/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220707.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 129
Headlines
4FRNT SKIS: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AETNA LIFE: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal in Kazda Suit
ASCENA RETAIL: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice
BANK OF AMERICA: Spraggins Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cullors Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.
BELLZI INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLEND LABS: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOARDRIDERS IP: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman Suit Granted
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Dawkins Suit
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Judd v. Sheriff Miller Dismissed W/o Prejudice
CAT-MAN-DOO INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CEC EMPLOYEE GROUP: Pahl Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Files Writ of Certiorari in McGraw Suit
COAST DENTAL SERVICES: Awad Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
COLLEGIATE MERCHANDISE: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COOKUNITY INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Notes of Class Action Over Ties to Russia
DANDELION CHOCOLATE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Antitrust Class Action
DIGITAL TURBINE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of Ruling in Carmona
DONNELLEY FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Seal Exhibit in Toretto
EARTH BREEZE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline
EVENING GLASS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EYE CARE LEADERS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Farley Says
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
FIRST HIGH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
FLAGSTAR BANK: Wiedder Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
FLYKITE MEDIA GROUP: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GASKETS ACQUISITION: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GHP MANAGEMENT: Palmer to Pay $12.5-M to Settle Tenants' Class Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Muller Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
GOAL ZERO: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Phi Finney McDonald Named Class Action Lead Plaintiff
GREEN TOYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAMILTON, ON: Lawyer Responds to Dismissal Ruling in Crashes Suit
HOME WARRANTY: Petree TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
HONDA MOTOR: Hit With Class Action Over Idle Stop Defects
INOTIV INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
INOTIV INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
IONQ INC: Robbins Geller Notes of August 1 Deadline
JACKSON NURSE: $658K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Musgrove Suit
JUUL LABS: Amite Sues Over Harm Caused by Youth E-Cigarette Market
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis, Shenango Area Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Republic School Claims
JUUL LABS: East Hollywood Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
JUUL LABS: Faces Eastmont School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Nine Mile Falls Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Nooksack Valley Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Ocosta School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Wash.
JUUL LABS: Quillayute Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Spokane School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Highline Suit Says
KROGER CO: McCook FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
LA PETITE: Thompson Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
LUSHA SYSTEMS: Faces Sliozis Suit for Privacy Rights' Violations
MCG HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MDL 2913: Court Certifies Four Classes in Juul's Liability Suit
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Pixel Tracking Tool
META PLATFORMS: Settles Facebook Tracking Class Action for $90-M
MICHAEL CAMPBELL: Sihler Files Suit in M.D. Florida
MOSS BROS: $638K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Johnson Suit
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Khadka Sues Over Proposed Equity Grant to CEO
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Dabkowski Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Galeano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NATIONAL FUTURES: Nefertiti Risk Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
NATIONAL RIFLE: Files First Circuit Appeal in McEwen Suit
NEW YORK TIMES: Hit With Class Action Over Auto Renewal Scheme
NEW YORK: DOH, OPWDD Face Class Suit Over PWDs' Discharge Delays
NEW YORK: Mayor Issues Emergency Executive Order for City Jails
NORTH CAROLINA: State Health Files Writ of Certiorari in Lake Suit
OKTA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Shriver Files Suit Over Data Breach
PJ OPS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Edwards FLSA Suit
SANDERSON FARMS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
STREMICKS HERITAGE: Duenas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
TELADOC HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TELADOC HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TELADOC HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TERRAFORM LABS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Securities Class Suit
TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
TESLA MOTORS: Sued By Former Employees for Illegal Staff Cuts
TEXAS A&M: Athletic Boosters Can't Pursue Football Games Class Suit
TRILLER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Biometric Collection Suit
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 15 Deadline
U.S. WELL: Brager Eagel Launches Probe Over Profac Acquisition
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
UNILEVER PLC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNITED STATES: All Except Religious Claims in Crosby v. DOD Tossed
UNITED STATES: All Except Religious Claims in Hyatt v. DOD Tossed
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Share Price Drop
VERRICA PHARMA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline
VIKING RIVER: Supreme Court Ruling in Moriana PAGA Suit Discussed
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Defective Water Pumps
WORLD WRESTLING: Five Law Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions
XCEL ENERGY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Arandell Suit
YEXT INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 16 Deadline
YEXT INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of August 16 Deadline
YEXT INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 16 Deadline
YEXT INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 16 Deadline
[*] Harris Beach Attorneys Discuss PFAS Consumer Class-Action Suits
[*] UK Litigation Funders Hunting for Class Action Suits to Fund
*********
4FRNT SKIS: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4Frnt Skis, LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 4Frnt Skis, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05468 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
4FRNT Skis -- https://4frnt.com/ -- is an independent brand of
alpine skis, poles, gear and apparel that helped to pioneer the
development of the freeskiing movement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
AETNA LIFE: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal in Kazda Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Aetna Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHALA KAZDA v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-02512-WHO, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
The lawsuit, filed on May 9, 2019, seeks to address Aetna's
practice of improperly denying claims for surgical treatment of
lipedema made by patients under Aetna plans.
