Court of Appeals holds that the district court correctly
ordered HB to repay the difference between its original award and
its post-vacatur award, plus interest, and HB has already complied
with that order. Therefore, even assuming HB was required to return
immediately the fee to the settlement fund or to hold it in a
client trust account, the IPP class suffered no prejudice from HB's
refusal to do so. The district court did not err when it determined
that the harmless error doctrine forecloses Erwin's disgorgement
arguments.
III.
Mr. Erwin next challenges the district court's award of attorneys'
fees on remand as unreasonable. He contends that the district court
began from the wrong "starting point" in its fee calculation
because it declined to read HB's fee bid as employing marginal
rates rather than flat rates.
The Court of Appeals agrees with Erwin that HB's original fee
proposal called for marginal rates to calculate the fee.
In ODD I, the Court of Appeals held "that when class counsel
secures appointment as interim lead counsel by proposing a fee
structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid becomes the
starting point for determining a reasonable fee." In ascertaining
this "starting point," the district court adopted a calculation
that uses the grid incorporated into HB's bid to calculate the fees
for each group of settling defendants, based on the total amount of
each settlement. This was consistent with the Court of Appeals's
opinion in ODD I.
The district court determined that under its bid, HB was entitled
"to recover 14% of the settlements from certain defendants, 13%
from other defendants' larger settlements, 12% from the largest
settlement, and no fee from one settlement that did not meet the
minimum threshold for recovering fees." Ultimately, the district
court calculated that HB would be entitled to $25,855,000 under its
fee grid proposal, and the court began its analysis with this
figure in mind.
But because the first increment in HB's proposal calls for no fee
for the "First $5,000,000," the Court of Appeals says it read HB's
proposed fee structure to incorporate marginal rates rather than
fixed rates. In other words, instead of looking solely to the total
amount of each settlement, plugging that number into the grid, and
calculating the fee as a flat percentage, the district court should
have treated each settlement as entitling HB to 0% for the first
$5,000,000, 14% for the next $20,000,000, 13% for the next
$25,000,000, and so on.
Using these marginal rates, HB would be entitled to $22,205,000,
which is $3,650,000 less than the figure arrived at by the district
court. The Court of Appeals says this $22,205,000 figure is the
proper "starting point" from which the district court should have
begun its analysis, and the court was required to "provide an
adequate explanation for any variance."
Because HB's bid to become class counsel incorporated marginal
rates rather than fixed rates in its fee structure, the Court of
Appeals vacates the district court's order awarding HB $31,026,000
in attorneys' fees and remand to the district court to recalculate
the award using the proper starting point of $22,205,000.
IV.
Mr. Erwin's final challenge to the district court's fee award
concerns the factors considered by the district court in its
decision to vary upward from HB's fee proposal. He contends that,
contrary to the Court of Appeals' cautionary language in ODD I, the
district court impermissibly justified its upward departure based
on circumstances contemplated at the time of the bid.
On this point, Erwin misses the mark, the Court of Appeals holds.
The district court took care to confine the scope of its analysis
to factors the Court of Appeals indicated could properly be
considered in ODD I. In particular, the court pointed to the
considerable risk of the litigation. In ODD I, the Court of Appeals
made clear that the subsequent summary judgment in favor of the
non-settling defendants "amply supported [the district court's]
determination that this litigation was very risky" and was a factor
that could be considered.
The Court of Appeals also notes that it is also readily apparent
that HB obtained excellent results in light of the ultimate
resolution of the litigation. By the time the IPP class was deemed
ineligible to recover any damages, HB had already secured
$205,000,000 via settlement agreements. In light of the subsequent
summary judgment ruling affirmed on appeal, the district court was
free to give greater weight to litigation risk, and this factor
provided strong support justifying a 20% upward departure from HB's
bid amount.
V.
The district court's order is affirmed in part, vacated in part,
and remanded. The parties will bear their own costs.
Christen, Circuit Judge, dissents.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/27vs48vv from Leagle.com.
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in Illinois Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2022, that between September 2,
2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry
producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple
putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The
complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust
claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding
captioned "In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation."
Sanderson Farms Inc. is into poultry slaughtering and processing.
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2022, that between December 8,
2017 and April 25, 2022, purported direct-purchaser entities
individually brought separate suits against 20 poultry producers,
including Sanderson Farms and Agri Stats, Inc., which have been
consolidated with the other cases.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The
complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust
claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. Certain of
the suits additionally allege related state-law and common-law
claims, and related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes.
Four complaints filed on June 12, 2020 also plead allegations of
federal bid rigging. Since that time, an additional forty-nine
individual actions have been filed, some of which also plead
allegations of federal bid rigging. On January 29, 2021, the
individual-action plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Those suits filed in the Northern District of Illinois
are now pending in front of the same judge as the putative class
action lawsuits.
Sanderson Farms Inc. is into poultry slaughtering and processing.
SHELTA INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shelta, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shelta, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04566
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shelta, Inc. -- https://www.sheltahats.com/ -- offers UV rays
protection with their high performance sun hats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT LLC and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18367 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 3, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including
overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to provide proper sick leave, failure to keep accurate and
complete payroll records, failure to pay an additional hour of pay
for each meal/rest period not provided, failure to timely pay final
wages, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation
from employment, and unlawful criminal and financial background
checks.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a line service
technician.
Signature Flight Support LLC is a provider of flight support
services based in Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
sepideh@crosnerlegal.com
SOCLEAN INC: Odom Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Public Consulting Group, Inc., Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00063 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on June 2, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00803-JFC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Personal Injury.
SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Deakle, Esq.
DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Phone: (601) 544-0631
Fax: (601) 544-0666
Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in Saxon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the matter entitled SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Petitioner v.
LATRICE SAXON, Case No. 21-309 (U.S.), the Supreme Court of the
United States affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and
holds that Ms. Saxon belongs to a class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Latrice Saxon works for Southwest Airlines as a ramp supervisor.
Her work frequently requires her to load and unload baggage,
airmail, and commercial cargo on and off airplanes that travel
across the country. The question presented is whether, under
Section of the Federal Arbitration Act, she belongs to a "class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" that is exempted
from the Act's coverage.
The Supreme Court holds that she does.
I
Southwest Airlines moves a lot of cargo. In 2019, Southwest carried
the baggage of over 162 million passengers to domestic and
international destinations. In total, Southwest transported more
than 256 million pounds of passenger, commercial, and mail cargo.
To move that cargo, Southwest employs "ramp agents," who physically
load and unload baggage, airmail, and freight. It also employs
"ramp supervisors," who train and supervise teams of ramp agents.
Frequently, ramp supervisors step in to load and unload cargo
alongside ramp agents.
Ms. Saxon is a ramp supervisor for Southwest at Chicago Midway
International Airport. As part of her employment contract, she
agreed to arbitrate wage disputes individually. Nevertheless, when
Saxon came to believe that Southwest was failing to pay proper
overtime wages to her and other ramp supervisors, she brought a
putative class action against Southwest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Southwest sought to enforce its arbitration agreement with Saxon
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and moved to dismiss the
lawsuit. In response, Saxon invoked Section 1 of the FAA, which
exempts from the statute's ambit "contracts of employment of
seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged
in foreign or interstate commerce." Saxon argued that ramp
supervisors, like seamen and railroad employees, were an exempt
"class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."
The District Court disagreed, holding that only those involved in
"actual transportation," and not the mere handling of goods, fell
within the exemption (2019 WL 4958247, *7 (ND Ill., Oct. 8, 2019)).
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the act of loading
cargo onto a vehicle to be transported interstate is itself
commerce, as that term was understood at the time of the FAA's
enactment in 1925.
Citing Saxon's "uncontroverted declaration" that ramp supervisors
at Midway "frequently" load and unload cargo, the Court of Appeals
reserved the question "whether supervision of cargo loading alone"
would also fall within the FAA's Section 1 exemption.
The Seventh Circuit's decision conflicted with an earlier decision
of the Fifth Circuit -- Eastus v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., 960
F.3d 207 (2020). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve
the disagreement.
II
In this case, Justice Thomas notes that the Panel must decide
whether Saxon falls within a "class of workers engaged in foreign
or interstate commerce." The Supreme Court interprets this language
according to its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. To discern
that ordinary meaning, those words must be read and interpreted in
their context, not in isolation.
The Supreme Court begins by defining the relevant "class of
workers" to which Saxon belongs. Then, the Supreme Court determines
whether that class of workers is "engaged in foreign or interstate
commerce."
A
First, the parties dispute how to define the relevant "class of
workers." Saxon argues that because air transportation as an
industry is engaged in interstate commerce, "airline employees"
constitute a "class of workers" covered by Section 1. Southwest, by
contrast, maintains that Section 1 exempts classes of workers based
on their conduct, not their employer's, and the relevant class,
therefore, includes only those airline employees, who are actually
engaged in interstate commerce in their day-to-day work.
The Court of Appeals rejected Saxon's industrywide approach, and so
does the Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court has observed before, the FAA speaks of
workers, not employees or servants. The word "workers" directs the
interpreter's attention to "the performance of work." Saxon is,
therefore, a member of a "class of workers" based on what she does
at Southwest, not what Southwest does generally, Justice Thomas
opines.
On that point, Southwest has not meaningfully contested that ramp
supervisors like Saxon frequently load and unload cargo. Thus, as
relevant here, the Supreme Court accepts that Saxon belongs to a
class of workers, who physically load and unload cargo on and off
airplanes on a frequent basis.
B
Second, the parties dispute whether that class of airplane cargo
loaders is "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" under
Section 1.
The Supreme Court holds that it is. Justice Thomas holds that any
class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across
state or international borders falls within Section 1's exemption.
Taken together, Justice Thomas points out that these canons showed
that Section 1 exempted only contracts with transportation workers,
rather than all employees, from the FAA. And, while it did not
provide a complete definition of "transportation worker," the
Supreme Court indicated that any such worker must at least play a
direct and "necessary role in the free flow of goods" across
borders. Put another way, transportation workers must be actively
"engaged in transportation" of those goods across borders via the
channels of foreign or interstate commerce.