According to the complaint, Aetna denies claims for the surgical
treatment of lipedema on the basis they are cosmetic and excluded.
Lipedema is a rare condition that is chronic, progressive, painful,
and immobilizing. It involves an abnormal buildup of adipose (fat)
tissue, usually in the lower body but sometimes in the arms. Often
misdiagnosed as obesity or lymphedema, lipedema primarily affects
women. Surgical treatment of lipedema is not cosmetic because it
treats the symptoms of lipedema, pain and immobility. These are
functional problems, not cosmetic ones. Aetna has consistently and
erroneously rejected claims for the surgical treatment of lipedema
as cosmetic, says the complaint.
On December 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class
which the Court granted on April 26, 2022 through an Order entered
by Judge William H. Orrick.
On May 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration or clarification of order granting class
certification.
On June 2, 2022, Judge Orrick entered an Order denying Defendant's
motion reconsideration. Judge Orrick also denied Defendant's
request that the class definition be revised as: All persons
covered under ERISA health plans, self-funded or fully insured,
that are administered by Aetna, whose pre-certification request for
liposuction treatment of their lipedema were denied as cosmetic and
who paid out of pocket for liposuction treatment of their lipedema
after said denial while they were a member of an ERISA health plan,
self-funded or fully insured, administered by Aetna.
Judge Orrick notes that Aetna has not provided sufficient grounds
to reconsider the class definition.
The appellate case is captioned as Aetna Life Insurance Company v.
Michala Kazda, Case No. 22-80055, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Earl B. Austin, III, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201-2980
Telephone: (214) 953-6542
E-mail: earl.austin@bakerbotts.com
Plaintiff-=Respondent MICHALA KAZDA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Adrian Jorge Barrio, Esq.
Robert Steven Gianelli, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS ALC
550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
E-mail: adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
- and -
Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
505 S. Hope
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
E-mail: joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
ASCENA RETAIL: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civ. No. 19-13529 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Joel Patterson and Michaella Corporation bring a
putative securities class action against David Jaffe and Robert
Giammatteo, formerly senior executives at Ascena, a publicly traded
retailer of clothing and apparel. The Plaintiffs allege that from
December 2015 to May 2017, Jaffe and Giammatteo misrepresented the
value of Ascena's goodwill and tradenames in order to artificially
inflate Ascena's stock price. In June 2017, Ascena announced an
impairment charge to these assets, reducing their declared value by
over $1.3 billion and causing Ascena's already-declining share
price to fall precipitously. Ascena ultimately declared Chapter 11
bankruptcy in July 2020.
Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead material misrepresentation or scienter, both essential
elements of their claims.
II. Background
Ascena, a publicly traded clothing and apparel retailer, is
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in
New Jersey. Jaffe served as Ascena's CEO, president, and board
chairman from 2002 to 2019; Giammatteo served as its CFO and
executive vice president from 2015 to 2019. Both Plaintiffs
purchased shares of Ascena's common stock between Dec. 1, 2015, and
May 17, 2017 (the "Class Period").