In sum, text and context point to the same place: Workers, like
Saxon, who load cargo on and off airplanes belong to a "class of
workers in foreign or interstate commerce," Justice Thomas holds.
III
Both Saxon and Southwest proffer arguments that disagree with
portions of the Supreme Court's analysis. Neither of them convinces
the Supreme Court to change course.
A
For her part, Saxon thinks that the Supreme Court should define the
"class of workers" as all airline employees, who carry out the
"customary work" of the airline, rather than cargo loaders more
specifically. That larger class of employees potentially includes
everyone from cargo loaders to shift schedulers to those who design
Southwest's website.
Ms. Saxon's attempted invocation of ejusdem generis is unavailing
because it proceeds from the flawed premise that "seamen" and
"railroad employees" are both industrywide categories, Justice
Thomas opines.
The Supreme Court, therefore, rejects Saxon's argument that Section
1 exempts virtually all employees of major transportation
providers.
B
While Ms. Saxon defines the relevant class of workers too broadly,
Justice Thomas finds that Southwest construes Section 1's catchall
category--"any other class of workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce"--too narrowly.
The airline argues that only workers, who physically move goods or
people across foreign or international boundaries--pilots, ship
crews, locomotive engineers, and the like--are "engaged in foreign
or interstate commerce." So construed, Justice Thomas notes,
Section 1 does not exempt cargo loaders because they do not
physically accompany freight across state or international
boundaries.
Southwest's reading rests on three arguments. None persuades the
Supreme Court. First, taking its turn with ejusdem generis, the
airline argues that because "seamen" are "employed on board a
vessel," McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 346
(1991), and "'railroad employees' is somewhat ambiguous," the
Supreme Court should limit the exempted class of railroad employees
to those who are physically on board a locomotive as it crosses
state lines.
Second, Southwest argues that cargo loading is similar to other
activities that the Supreme Court has found to lack a necessary
nexus to interstate commerce in other contexts. Third, Southwest
falls back on statutory purpose. It observes that Section 2 of the
FAA broadly requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements in
any "contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce," while
Section 1 provides only a narrower exemption.
To be sure, the Supreme Court has relied on statutory purpose to
inform its interpretation of the FAA when that "purpose is readily
apparent from the FAA's text," citing AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). But the Supreme Court is not
"free to pave over bumpy statutory texts in the name of more
expeditiously advancing a policy goal."
Here, Section 1's plain text suffices to show that airplane cargo
loaders are exempt from the FAA's scope, and the Supreme Court has
no warrant to elevate vague invocations of statutory purpose over
the words Congress chose.
* * *
Latrice Saxon frequently loads and unloads cargo on and off
airplanes that travel in interstate commerce. She, therefore,
belongs to a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate
commerce" to which Section 1's exemption applies.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of
Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of
this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfx5264 from Leagle.com.
SPLUNK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------
Splunk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended
April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 26, 2022, that it is facing a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed on
December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.
The initial complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its financial guidance and asserted a putative
class period of October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020. On March 16,
2021, the court appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund
as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead plaintiff
counsel in the case. On June 7, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint which expands the putative class period to run
from March 26, 2020 to December 2, 2020 and alleges that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding their
marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel.
The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. In July 27, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
In March 21, 2022, the Court issued a decision granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Splunk Inc. provides innovative cloud services and licensed
software solutions that deliver and operationalize insights from
the data generated by digital systems.
STARKIST CO: To Appeal 9th Cir. Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that StarKist
still has to fight off a horde of angry tuna customers in a class
action even though nearly a third of the class may not have
actually paid more for their chicken of the sea.
In affirming a trial court's decision to certify three classes --
consumers, restaurants, and large retailers -- to sue the tuna
supplier and its parent company for violating antitrust laws, the
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created the appearance of
a division among the lower courts over just how to handle people in
prospective class actions who aren't injured.
How many is too many to OK a class? It's an important question
because setting such a limit would make it harder to bring lawsuits
as a class and hold corporations accountable when they hurt people.
That's why it's in corporations' best interest to argue for one.
Kate Spelman, who co-chairs the consumer law practice group at
Jenner & Block and defends companies in these types of disputes,
said the question that's up in the air right now is whether courts
should recognize as a general rule that more than a minimal number
of uninjured plaintiffs in and of itself precludes class
certification.
The Ninth Circuit wasn't willing to do it. The appeals court said
it's up to the trial court to decide if the issues that are going
to be litigated are predominantly common to all the class members.
Meaning, can the jury decide all the class members' claims based on
common evidence? Predominance is one of the many requirements for
class certification.
Jonathan Rubin, a partner at MoginRubin LLP who represents
antitrust plaintiffs, said class actions give people an opportunity
to correct wrongs that on an aggregate level are substantial, but
on an individual level wouldn't be worth the legal expense to
pursue.
"Nobody's going to bring a claim for a $3 overcharge except if the
$3 overcharge happened 1.4 million times," he said. "We would not
want corporations to be able to cause widespread harm with no legal
consequences, and that's really the only method by which many
claims are going to be brought."
Class actions though rarely go to trial. They often settle once a
court certifies the class.
As Judge Kenneth Lee, who was nominated to the court by President
Donald Trump, noted in his dissenting opinion, companies settle
settle even if they have a meritorious defense because their
potential liability at trial could be enormous, maybe even
catastrophic.
This case is unique because Bumble Bee, StarKist, and three tuna
industry executives already pleaded guilty to conspiracy after the
US Justice Department investigation found evidence of a
price-fixing scheme among the StarKist, Bumble Bee Foods LLC, and
Chicken of the Sea International. Bumble Bee's former CEO was
convicted by a jury of a conspiracy to fix prices and Chicken of
the Sea chose to cooperate with the Justice Department in exchange
for leniency.
It's clear these companies colluded to increase the price of tuna,
but that doesn't mean all the purchasers involved in the class
action were actually injured by the alleged conspiracy.
Gregory Garre, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP who defended
StarKist Co. and its owner Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd., said the
tuna purchasers suing vary widely in terms of their size,
negotiating power, store type, and how they typically buy tuna.
"You can't claim there's a common question or way in which people
were impacted," he said
But Rubin said if there are too many uninjured people in a class,
that doesn't mean there's a predominance issue and the class
shouldn't be certified. The class just needs to be better defined.
"If it's not well defined, the thing is to tweak the class
definition not throw everyone out of court, which is what the de
minimis rule does," he said.
Garre said his clients are planning to appeal the Ninth Circuit's
decision to the US Supreme Court. Though a division among lower
courts typically makes a case more attractive to the justices, not
everyone agrees the April 8 decision created one.
"No court has said there's a maximum, numerically, of uninjured
class members or proportion of uninjured class members beyond which
certification may not be granted nor has anyone ever said there is
a floor below which certification must always be granted," said
Thomas Burt, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein. who represented the
consumer plaintiffs.
Judge Sandra Ikuta, who was nominated to the court by President
George W. Bush, wrote in the court's majority ruling that neither
the District of Columbia nor the First Circuit adopted the rule
that there can be no more than a minimal number of uninjured
members in a class for a class to be certified as some claimed they
did.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could definitively create
one. Rubin said that's what corporations want. It's in their
interest to set up rules that make it more difficult for people to
bring class actions.
"If they can try to put a roadblock to certification and say this
is in the interest of efficient and proper administration of the
rules of civil procedure, they'll do it but it really isn't," he
said. "It has nothing to do with proper rules of civil procedure
and has everything to do with cutting back the number of class
actions." [GN]
STERICYCLE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment vs. Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP DANIEL v.
STERICYCLE INC. and SHRED-IT USA LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad
entered an order that:
1. The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is
denied;
2. The Plaintiff's amended motion to conditionally certify
collective action is granted in part and denied in part;
and
3. Within 15 days of this Order, the Defendants shall provide
Plaintiff a list with names current and former employees
at Defendants' Raleigh Branch that would otherwise be an
opt-in plaintiff for purposes of the collective action but
for which the Defendants assert have valid arbitration
agreements such that they are not subject to receive
notice of the collective action, including a copy of the
relevant arbitration agreements;
4. Within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall meet and
confer about the validity of any arbitration agreements,
which if any of the names on the list should receive
notice, the notice form, opt-in form, and processes and
procedures for notice;
5. Within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall conduct an
Initial Attorneys' Conference; and
6. Within 60 days of this Order, the parties shall submit to
the Court for approval a proposed notice form, proposed
opt-in form, proposed processes and procedures for notice,
and a Certificate of Initial Attorneys Conference with a
proposed discovery plan. The parties must highlight any
disagreements requiring further decision from the Court,
including as to who should receive notice.
Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2AxSV at no extra charge.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA SAMPSON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10284-CPO-SAK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon A. King entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
-- The time within which to seek July 1, 2022
amendments to the pleadings or
to add new parties will expire
on:
-- All affirmative expert reports March 31, 2023
on class certification and
disclosures pursuant to FED.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf
of Plaintiffs shall be served
upon counsel for Defendants no
later than:
-- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts May 15, 2023
in support of class certification
shall be completed by:
-- All rebuttal expert reports on June 27, 2023
class certification and
disclosures pursuant to FED. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of
the Defendants shall be served
upon counsel for Plaintiffs
no later than:
-- Depositions of Defendants' August 1, 2023
experts in opposition to
class certification
shall be completed by:
-- Class certification motions September 1, 2023
shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Court no later than:
Subaru of America is the United States-based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of
Japan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3940vXm at no extra charge.[CC]
TALKSPACE INC: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Combined Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IVAN M. BARON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKSPACE, INC., OREN
FRANK, MARK HIRSCHHORN, HEC SPONSOR LLC, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN,
DOUGLAS G. BERGERON, JONATHAN DOBRES, ROBERT GREIFELD, AMY
SCHULMAN, THELMA DUGGIN, HUDSON EXECUTIVE CAPITAL LP, and HEC
MASTER FUND LP, Defendants, LUIS DIAZ VALDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKSPACE,
INC., OREN FRANK, MARK HIRSCHHORN, HEC SPONSOR LLC, DOUGLAS L.
BRAUNSTEIN, DOUGLAS G. BERGERON, JONATHAN DOBRES, ROBERT GREIFELD,
AMY SCHULMAN, THELMA DUGGIN, HUDSON EXECUTIVE CAPITAL LP, and HEC
MASTER FUND LP, Defendants, Case Nos. 22 Civ. 163 (PGG), 22 Civ.
840 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York appointed:
(i) Montague Street Group and Baron as the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs; and
(ii) Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP will serve as Co-Lead Counsel of the
consolidated action.
I. Introduction
These are two putative class actions brought against certain
officers and directors of Talkspace, formerly known as Hudson
Executive Investment Corp., and its affiliate companies. Pending
before the Court are a number of motions for the consolidation of
these cases, the appointment of lead plaintiff, and the approval of
lead counsel. After these motions were filed, two of the movants --
Montague Street Group and Ivan M. Baron -- filed an amended motion
seeking joint appointment as lead plaintiffs.
II. Background
Talkspace is a behavioral health company headquartered in New York
that offers an online platform for one-on-one therapy with licensed
therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. It began as Hudson, a
"blank check company" that "raises money from investors in an
initial public offering and then uses the proceeds from the
offering to acquire a business or operational assets, usually from
a private company that does not publicly report financial or
operating results."
On June 11, 2020, Hudson sold 41.4 million ownership units in an
initial public offering. In registration statements filed in May
and June 2020, Hudson stated that it intended to acquire a company
in the healthcare or financial services industries, and that Hudson
and its affiliate companies were well-equipped to conduct the
search for such a company.
On Jan. 13, 2021, Hudson announced that it had entered into a
merger agreement with Talkspace. As a result of the merger, Hudson
shareholders were expected to own approximately 50.8% of the common
stock of the combined company. On Feb. 2, 2021, Hudson filed a
registration statement and draft proxy for the merger, which became
effective on May 28, 2021. On June 17, 2021, Hudson shareholders
voted to approve the merger at a special shareholders meeting. The
merger was consummated on June 22, 2021, and Hudson changed its
name to "Talkspace, Inc."
On Aug. 9, 2021, Talkspace issued a press release announcing the
company's second quarter 2021 financial results, and held an
earnings call.
On Nov. 15, 2021, Talkspace issued a press release and held an
earnings call concerning the company's third quarter 2021 financial
results. Its financial results were less favorable than the company
had anticipated, and its stock price dropped by 36.28%. By Dec. 30,
2021, Talkspace's common stock was trading 80% below the price at
the time of the merger.
The first of the instant cases -- Baron v. Talkspace, Inc., No. 22
Civ. 163 (PGG) was filed on Jan. 7, 2022. Valdez v. Talkspace,
Inc., No. 22 Civ. 840 (PGG) was filed on Jan. 31, 2022. In both
actions, the Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Defendants' alleged materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the proxy statement issued in connection with the June
22, 2021 merger of Hudson and Talkspace. In Valdez, the Plaintiff
also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for
Defendants' materially false and misleading statements or omissions
in the period between June 11, 2020 and Nov. 15, 2021 (the "Class
Period").
Pending before the Court are a number of motions -- all filed on
March 8, 2022 seeking consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff,
and designation of lead counsel.
III. Discussion
A. Consolidation
Given the similarities between the two complaints' factual
allegations and legal claims -- and the fact that consolidation is
unopposed -- Judge Gardephe holds that consolidation under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(a) is appropriate. The actions will be referred to
collectively as In re Talkspace, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 22
Civ. 163 (PGG) (the "Consolidated Talkspace Class Action"). The
Clerk of Court will file a copy of the Order in the separate file
for each of the captioned Talkspace class action cases. Unless
otherwise ordered, future filings in any Talkspace class action
case consolidated will be filed and docketed only under docket
number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG). All counsel who have entered appearances
in the above-captioned class action cases will be deemed to have
entered an appearance in the Consolidated Talkspace Class Action
under docket number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG).
The counsel is directed to alert the Clerk of Court to the filing
or transfer of any case that might properly be consolidated as part
of this litigation. Any class action involving substantially
related questions of law and fact hereafter filed in or transferred
to this Court will be consolidated under the master file number
assigned to the case.
Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Talkspace Class Action
under docket number 22 Civ. 163 (PGG) will bear the following
caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK IN RE TALKSPACE, INC. SECURITIES 22 Civ. 163 (PGG)
LITIGATION."
The Court's consolidation order does not make any person, firm, or
corporation a party to any action in which the person or entity has
not been named, served, or added as such in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
The following parties have moved for appointment as lead plaintiff,
and for selection of lead counsel: (1) Montague Street Group,2
represented by Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP; (2) Robert Thewes,
represented by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; (3) Yirong Xu, represented by
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.; (4) Eric D. Johnson and Luis Diaz Valdez,
represented by Pomerantz LLP; (5) Jason Hendeles, represented by
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; and (6) Ivan M. Baron, represented by
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
On March 22, 2022, Movants Johnson and Valdez, and Movant Thewes,
filed notices of non-opposition to the competing motions to appoint
lead plaintiff, recognizing that they do not have the largest
financial interest in the litigation within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. That same day,
Movants Montague Street Group and Baron filed a stipulation stating
that they are willing to serve as co-lead plaintiffs in order to
"avoid a protracted battle for Lead Plaintiff," and to "allow their
combined resources to provide the best possible outcome for the
Class." Movant Hendeles has made a submission asserting that he
suffered the third largest loss. Movant Xu opposes the appointment
of Montague Street Group and Baron, whether individually or as
co-lead plaintiffs.
The instant cases present two overlapping classes: (1) a class of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Talkspace securities
during the Class Period of June 11, 2020 to Nov. 15, 2021 (the
"Section 10(b) Class"); and (2) a class of those who held Talkspace
securities as of the May 19, 2021 record date and were eligible to
vote on the proposed merger at the June 17, 2021 shareholders
meeting (the "Section 14(a) Class").
Judge Gardephe concludes that Montague Street Group and Baron
possess the largest financial interest in the case, and that Xu has
not rebutted the PSLRA's presumption in favor of Montague Street
Group and Baron serving as co-lead plaintiffs. Moreover, Montague
Street Group and Baron allege claims typical of other class
members. With respect to adequacy of representation, Montague
Street Group's counsel -- Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP ("RKS") -- and
Baron's counsel -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- have been
appointed as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous securities
class actions. And, Xu has not shown that Montague Street Group's
or Baron's claims are subject to unique defenses or that they are
otherwise not suitable to serve as co-lead plaintiffs.
C. Appointment of Lead Counsel
Montague Street Group and Baron have, respectively, selected RKS
and Robbins Geller to serve as their counsel. Montague Street Group
has submitted a declaration and RKS firm resume providing a
detailed description of the educational backgrounds and legal
experience of many of the attorneys at the firm, as well as a list
of securities class actions in which the firm has served or is now
serving as lead or co-lead counsel. RKS and Robbins Geller are also
currently serving as co-counsel in a securities class action
pending in the Eastern District of New York. Judge Gardephe
concludes that RKS and Robbins Geller are qualified to serve as
co-lead counsel in this matter.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Gardephe consolidates the
captioned actions, as well as any pending, subsequently filed,
removed, or transferred actions that include claims related to
those asserted in the captioned actions, for all purposes pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) under the docket number of
the lead case: 22 Civ. 163 (PGG). Filings in the consolidated
action will bear the caption In re Talkspace, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
Montague Street Group's and Baron's joint motion for appointment as
co-lead plaintiffs and for selection of Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel is granted.
Montague Street Group's and Baron's individual motions are denied
as moot. All competing motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motions.
A consolidated class action complaint is to be filed by July 1,
2022. By July 14 2022, the Defendants will submit a joint letter to
the Court stating whether they intend to answer or move to dismiss.
In the event that the Defendants intend to move to dismiss, they
will propose a briefing schedule that has been discussed with the
Plaintiffs' counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2axf9wfm from Leagle.com.
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Stallworth FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELINDA STALLWORTH, Plaintiff v. TERRILL OUTSOURCING
GROUP, LLC d/b/a SUPERLATIVE RM, and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP
PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21 C 4332 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
Plaintiff Stallworth is bringing a putative class action on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated against the Defendants,
debt collectors, for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Her
specific allegation is that the Defendants employed a third-party
vendor to communicate with the Plaintiff concerning collection of a
debt without her permission, which is alleged to violate Section
1692c(b) of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff originally filed her suit in state court after which
the Defendants removed it to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(a), on the basis of a federal question jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff has filed the Motion to Remand, arguing that there is
no case or controversy because she is only seeking statutory
damages which can be recovered in state court. She has stipulated
that she has not suffered any actual damages.
The Plaintiff says, correctly, that the Defendants, being
proponents of federal jurisdiction, have burden to establish
federal jurisdiction. In order to do so, the Defendants must
demonstrate that (1) the Plaintiff has suffered an actual or
eminent, concrete, and particularized injury in fact; (2) a causal
connection between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3)
the likelihood the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision. Removal jurisdiction is narrowly construed, and any doubt
is to be resolved in favor of remand.
The Defendants argue that the Supreme Court in TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021), has held that certain
intangible harms to the debtor resulting from an FDCPA violation,
even though they do not arise from a specific detrimental act taken
by the debtor, can constitute a concrete injury justifying federal
jurisdiction. According to TransUnion, if a plaintiff can establish
that the debt collector's violation of the FDCPA has a close
relationship to a wrongful act that has traditionally been
recognized as a basis for a tort action under common law, such
violation can provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. Such
intangible harms may include, for example, harm to one's
reputation, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon
seclusion, which closely approximate the common law torts of
defamation and invasion of privacy.