The Plaintiffs allege that under Jaffe's leadership, Ascena
embarked on an "expansion-driven strategy" of acquiring other
women's clothing companies, culminating in May 2015 with Ascena's
acquisition of ANN, the parent company to the clothing brands Ann
Taylor and LOFT. From December 2015 to May 2017, Ascena reported in
SEC filings that the value of Ascena's goodwill and tradenames,
including those of ANN, remained relatively stable, the value of
its goodwill ranging from $1.268 billion to $1.29 billion while the
value of its other intangible assets, including tradenames, ranged
from $1.263 billion to $1.283. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs allege,
during the same period, "key metrics underlying the value of
Ascena's goodwill and other intangible assets" deteriorated;
negative factors included "declining sales and store traffic,
declining comparable sales, a shift in consumer spending, a
drastically altered competitive environment, and a steady decline
in Ascena's stock price and market capitalization."
The Defendants ultimately acknowledged the effect of these key
metrics on the value of Ascena's goodwill and tradenames in June
2017, when it announced an impairment charge of over $1.3 billion
to these assets. According to the Plaintiffs however, the
Defendants knew that under the Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP") used by public companies, these metrics
demonstrated the need for an impairment analysis and an impairment
charge much sooner. The Defendants, they allege, delayed in order
to inflate Ascena's share price, misrepresenting the value of
Ascena's assets and violating GAAP in the process.
The Plaintiff's evidence for these claims consists primarily of
Ascena's SEC filings and the public statements of Jaffe and
Giammatteo regarding the financial results that these SEC filings
announced. In sum, they urge that Ascena's financial statements to
the SEC, each of which was signed by Jaffe and Giammatteo,
repeatedly overstated the value of ANN's goodwill and tradenames,
while stating, incorrectly, that the statements contained "all
normal and recurring adjustments" and disclosed information
necessary to fairly present the state of Ascena's business. The
Plaintiffs urge that these filings and the Defendants' associated
public statements demonstrate that the Defendants knew an
impairment analysis was necessary and required by GAAP as early as
December 2015.
On Nov. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the currently operative
Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging that Jaffe and Giammatteo
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 ("Count
1") and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act ("Count 2") by knowingly
or recklessly overstating the value and business prospects of ANN
and its subsidiaries in public statements and SEC filings. They
filed the class action suit on behalf of anyone who acquired Ascena
common stock from Dec. 1, 2015, when the Defendants allegedly began
misrepresenting Ascena's value in SEC filings, until May 17, 2017,
when Ascena announced that it would perform an impairment analysis
of its goodwill and tradenames.
The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on Feb. 7, 2020. On
July 27, 2020, the Defendants notified the Court that Ascena had
filed for bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 101-1532 in the
Eastern District of Virginia and so the Defendants' motion to
dismiss was administratively terminated. On March 3, 2022, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an
order confirming a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan for Ascena which,
among other provisions, discharged Ascena from the Plaintiffs'
claims in the suit. Accordingly, on April 5, 2022, Judge McNulty
ordered that all claims against Ascena be dismissed with prejudice
and that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be renewed on behalf of
Jaffe and Giammatteo only.
The Defendants now argue that the Plaintiffs' complaint lacks
sufficient factual allegations that Jaffe or Giammatteo knew their
statements about Ascena and its acquisition of ANN were untrue,
lacked a reasonable basis, or otherwise omitted material non-public
information. Moreover, they urge that the Plaintiffs have also
failed to plead the necessary scienter, neglecting to offer
sufficient facts or any "cogent and compelling" theory as to that
element. Without such allegations, the Defendants maintain that the
Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
III. Discussion
A. Section 10(b) Claim (Count 1)
1. Material misrepresentation
For the Plaintiffs to successfully make out a claim under Section
10(b) and its companion Rule 10b-5, they must allege both "a
material misrepresentation or omission" and "scienter." The
Defendants urge that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead such
elements as required by the PSLRA and thus that the complaint must
be dismissed.