The Defendants cite as further authority an Eleventh Circuit case
that has since been withdrawn, Hunstein v. Preferred Collection &
Management Services, Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2021), opinion
vacated and superseded on rehearing, 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir 2021),
rehearing en banc granted and opinion vacated, and several Northern
District of Illinois Court decisions that followed it, which found
federal jurisdiction arising from alleged violations of Section
1692c(b) because they have analogs in the federal causes of action
based on invasion of privacy.
In summary, Judge Leinenweber holds that there is a debt collector
who utilizes a third party to mail Dunning letters. Thus, the only
individual having access to the debt information is the individual
who created and mailed the Dunning letter. This ministerial
activity is no different from what a lawyer's secretary normally
performs. The fact that a secretary is an employee rather than a
contractual worker appears wholly irrelevant. In fact, many lawyers
hire contract secretarial services, as well as court reporters.
Suppose an attorney who is employed to collect a large debt is
forced to file suit against the debtor and in course of the
proceeding takes a deposition of the debtor before a court
reporter, who is virtually always, like the third-party vendor in
the case, a third-party vendor. Court reporters, like the
third-party vendor in this case, are not covered by the permissible
list of persons to whom the debt information may be disclosed.
The final distinguishing feature of the case from Hunstein is the
unusual alignment of the parties to the Motion. Normally, the
debtor is the one seeking to establish an injury in order to bring
the FDCPA action in federal court. It is the debt collector who is
seeking to stay out of federal court by denigrating the debtor's
alleged injury, like Spokeo, TransUnion, and Hunstein tried to do.
Moreover, it is the debtors who cite the importance of the private
attorney general role in enforcing the FDCPA in criticizing Spokeo
and its progeny. In any event the Plaintiff by her own Motion seeks
to avoid federal jurisdiction. By forgoing any claim for an injury
in fact, she has successfully done so in the case.
For these reasons, the Motion to Remand is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc88sst3 from Leagle.com.
THERMON GROUP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarter ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that in March 2021, it reached
an agreement in principle with the plaintiff and other defendants
in a class action application in the Superior Court of Quebec.
In January 2020, the company received service of process in a class
action application in the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal,
Canada related to certain heating elements previously manufactured
by its new business line, Thermon Heating Systems, which is engaged
in industrial process heating, focused on the development and
production of advanced heating and filtration solutions for
industrial and hazardous area applications. In March 2021, it
reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff and other
defendants to resolve this matter without admitting to any
liability; such agreement remains subject to the agreement of the
parties on the terms of a definitive settlement agreement. The
settlement is subject to, among other things, approval by the
Superior Court.
Thermon is one a provider of industrial process heating solutions
for process industries.
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Guardrail Class Action for $56-MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary King, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that a
class action settlement has been reached following the seven-year
debate about the guardrail end terminals on Missouri's roads.
Stueve Siegel Hanson announced on May 31 that an agreement in the
amount of $56 million with Fortune 1000 transportation giant
Trinity Industries, along with its manufacturing arm, Trinity
Highway Products, to remove and replace the four-inch ET Plus
guardrail end terminals from Missouri roads. The product is linked
to numerous catastrophic and fatal wrecks nationwide.
This settlement, according to the release, is believed to be the
first successful resolution of product liability claims against
Trinity. Stueve Siegel Hanson, representing Jackson County and a
certified class of Missouri counties, the City of St. Louis, and
the Missouri Department of Transportation, sought the cost of
removing and replacing the four-inch ET Plus devices.
A study partly funded by the Missouri Department of Transportation
raised questions about the safety of the ET-Plus guardrail system.
While the system is designed to absorb and dissipate energy from a
crash, the study and lawsuits filed by families of crash victims
say system failures can send metal through vehicle passenger
compartments.
The settlement will provide:
-- $3.5 million to reimburse class members that have removed and
replaced 4-inch ET Plus devices;
-- $2.5 million to reimburse class members for the cost of
locating 4-inch ET Plus devices on their roads; and
-- One MASH Type A Guardrail End Terminal ($2,000 value) plus a
flat payment of $1,700 for each of the estimated 10,000+ 4-inch ET
Plus devices currently on class members roads ($38 million value).
Representing the class action suit initiated in 2015 were attorneys
Patrick J. Stueve, Bradley T. Wilders and Alex T. Ricke.
"When Jackson County filed this lawsuit, the goal was to recover
the funds necessary to remove and replace these dangerous devices
from Missouri roads," said Stueve, lead counsel for the class.
"That's exactly what this settlement provides. This settlement
reflects the type of complete victory typically only won through a
jury trial."
After obtaining class certification, the firm successfully defeated
Trinity's motion for summary judgement, a motion to decertify the
class, a petition to appeal the denial of class decertification,
and several other interlocutory appeals. The parties reached a
settlement in February on the verge of a class action trial set for
April 2022. The settlement was preliminarily approved on May 30.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Murbach Files Suit for Workplace Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE MURBACH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. PAUL NAKASONE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES
ARMY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01308-AAQ (D. Md., May 31, 2022) seeks to address
Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's rights under Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
Plaintiff Murbach has bilateral and profound deafness, and he has
been deaf since birth. He depends on American Sign Language, facial
expressions, and physical cues to communicate with others, and
relies on regular vibrations or flashes of light because of his
deafness. Mr. Murbach began employment with the National Security
Agency in 2016 in Fort Meade, Maryland.
According to the complaint, during Mr. Murbach's first two years of
employment with the Agency, the Agency's Office of Reasonable
Accommodations and Accessibility (ORAA) failed to provide
reasonable accommodation in interpreting services, and he worked
with ORAA to mitigate the failure to provide needed interpreting
services for years.
In addition, the Agency utilized methods of communication that had
the effect of subjecting deaf and hard of hearing employees to
discrimination on the basis of handicap and that had the purpose or
effect of defeating or substantially impairing their ability to
complete work assignments or participate fully in work meetings and
conferences. The Agency further failed to make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where necessary
to afford conditions, privileges, and benefits of employment and
accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing employees, the suit
alleges.
Defendant Paul Nakasone, General, United States Army, Director,
National Security Agency, is a federal agency charged with
providing "guidance, products and services to protect classified
and unclassified national security systems against exploitation
from interception, unauthorized access, or related technical
intelligence threats."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Branch, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BRANCH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 820
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 785-2805
Facsimile: (202) 785-0289
E-mail: davidbranch@dbranchlaw.com
UPSTART INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Upstart, Inc.:
Shareholders who purchased shares of UPST during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27913&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: March 18, 2021 to May 9, 2022
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially 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 a 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.
DEADLINE: July 12, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=27913&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of UPST during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is July 12, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
VAXART INC: Court Dismisses Counts II-III in Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VAXART, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0767-PAF (Del. Ch.), the Court of
Chancery granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss Count II and
Count III in their entirety.
I. Introduction
In May 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic gripped the world, the
federal government formed Operation Warp Speed ("OWS") a national
program to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and
distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.
With nearly $10 billion in authorized funds, the objective was to
develop and deliver a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine by
January 2021. As of May 2020, OWS had selected 14 vaccine
candidates, which would then be narrowed to the seven or eight most
promising candidates. Those finalists would then go through further
testing and clinical trials, followed by large scale production and
distribution. Shortly after the OWS statement, news reports
revealed the names of some, but not all of the selected vaccine
candidates.
On June 26, 2020, Vaxart, a small biotechnology company working to
develop an oral COVID-19 vaccine, issued a press release headlined:
"Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine Selected for the U.S. Government's
Operation Warp Speed." This headline was just that—a headline. It
did not tell the whole story. The press release did not state that
Vaxart had been selected as one of the seven or eight final vaccine
candidates to receive federal funding to develop, manufacture, and
potentially distribute its COVID-19 vaccine. Instead, the body of
the press release stated that Vaxart had been invited to
participate in a non-human, primate, research study funded under
the umbrella of resources and initiatives encompassed by OWS.
The Plaintiffs are Vaxart stockholders who have alleged that the
Company's selection to participate in the non-human primate study
should have been disclosed to stockholders in advance of the June
8, 2020 annual meeting of Vaxart stockholders. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that Vaxart's selection to participate in the
research study was material information that stockholders should
have been told prior to their vote at the annual meeting on an
amendment to Vaxart's equity incentive plan. They also allege that
the Director Defendants were unjustly enriched by hiding this news
because the plan amendment, once approved, enabled the directors to
issue themselves "spring-loaded" stock options.
In an earlier opinion, the Court dismissed breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting claims concerning the board's amendment of
two warrant agreements with a hedge fund that enabled the fund to
dispose of its shares more quickly. In the present opinion, the
Court considers the remaining breach of fiduciary duty claim
concerning the amendment to the equity incentive plan and the
unjust enrichment claim concerning compensation decisions made
before and after stockholders approved the plan amendment.
II. Background
A. The Parties
Plaintiffs Cynthia Jaquith and Paul Bergeron have been Vaxart
stockholders since April 2020. Plaintiff Kenny Galjour alleges to
have been a Vaxart stockholder "at all relevant times." They are
collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs."
Nominal Defendant Vaxart is a Delaware corporation based in San
Francisco, California. The Company is a clinical stage
biotechnology company focused on developing oral vaccines. Vaxart
is the result of a 2018 reverse merger between Vaxart, Inc., then a
privately held company ("Private Vaxart"), and publicly traded
Aviragen Therapeutics, Inc. As a result of the Merger, Private
Vaxart became a subsidiary of Aviragen and Aviragen changed its
name to Vaxart. Certain Aviragen and Private Vaxart directors
continued on after the Merger as directors of the post-Merger
parent company ("Vaxart"), including three of the named defendants
in the case. Vaxart's common stock trades on the Nasdaq stock
market.
Defendants Steven Boyd and Keith Maher joined the Vaxart board of
directors in October 2019. Boyd is the Chief Investment Officer and
Maher is a Managing Director of defendant Armistice Capital LLC, a
hedge fund focused on the health and consumer sectors. Armistice
was a Vaxart stockholder from Sept. 26, 2019, until at least June
29, 2020, the date of its last publicly reported trade before the
filing of the Complaint. Boyd and Maher are together the "Armistice
Directors" and, together with Armistice, the "Armistice
Defendants."
Defendant Wouter Latour is the Chairman of the Vaxart Board. Latour
served as a director and CEO of Private Vaxart since October 2011
and September 2011, respectively, through the Merger, and he has
continued to serve as a director of Vaxart since then. He also
continued to serve as the CEO of Vaxart since the Merger until his
resignation on June 14, 2020.
Defendant Andrei Floroiu joined the Board on April 13, 2020. On
June 15, 2020, the Board appointed him to replace Latour as CEO.
Defendants Michael Finney, Robert Yedid, and Todd Davis are outside
directors of Vaxart. Finney joined the board of Private Vaxart in
2007 and stayed on after the Merger as a Vaxart director. He also
served as the CEO of Private Vaxart from 2009 until 2011. Yedid and
Davis were appointed to the Vaxart Board in October 2019. Davis
served on the Board's Compensation Committee "at all times relevant
thereto."
Anne M. VanLent was a director of Private Vaxart from 201324 until
the Merger and stayed on as a Vaxart director until June 8, 2020.25
VanLent was not nominated for reelection at the 2020 annual meeting
of Vaxart stockholders.
Latour, Boyd, Floroiu, Davis, Finney, Maher, Yedid, and VanLent are
together referred to in the Opinion as the "Director Defendants."
B. The Action
On Sept. 8, 2020, Plaintiff Kenny Galjour filed his complaint. On
October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs Cynthia Jaquith and Paul Bergeron
filed their complaint. The Court of Chancery consolidated the
actions on Nov. 12, 2020, and the Plaintiffs designated the
Jaquith-Bergeron complaint as Cthe operative complaint. The
Defendants moved to dismiss. On Nov. 30, 2021, it issued a
Memorandum Opinion, corrected on Dec. 1, 2021, dismissing Counts I,
IV and V. Thereafter, it requested supplemental briefing as to two
issues related to Counts II and III. The parties completed briefing
on Feb. 4, 2022.
C. The California Actions
1. The California State Court Action
On Aug. 4, 2020, other Vaxart stockholders initiated litigation
against Floroiu, Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, Boyd, and Maher (the
"California Defendants") in the California Superior Court in San
Mateo County (the "California Litigation"). On Nov. 25, 2020, the
plaintiffs in the California Litigation filed a Second Amended
Complaint asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, waste, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duties, relating to alleged "spring-loaded" stock option grants.
On March 15, 2021, the California Superior Court granted the
California Defendants' demurrer, without prejudice and with leave
to replead. On June 17, 2021, the plaintiffs in the California
action filed a Third Amended Complaint. On April 26, 2022, the
California Court sustained the California Defendants' demurrers
without leave to amend as to all claims asserted against Armistice
and the unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting claims against
the Armistice Directors relating to the Warrant Amendments. The
California Court has deferred ruling on the remaining claims
pending the Court of Chancery's decision.
2. The Federal Securities Actions
On Aug. 24, 2020, a securities fraud action was initiated by a
Vaxart stockholder in California federal court against the Company,
Floroiu, Latour, and the Armistice Defendants. The case was
consolidated with several other similar cases, and on Jan. 29,
2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint adding
Yedid, Davis, and Finney, and two Vaxart officers, Sean Tucker and
Margaret Echerd, as defendants. On Dec. 22, 2021, the Court of
Chancery dismissed the claims against Armistice but denied the
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint as to the
other defendants (the "Order").
On Oct. 23, 2020, another Vaxart stockholder commenced a securities
class action against Armistice, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd.,
Boyd, and Vaxart (as nominal defendant) in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff sought the
disgorgement of all profits realized by the Defendants, in
violation of Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
through the Warrant Amendments.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
Warrant Amendments were not so substantial and material as to
constitute a purchases of securities within the meaning of the
statute. On March 29, 2022, the court denied the motion, finding
that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the Warrant
Amendments were "tantamount to the purchase of new securities" as
they enabled the defendants to more expeditiously exercise the
warrants and to hold significantly more stock while executing
them.
III. Analysis
Count II is a direct claim alleging the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose Vaxart's
selection to participate in the Research Study prior to the
stockholder vote on the Plan Amendment. Count III asserts that
Floroiu, Latour, Davis, Finney, Yedid, and VanLent were unjustly
enriched through their receipt of "stock options whose value they
knew would be inflated by the OWS announcement."
A. Count II
The Court of Chancery opines that the Complaint contains nothing
beyond conclusory allegations that Vaxart's OWS selection to
participate in a preliminary non-human primate study, for which the
Company is not alleged to have received any funds, would have been
material to a stockholder voting on the Plan Amendment.
The allegations in the Complaint contrast sharply with the
allegations of a federal securities suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. In that case, the
plaintiffs allege that Vaxart and its officers "deliberately
crafted a press release designed to make it seem as if the company
had achieved something significant—a trough of federal funding
through Warp Speed—when in fact it had accomplished nothing of
the sort." The claims in that case allege not that the Company's
selection to participate in the Research Study was material, but
rather that the Company's press release announcing this fairly
pedestrian event "created the materially misleading impression that
Vaxart stood at the precipice of pioneering a successful
coronavirus vaccine."
By contrast, the Court of Chancery finds that the Plaintiffs in the
present case have taken the opposite approach, alleging that
Vaxart's invitation to participate in the Research Study was, in
fact, material information. The Complaint lacks non-conclusory
allegations that the invitation to participate in the Research
Study, which was subject to further negotiation, was information
that was material to a stockholder voting to increase the number of
awards available under the Plan. There are no facts alleged to
support the conclusory allegation that on or before June 8, 2020,
the Director Defendants had "full knowledge of the inflationary
effect the OWS selection would have on the value of the Board's
option grants." Nor are there facts to support the conclusion that
on June 8, 2020 the Board "knew that public disclosure" of the
Company's selection to participate in the non-human primate study
"would lead to Vaxart's stock price skyrocketing."
The Complaint acknowledges that stockholders were aware of Vaxart's
publicly disclosed efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, weeks,
even months before the Annual Meeting. This included the April 2020
announcement that Vaxart's "COVID-19 vaccine candidates had
produced promising results in preclinical, nonhuman trials." In
light of these disclosures, the Complaint fails to allege facts to
support a reasonable inference that an invitation to participate in
a non-human primate study would have significantly altered the
total mix of information available to Vaxart stockholders when
deciding how to vote on the Plan Amendment. Accordingly, Count II
is dismissed.
B. Count III (The Unjust Enrichment Claims)
Count III is a derivative claim against Floroiu, Latour, Davis,
Finney, Yedid, and VanLent for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs
maintain that the "Board members were unjustly enriched when they
granted themselves 'spring-loaded' options after deceiving
stockholders into approving the 2020 Plan at a time when they knew
that those options were worth far more than could be reasonably
justified.
The Court of Chancery opines that the challenge to the compensation
decisions made in connection with the CEO transition also fails to
state a claim. Those decisions are reflected in the June 13, 2020
unanimous written consent of the directors. As to Latour, the
Plaintiffs do not articulate how the decision to permit his options
to continue to vest involved spring-loading, at least not in the
classic sense of the term. Latour's most recent option award
occurred in March 2020.
The June 2020 decision did not involve a grant of new options or
change in the exercise price. Instead, the Board allowed his
existing options to continue vesting as long as he remained on the
Board as part of the termination agreement between Latour and the
Company, which was permitted under the terms of the Plan. The
second decision awarded time-based and performance-based options to
Floriou as part of his compensation package as the new CEO.
As with the June 8, 2020 compensation decisions, there are no
well-pleaded allegations that the Board knowingly spring-loaded
Floriou's options based on the invitation to participate in the
Research Study. Nor does the Complaint allege that the Board
amended Latour's options knowing that the invitation to participate
in the Research Study was material information.
Although materiality is generally considered an issue of fact,
dismissal is appropriate because it is "so obvious that reasonable
minds cannot differ on the question" of whether the invitation to
participate in the Research Study was material at the time of the
June 2020 compensation decisions. It was not. The terms were still
being negotiated. There are no well-pleaded allegations that
selection for participation in the Research Study was a watershed
moment as Plaintiffs assert. Plaintiffs must accept the "crucial
reality that Vaxart had been chosen only to participate in a
primate study and not to receive a vast influx of federal funds."
Count III is dismissed for failure to state a claim as to all of
the challenged compensation decisions and for failure to plead
demand futility as to the March Awards and the April Awards.
IV. Conclusion
The motions to dismiss Count II and Count III are granted in their
entirety. This conclusion by the Court of Chancery is based on the
allegations of the Complaint and how the Plaintiffs have framed
their claims. The Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or were unjustly
enriched based on a plan to exaggerate the significance of the
Company's selection to participate in the Research Study and then
to capitalize on the selling or vesting of options at inflated
market prices. That is not the Plaintiffs' theory.
The Plaintiffs chose to ride with the claims asserted in the
operative complaint instead of filing a consolidated complaint. The
claims, as pleaded in the Complaint, do not state a claim that the
stockholder vote on the Plan Amendment was uninformed or the
product of a breach of the duty of disclosure or that Latour,
Floroiu, Davis, Finney, Yedid, or VanLent was unjustly enriched.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/57kh5pwc from Leagle.com.
Stephen E. Jenkins, F. Troupe Mickler, IV, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen,
Daniel E. Meyer, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J.
Adams, Daryoush Behbood, POMERANTZ LLP, in New York City; Sascha
N.
Rand, Rollo C. Baker, IV, Silpa Maruri, Jesse Bernstein, Charles
H.
Sangree, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York City;
Stanley D. Bernstein, Matthew Guarnero, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP, in
New York City; William J. Fields, Christopher J. Kupka, Samir
Shukurov, FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP, in New York City, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Brock E. Czeschin, Andrew L. Milam, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A.,
in Wilmington, Delaware; Riccardo DeBari, Renee Zaytsev, Mendy
Piekarski, THOMPSON HINE, in New York City, Attorneys for Andrei,
Wouter W. Latour, Todd Davis, Michael J. Finney, Robert A. Yedid,
Anne M. VanLent, and Nominal Defendant Vaxart, Inc.
Matthew F. Davis, Abraham C. Schneider, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Douglas A. Rappaport, Kaitlin D.
Shapiro, Elizabeth C. Rosen, Madeleine R. Freeman, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendants Steven Boyd, Keith Maher, Armistice Capital, LLC.
VENTURE TRANSPORT: Harris Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHNELL HARRIS JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VENTURE TRANSPORT, LLC, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 56-2022-00564747-CU-OE-VTA, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03809 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay all wages to piece-rate workers for
rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
all wages due upon termination, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment, and unfair business practices.
Venture Transport, LLC is a provider of trucking, warehousing, and
logistics services, doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
- and –
Eric Suits, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
E-mail: esuits@seyfarth.com
VIVID SEATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Hidden Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Clark, writing for TicketNews, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit filed in California alleges Vivid Seats uses
"bait-and-switch" tactics, deceiving consumers by showing
artificially low prices and then adding fees at the last step of
the transaction. Such practices, commonly referred to as "drip
pricing" have come increasingly under fire by consumers and
regulators alike, and have been subject to lawsuits in the past,
including one that closed with Ticketmaster settling with Canada's
Competition Bureau for $4.5 million in 2019.
The lawsuit was initially filed in Orange County's Superior Court
in late April by Brent Dennard, whose complaint centers around an
incident he had while shopping for tickets in March. It was
transferred to California's Central District Court in late May. In
the complaint, Dennard alleges finding a pair of tickets marketed
as costing $21 each while browsing the Vivid Seats website.
However, the price went from the initially advertised $41 to $59.80
after he had selected the tickets, created an account on the
website, entered his billing information, and then proceeded to the
final confirmation page.
In the complaint, Dennard alleges that Vivid Seats "lures"
consumers into purchasing tickets by making them believe they can
be purchased for far less than their actual cost. While the
complaint does spell out that Dennard realized the fees had been
added before clicking through the final purchase agreement, it
argues that many consumers would likely miss such added fees when
they are added late.
"Because Vivid intentionally hides additional fees in a separate
link that is not automatically presented to customers as part of
the transaction, reasonable consumers are drawn in by deceptively
low ticket prices advertised in an initial search, and then proceed
through check out without ever becoming aware of the amount of the
so-called 'service' and 'electronic transfer' or 'mobile delivery'
or 'Flash Seats' fees that have automatically been included in the
total price."
Others, like Dennard, purchase despite the added fees due to having
spent the time and effort adding contact and payment details,
allowing the company to "[rake] in millions of dollars" from
consumers who are roped in by the "deceptively low ticket prices"
shown at first glance, which make true comparison shopping much
harder.
Vivid Seats is one of the few ticketing companies that continues to
only show the full cost of tickets listed on its marketplace at the
end of a transaction. While some ticket marketplaces, such as
TickPick, MEGASeats and Ticket Club, offer an "all-in" pricing
model that shows the full price a consumer will pay up front by
default, the majority of other marketplaces have adopted an option
where consumers can choose to display prices including estimated
fees as their default. TicketNews surveyed the industry and found
that almost all allowed for consumers to choose to view all-in
prices by the summer of 2021, in the wake of harsh criticism of
"drip pricing" from the Federal Trade Commission during the 2019
"That's The Ticket" workshop on the industry.
Only AXS and Vivid Seats did not allow for the default view to show
fees.
More recently, NYU academics petitioned the FTC to ban drip pricing
altogether, publishing an essay asking for regulatory action in the
New York Times last August, which was followed by a period of
public comment where consumers were able to submit their thoughts
as the regulator considers next steps.
This lawsuit seeks to form a class action comprised of all
consumers in California who have purchased tickets from Vivid Seats
in the last four years. [GN]
W.B. MASON: Fails to Pay Earned Commissions, Jablonski Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE JABLONSKI and GISELLE VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. W.B. MASON CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03297-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York
Labor Law, breach of contract, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment by failing to properly pay earned commissions.
Ms. Jablonski and Ms. Vargas were employed by the Defendant as
account executives from mid-2012 through in or about September of
2020 and from mid-2013 through in or about February of 2022.
W.B. Mason Co., Inc. is an American business products company
headquartered in Brockton, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam C. Lease, Esq.
KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.
3331 Street Road
Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 639-0801
WAAWAATESI LLC: Johnson Small Loans Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WAAWAATESI LLC, d/b/a GREENLINE LOAN;
JESSI LORENZO, and JOSEPH WILDCAT, Case No. 57-CV-2022-900051.00,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on June
3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Alabama assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-00336-RAH-JTA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Alabama
Small Loans Act.
Waawaatesi LLC, doing business as Greenline Loan, is a tribal
corporation, with its place of business located in Lac du Flambeau,
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John N. Bolus, Esq.
Maynard Cooper Gale
1901 Sixth Ave. N, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1025
Facsimile: (205) 714-6325
E-mail: JBolus@maynardcooper.com
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hostetler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennesse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel D. Hostetler,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00199-CEA-JEM (E.D.
Tenn., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has
established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable
management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare
arena.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart
Inc. asked a federal judge to dismiss a data breach suit again,
arguing the retailer can't be liable for the breach that
compromised the personal information of 25,000 Walmart pharmacy
patients because the information was on CaptureRx servers, and not
Walmart's.
Willard Bays filed a would-be class action against Walmart and the
CaptureRx pharmacy company, alleging they didn't reasonably protect
and monitor customer data, which led to the exposure of their
contact information, Social Security numbers, account numbers,
insurance information, and medical data.
CaptureRx has since been dismissed from the suit. [GN]
WARDEN CARVER: Workman Class Certification Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WORKMAN v. WARDEN
CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00535 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying the Plaintiff's "motion
requesting class certification Pursuant to section 23," filed on
September 22, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mtyKKQ at no extra charge.[CC]
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Warner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY WARNER v. WARTBURG
COLLEGE, Case No. 21-cv-2029-CJW (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark
A. Roberts entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unresisted
motion for modification of the Court's scheduling order and request
for settlement conference as follows:
-- Plaintiff's Expert: May 31, 2022
-- Defendant's Expert: July 15, 2022
-- Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert: August 15, 2022
-- Plaintiff shall file class July 15, 2022
certification motion and
expert reports:
-- The Defendant shall respond August 15, 2022
to class certification and
expert reports:
-- The Plaintiff shall file September 12, 2022
reply brief and rebuttal
expert reports:
-- Completion of Discovery: July 19, 2022
-- Dispositive motions: August 12, 2022
Wartburg College is a four-year private liberal arts college in
Waverly, Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xy62yZ at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON DC: Jefferson Files Suit in D. Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government of the
District of Columbia, et al. The case is styled as Dominique
Jefferson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Government of the District of Columbia, Jeanette Myrick, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01436-RC (D.D.C., May 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
The Government of the District of Columbia -- https://dc.gov/ --
operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which devolves certain
powers of the United States Congress to the Mayor and
thirteen-member Council.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, Esq.
CLAIBORNELAW
717 D. Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 824-0700
Email: claibornelaw@gmail.com
WASHINGTON: Wise Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Vaccination Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Travis Wise, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TRAVIS JAY WISE, CHELSIE BYROADS,
ANDILEE JORDAN, DANIEL BETZ, DAVID CHARBONNEAU, CHERYL BERNARD,
DESIRAE KING, JERRY LEASE, JORDAN LOZARO, LAURECE RUST, MARY DRASS,
NADIA FEDOROVA, TERRY DUNN, RITA WALDO, LEVI HINES, CHRISTOPHER
MOORE, SHELLEY ENGLE, THOMAS FORSYTH, and TRAVIS YEAGER, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR
JAY INSLEE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DONALD CLINTSMAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES; CHIEF BRIAN SCHAEFFER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
THE CHIEF OF THE SPOKANE FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF JOHN BATISTE, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL;
AND ROGER MILLAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00288-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, Spokane.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 22, 2021 the
lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful COVID-19
vaccination mandate in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal
Protection Clause, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Washington Law Against Discrimination.
Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 21-41.2 on September 27, 2021
wherein he prohibited any person from working in the fields of
healthcare, education, and state employment if that person has not
been fully vaccinated by October 18th.
The complaint alleges that Governor Inslee is acting beyond his
power and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause that reads, "no State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States."
On April 27, 2022, Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an Order granting
Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denying
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The
claims asserted against State Defendants Inslee, Clintsman,
Batiste, and Millar, as well as the claims asserted against
Defendant Schaeffer, were DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order.
The appellate case is captioned as Travis Wise, et al. v. Jay
Inslee, et al., Case No. 22-35426, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 1, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Cheryl Bernard, Daniel Betz, Chelsea Byroads,
David Charbonneau, Mary Drass, Terry Dunn, Shelley Engle, Nadia
Fedorova, Thomas Forsyth, Levi Hines, Andilee Jordan, Desirae King,
Jerry Lease, Jordan Lozaro, Christopher Moore, Grant Rodkey,
Laurece Rust, Rita Waldo, Travis Jay Wise, Jacob Wolfe and Travis
Yeager Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 8, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by June 27, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on July 26, 2022;
-- Appellants Cheryl Bernard, Daniel Betz, Chelsea Byroads,
David Charbonneau, Mary Drass, Terry Dunn, Shelley Engle, Nadia
Fedorova, Thomas Forsyth, Levi Hines, Andilee Jordan, Desirae King,
Jerry Lease, Jordan Lozaro, Christopher Moore, Grant Rodkey,
Laurece Rust, Rita Waldo, Travis Jay Wise, Jacob Wolfe and Travis
Yeager opening brief is due on September 6, 2022;
-- Appellees John Batiste, Donald Clintsman, Jay R. Inslee,
Roger Millar and Brian Schaeffer answering brief is due on October
4, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TRAVIS JAY WISE, CHELSEA BYROADS, ANDILEE
JORDAN, DANIEL BETZ, DAVID CHARBONNEAU, CHERYL BERNARD, DESIRAE
KING, JERRY LEASE, JORDAN LOZARO, LAURECE RUST, MARY DRASS, NADIA
FEDOROVA, TERRY DUNN, RITA WALDO, LEVI HINES, CHRISTOPHER MOORE,
SHELLEY ENGLE, JACOB WOLFE, GRANT RODKEY, THOMAS FORSYTH, and
TRAVIS YEAGER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, are represented by:
Grant Wolf, Esq.
WOLF LEGAL GROUP
400 S Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99204
Telephone: (502) 681-8655
Defendants-Appellees GOVERNOR JAY R. INSLEE, in his official
capacity; DONALD CLINTSMAN, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of Department of Social and Health Services; CHIEF BRIAN
SCHAEFFER, in his official capacity as the Chief of the Spokane
Fire Department; CHIEF JOHN BATISTE, in his offical capacity as the
Chief of the Washington State Patrol; and ROGER MILLAR, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of
Transportation, are represented by:
Zachary J. Pekelis, Esq.
Kai Smith, Esq.
PACIFICA LAW GROUP, LLP
1191 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 602-1229
- and -
Cristina Sepe, Esq.
AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY
GENERAL (SEATTLE)
800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
Telephone: (206) 342-6409
- and -
J. Chad Mitchell, Esq.
SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
1030 N Center Parkway, Suite 308
Kennewick, WA 99336
Telephone: (509) 735-5053
WELCH FOODS: Seeks to Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Clevenger
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendants move ex parte
for leave to file a short Sur-Reply in response to Plaintiffs'
Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification.
The purpose of the Sur-Reply is to respond to two new arguments
presented by Plaintiffs for the first time on Reply, specifically:
(1) Plaintiffs' counsel, Anthony Lanza's, claim that the
reason Costco produced no records of consumer complaints
for Costco Fruit Snacks was due to a purported oral
conversation he had with Costco's counsel claiming Costco
does not track such records; and
(2) Plaintiffs' new argument about the potential use of a
"table test" to demonstrate the presence of non-
functional slack fill in Costco Fruit Snacks to support
their purported damages model, based on the amount of
alleged non-functional slack fill, and their improper and
misleading reliance on the deposition testimony of
Christina Dickerson to purportedly support that position.
Welch Foods is an American company, headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3toTJ5D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-9900
Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
E-mail: DSSilverman@venable.com
BJWeintrop@venable.com
WELLS FARGO: District of New Jersey Dismisses Hart Federal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
titled JANE ANN HART, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-14644 (RBK) (D.N.J.).
I. Background
Plaintiff Hart took out a mortgage loan from World Savings Bank,
FSB, in February 2004. Hart also executed a home equity line of
credit with World Savings Bank in March 2004. World Savings Bank,
then operating as Wachovia Mortgage FSB, was acquired by and merged
into Defendant Wells Fargo in November 2009. Wells Fargo serviced
Hart's loans until April 2021.
In November 2012, Wells Fargo instituted foreclosure proceedings
against Hart in the Superior Court of New Jersey after Hart missed
payments on her mortgage loan. The parties vigorously litigated
this matter in state court for years (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
Jane Hart, No. ATL-F-25759-12 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.)).
In 2018, Hart filed a motion for leave to amend her Answer and
counterclaims to add class action claims pertaining to Wells
Fargo's fee collection system. Specifically, Hart asserted claims
for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act; (4) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); and (5) conspiracy to violate
RICO.
On Aug. 24, 2018, after oral argument and briefing, New Jersey
Superior Court Judge Michael J. Blee denied Hart's motion to amend
her answer and counterclaims, finding that Hart's proposed claims
were meritless and futile. The Superior Court granted a final
judgment of foreclosure to Wells Fargo in January 2019.
Shortly thereafter, Wells Fargo requested that the Superior Court
vacate the 2019 judgment so that Wells Fargo could add an
additional lien holder as a defendant. The court did so, and Wells
Fargo filed an amended complaint in July 2019. In response, Hart
filed counterclaims and an answer asserting the same class action
counterclaims that were the subject of Judge Blee's 2018 decision.
Wells Fargo cross-moved to dismiss these claims.
On Oct. 8, 2019, Judge Blee granted Wells Fargo's cross motion to
dismiss Hart's counterclaims, answer, and affirmative defenses with
prejudice, and granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. On
Feb. 13, 2020, Wells Fargo again applied for entry of final
judgment. It withdrew this application on March 31, 2020, however,
allegedly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Clerk of the
Superior Court subsequently issued multiple orders instructing the
parties to provide updates of the status of the foreclosure action.
Eventually, the Clerk issued a notice of dismissal for lack of
prosecution.
On May 19, 2021, Wells Fargo moved to stay the dismissal for lack
of prosecution. That motion was denied. On June 4, 2021, the Clerk
of the Superior Court dismissed the action without prejudice for
lack of prosecution.
On Aug. 5, 2021, Hart filed the instant complaint in federal court,
asserting claims against Wells Fargo for: (1) breach of contract;
(2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (4) violations
of RICO; and (5) conspiracy to violate RICO.
On Sept. 30, 2021, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Hart's federal
complaint. In support of this motion, Wells Fargo filed a
memorandum of law. Hart filed a brief opposing Wells Fargo's motion
to dismiss on Nov. 1, 2021, to which Wells Fargo replied on Nov.
15, 2021.
II. Legal Standard
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts accept all factual allegations as true,
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of
the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief."
When deciding a motion to dismiss, courts may take judicial notice
of matters of public record, citing Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d
241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014).
III. Discussion
Wells Fargo argues that Hart should be collaterally estopped from
bringing these claims because the New Jersey Superior Court ruled
on the exact issues Hart raises here in the prior foreclosure
action brought by Wells Fargo against Hart in state court,
ultimately dismissing them with prejudice. The Plaintiff responds
that because the foreclosure action was dismissed without entry of
judgment, collateral estoppel does not apply.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents
a party from relitigating issues that were adjudicated in a prior
lawsuit.
Under New Jersey law, a party seeking to invoke the doctrine of
collateral estoppel must demonstrate that: (1) the issue to be
precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior
proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the proceeding;
(3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on
the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the
prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is
asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier
proceeding. Here, the parties dispute only whether the Superior
Court issued a final judgment on the merits in the New Jersey
foreclosure action.
The Court finds that Judge Blee's orders in the New Jersey
foreclosure action are sufficiently firm as to warrant conclusive
effect. The parties were fully heard on these issues; in fact,
Judge Blee considered the precise issues raised in Hart's federal
complaint on two occasions. In the first instance, Judge Blee
entered a reasoned opinion addressing the legal and factual issues
raised by Hart's proposed counterclaims and disposing of the
proposed these claims on the merits. This decision followed oral
argument and full briefing by the parties.
In the second instance, Judge Blee dismissed Hart's class action
counterclaims with prejudice, stressing that these claims have
already been considered and rejected. Again, this dismissal came
after full briefing and oral argument.
These decisions--particularly the second dismissal with
prejudice--were clearly intended to be the final adjudication of
the precise issues that Hart is now attempting to relitigate in the
instant action, Judge Kugler opines. Indeed, the foreclosure action
was poised for an entry of judgment when the COVID-19 pandemic took
hold and the matter was put on hold, before eventually being
dismissed without prejudice.
While Hart was not able to appeal Judge Blee's orders as of right,
see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Garner, 416 N.J.Super. 520, 523 (App.
Div. 2010), this is not dispositive, Judge Kugler says. Again,
Judge Blee considered these issues not once, but twice. Moreover,
as Wells Fargo stresses, Hart had the ability to seek
reconsideration or leave for interlocutory review of Judge Blee's
order dismissing her claims with prejudice. Thus, it cannot be said
that Hart had no opportunity for meaningful review. In any event,
the other relevant factors support a finding that the state court
orders are final for preclusion purposes.
Nor is the Court persuaded by Hart's argument that application of
collateral estoppel here would be unfair. Judge Kugler explains
that Hart is correct that courts in New Jersey also consider
general principles of fairness when determining whether collateral
estoppel precludes the relitigation of certain issues.
Considering these principles of fairness, the Court finds that it
would not be inequitable to preclude Hart from relitigating the
issues presented in her federal complaint; indeed, Hart fails to
make any real argument to the contrary. The only factor that weighs
against preclusion in this case is the lack of appellate review
available to Hart as of right. However, for substantially the same
reasons as discussed, the Court finds that this alone does not
outweigh the substantial considerations of efficiency and
consistency that support the application of collateral estoppel.
The issues at stake here have been vigorously litigated, twice.
Accordingly, Judge Kugler points out, application of the collateral
estoppel doctrine is fair in this instance.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons contained here, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
is granted. An accompanying Order will issue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49x242cr from Leagle.com.
WEXFORD HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Response to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES BRYANT, BRIAN D
CURTIS and ALFRED JOHNSON, v. JOHN R. BALDWIN, STEVE MEEKS and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02192-SLD (C.D.
Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for leave to file supplemental response to Motion for
Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification has been pending
since mid-2020. The Plaintiffs allege the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) and Wexford, in an effort to decrease costs and
increase profits, have a policy of denying necessary surgery for
painful hernias except in emergencies.
The Plaintiffs allege this policy prohibits medical staff from
exercising medical judgment and resulted in the denial of needed
surgery, leaving them in pain, unable to attend to daily
activities, and at risk of serious complications.
The Plaintiffs claim Wexford uses a "collegial review" process in
which unlicensed physicians have final decisional authority over
the provision of medical care, to implement the unconstitutional
policy and practice at the heart of the Motion.
Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xu7i61 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph N. Rupcich, Esq.
CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP
3100 Montvale Drive
Springfield, IL 62704
Telephone: (217) 572-1714
Facsimile: (217) 572-1613
E-mail: jrupcich@cassiday.com
WILD WEST: Filing of Jeter Class Status Bid Extended to July 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeter, et al., v. Wild
West Gas, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00411-TCK-CDL (N.D. Okla.),
the Hon. Judge Terence C. Kern entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file class
certification motion as follows:
Event Schedule
-- Class Certification Motion July 11, 2022
filed with supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures
-- Class Certification Response August 15, 2022
filed with supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures:
-- Class Certification Discovery September 19, 2022
Cutoff:
-- Class Certification Reply September 19, 2022
filed with any rebuttal evidence,
including rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any:
-- Class Certification Hearing TBD
(specific date to be set by
Court at a later date)
The Plaintiffs include KEVIN L. JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS,
JAMES H. MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, and
JANICE SUE PARKER, individually and as Class Representatives on
Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons, and JAMES D. ENLOE,
CAROLYN R. ENLOE, and SCOTT BAILY, individually and as Class
Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons.
The Defendants include BULLSEYE ENERGY, INC., CEP MID-CONTINENT,
L.L.C., KRS&K, an Oklahoma partnership, GASHOMA, INC., PURGATORY
CREEK GAS, INC., REDBIRD OIL, an Oklahoma partnership, WILD WEST
GAS, LLC, WHITE HAWK GAS, INC., FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE,
LOUISE KANE ROARK, ANN KANE SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA
BROWN, and GARY BROWN.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x9xu4C at no extra charge.[CC]
WILLIAM OSLER: Cert. Ruling in Breach of Privacy Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L. Hunter and Jacqueline M. Palef, Esq., of Lerners, in an
article for Mondaq, report that in the recent decision in Stewart v
Demme,1 the Divisional Court granted the defendant's appeal setting
aside the order of the certification judge2 and ultimately
dismissing the plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed class
action for intrusion upon seclusion. The case is yet another
example of a claim for breach of privacy being rejected by the
court because the claimants could not show that the breach was
significant enough to warrant a remedy.
CERTIFICATION DECISION OF MORGAN J.
In the underlying certification motion before Justice Morgan, the
plaintiff sought to certify a class action against a nurse and the
hospital which employed her. The defendant nurse had engaged in a
series of thefts of opioids, ultimately obtaining 23,932 pills. She
acquired the drugs by misusing her position at the hospital to gain
unauthorized access to patients' medical files, and used patient
information to dispense the pills. In total, the nurse had
improperly accessed the individual health records of 11,358
patients. Patients whose files were improperly accessed could be
divided into two categories: those who were actually patients of
the nurse or were on the unit in which the nurse worked, and those
who were hospital patients but not her patients, and for whom she
had access to their digital records. The plaintiffs sought damages
for intrusion upon seclusion and negligence.
Justice Morgan noted the central question before him was "whether a
privacy violation can be "highly offensive" and actionable even if
it is fleeting and causes no harm."3
While Justice Morgan was satisfied the certification criteria were
met, and that the claim for intrusion upon seclusion claim was a
viable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the certification test,
he found there was insufficient evidence of a viable cause of
action in negligence on a class-wide basis, as causation and
damages questions were elusive.
APPEAL TO THE DIVISIONAL COURT
On appeal, the court considered the motion judge's comments that
"this was not a case that cries out for a remedy." In light of his
findings regarding the nature and seriousness of the intrusion, the
Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in concluding
that the claim met the threshold necessary to disclose a tenable
cause of action in intrusion upon seclusion and re-affirmed that
this tort is a limited and specific tort developed for cases where
there was a "deliberate and significant invasion of highly personal
information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person."4 In this case, "while the information accessed was health
information, the information accessed was limited, and the access
was fleeting and incidental to the medication theft. Ms. Demme [the
nurse defendant] was not "after" the information, nor did she
retain it or share it with anyone else." The court concluded, "the
medication theft cried out for a remedy, which was forthcoming; the
privacy intrusion did not."5
The Divisional Court confirmed the proper interpretation of the
leading Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Tsige,6 noting that
"Not every intrusion into private health information amounts to a
basis to sue for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The
particular intrusion must be "highly offensive" when viewed
objectively having regard to all the relevant circumstances. If the
case does not "cry out for a remedy," it is a signal that the high
standard for certification of this limited tort may not be met."7
The tort of inclusion upon seclusion was not designed to offer a
remedy for every situation where there is a privacy intrusion.
Instead, the court reiterated, it is "designed to offer a remedy in
situations where the privacy intrusion is very serious, not any
privacy intrusion."8 The court also emphasized that the
significance of the intrusion is to be assessed individually and
not collectively; the fact that there were 11,000+ intrusions did
not mean that intrusion was significant and highly offensive.9
In considering the proper interpretation of Jones, the Divisional
Court confirmed that for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, "the
intrusion must still be deliberate and significant to be considered
"highly offensive." To find otherwise would be to "open the
floodgates" to claims such as the one at issue in this proceeding,
where the intrusions were fleeting, the information accessed was
not particularly sensitive within the realm of health information,
the intruder was not "after" the information itself, which was
otherwise available to her and/or a number of other hospital staff,
and there was no discernible effect on the patients."10
CONCLUSION
The Divisional Court has reaffirmed the high threshold to satisfy a
cause of action under the tort of inclusion upon seclusion. It
remains clear that evidence, or even admission, of a privacy breach
will not necessarily lead to a viable privacy class action. This is
particularly so where the more significant wrongful conduct, in
this case, the medication theft, is being addressed by other means.
This case is consistent with other decisions that have held that
the nature of the information at issue in a privacy class action
continues to be an important factor in assessing whether a class
action is an appropriate vehicle to support this type of claim.
Privacy class actions are increasing in number but have yet to see
much success in Canadian courts. As we have noted previously,11 the
courts have been reluctant to find that such a claim is viable
absent evidence of actual harm resulting from a breach and
amounting to more than ordinary inconvenience. As demonstrated by
the decision in Stewart v Demme, a claim that does not involve a
breach that is serious and significant in and of itself is also
unlikely to overcome the initial hurdle of certification. Indeed,
given the court's comments in this and other cases, the tort of
intrusion upon seclusion does not seem well-suited to a privacy
class action. It remains to be seen whether class actions premised
on other privacy torts will have greater success or if plaintiffs
who suffer privacy breaches will have to rely primarily on more
traditional causes of action such as negligence and breach of
contract.
Footnotes
1 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790.
2 Steward v Demme, 2020 ONSC 83.
3 Steward v Demme, 2020 ONSC 83 at para 1.
4 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 3.
5 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 3.
6 Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32.
7 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 16.
8 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 22.
9 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 24.
10 Steward v Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790 at para 27.
11 See our earlier blog posts part 1, part 2 and part 3.[GN]
WORKFORCE 7 INC: Discovery Plan, Sched Order Modified in Ballast
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE and MARQUIS RICHARDSON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order that the terms of the
January 10, 2022 Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling
Order shall continue in full force and effect except for the
following modifications:
a. Non-expert depositions shall be completed by September
2, 2022;
b. Plaintiffs shall take the first step in class
certification motion practice by October 3, 2022;
c. Any further interrogatories, including expert
interrogatories, shall be served no later than September
14, 2022;
d. Requests to Admit, if any, shall be served no later than
September 14, 2022;
e. Expert reports shall be served no later than October 14,
2022;
f. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than
November 14, 2022;
g. Expert depositions shall be completed by February 13,
2023;
h. All discovery shall be completed by: such date that is
90 days from the date of a decision on Plaintiffs' class
certification motion.
Workforce7 provides professional flagging services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZtRCO at no extra
charge.[CC]https://bit.ly/3GZtRCO
YMI JEANSWEAR: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YMI Jeanswear, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. YMI Jeanswear, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04582 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
YMI Jeans -- https://www.ymijeans.com/ -- offers denim fashion
jeans for women, plus size & kids.[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
ZEETO LLC: Williams Granted Extension to File Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ZEETO, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01646-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order granting the plaintiff's
second unopposed motion for extension of time to move for class
certification.
On December 21, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling Order
Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. In the order,
the Court required Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification by May 6, 2022.
On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Move for Class Certification. That same day,
the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion and
ordered Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by
June 6, 2022.
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Move for Class Certification. The Plaintiff
seeks to continue his deadline for filing a motion for class
certification to July 6, 2022.
The Plaintiff states that the parties (1) initially proposed
November 11, 2022 for a class certification filing deadline, (2)
have unresolved discovery disputes, and (3) are engaged in
settlement discussions which they have prioritized over other
issues.
The Plaintiff notes that the discovery he is awaiting addresses the
Rule 23 factors and that defense counsel does not oppose this
motion. 3 Good cause appearing, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification on or before
July 6, 2022. All other deadlines and requirements remain as
previously set. The Court warns the parties that no further
extensions of the class certification motion filing deadline will
be granted.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QaXJk0 at no extra charge.[CC]
ZEETO LLC: Williams Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ZEETO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:21-cv-01646-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time to move for class
certification, up to and including July 6, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 20, 2021. 2.
On December 10, 2021, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Plan,
setting forth November 11, 2022, as the proposed deadline to move
for class certification.
On December 20, 2021, the Parties attended an Early Neutral
Evaluation (ENE) conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn
Major. Following the ENE conference, Magistrate Judge Major entered
a scheduling order, setting May 6, 2022, as the deadline for
Plaintiff to move for class certification.
The Plaintiff previously sought an extension of the deadline to
move for class certification to account for outstanding discovery
disputes. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion and extended the
deadline to move for class certification to June 6, 2022.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6M8jN
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rory Pendergast, Esq.
THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC
3019 Polk Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Telephone: (619) 344-8699
Facsimile: 619-344-8701
E-mail: Rory@rorylaw.com
- and -
Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1939 Harrison Srtreet
Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510-836-4200
E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
- and -
Rory Pendergast, Esq.
THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC
3019 Polk Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Telephone: (619) 344-8699
Facsimile: (619) 344-8701
E-mail: Rory@rorylaw.com
- and -
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 907-4654
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***