Under the Supreme Court's holding in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, statements of
opinion may convey a "material misrepresentation or omission" of
fact, and thus form an actionable basis for securities fraud, in
three circumstances: (1) where the statement falsely affirms that
the speaker actually holds the stated belief; (2) where the
statement contains embedded statements of fact which are false; or
(3) where the statement omits particular and material facts going
to the basis of the opinion. However, "a sincere statement of pure
opinion," standing alone, "is not an untrue statement of material
fact, regardless of whether an investor can ultimately prove the
belief wrong."
At the heart of the Plaintiffs' claim is their allegation that
Ascena's financial disclosures during the Class Period contained
materially false or misleading statements regarding Ascena's
goodwill and tradename value, particularly that of its subsidiary
ANN. The Defendants counter that the Plaintiffs' complaint lacks "a
single particularized allegation" to show that Jaffe or Giammatteo
"personally disbelieved Ascena's opinions about its goodwill, or
that the challenged statements omitted material non-public
information."
Judge McNulty opines that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead
that the Defendants' statements about Ascena's valuation were false
or misleading under Omnicare because they have not shown that the
Defendants disbelieved their own statements; conveyed false
statements of fact; or omitted material facts going to the basis of
their opinions. The numerous statements cited by the Plaintiffs --
both those in Ascena's SEC filings and those in the Defendants'
public comments -- only demonstrate that Jaffe and Giammatteo were
aware that Ascena faced an increasingly difficult business
environment during the Class Period.
Allegations of insincerity aside, Judge McNulty opines that the
Plaintiffs have also failed to sufficiently plead that the
Defendants' statements evinced reckless disregard of problems with
Ascena's performance. The Defendants' opinions on the value of
Ascena's intangible assets did not present such a clear danger of
misleading investors that Judge McNulty can conclude the Defendants
must have been aware they were being misleading, even if their
opinions were ultimately proven wrong.
Accordingly, and viewing the statements cited by the Plaintiffs in
context,Judge McNulty finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint is
subject to dismissal based on its failure to sufficiently allege
that the Defendants made an actionably false statement. For the
sake of completeness and for the guidance of the parties, he turns
next to the Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter.
2. Scienter
The Plaintiffs' allegations that the Defendants possessed the
necessary scienter rest on a variety of sources, primarily Jaffe's
and Giammatteo's statements in press releases and investor
conference calls in which they acknowledged problems facing
Ascena's business—problems that ostensibly showed Ascena's
goodwill and tradenames to be overvalued and demonstrated the need
for an impairment analysis. They urge that Jaffe and Giammatteo
were made further aware of these problems' significance for
Ascena's valuation through information gleaned from Ascena's
internal reporting mechanisms and through their own expertise. The
Plaintiffs also claim that the sheer size and importance of
Ascena's ultimate write-down belie any claims by Defendants that
they were ignorant of Ascena's deteriorating value; the loss
amounted to over $1.3 billion, nearly a quarter of Ascena's overall
value, and primarily arose from ANN, one of Ascena's "core"
businesses comprising approximately one third of Ascena's annual
sales. Finally, they maintain that Jaffe had a "unique" motivation
to conceal Ascena's deteriorating value because his parents founded
the company and he did not want to "admit failure and accept
responsibility" for a business "calamity." The Plaintiffs argue
that these factual allegations, taken collectively, give rise to a
sufficiently strong inference of scienter for their complaint to
survive the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Defendants respond that the more plausible explanation for
their behavior is the more benign one: They "signed Ascena's class
period financial statements genuinely and reasonably believing
Ascena's estimates of goodwill." Indeed, they urge that their
statements in press releases and investor conference calls show
that they were forthright in disclosing the challenges facing the
company, from flagging earnings to changing customer behavior. They
maintain that the Plaintiffs have only pleaded that the Defendants
were aware of "objective factors" (e.g., deteriorating earnings,
share price, or customer traffic) that ultimately were the basis
for the $1.3 billion impairment charge, but have failed to show
that the Defendants believed these factors warranted impairment
testing pursuant to GAAP earlier than May 2017.
Viewing the Plaintiffs' evidence of scienter as a whole, Judge
McNulty finds that the allegations indicate that Defendants were
aware of Ascena's deteriorating business, but fail to raise an
inference of scienter that is "at least as compelling as any
opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent." First, he says, the
rosy assessments of Ascena's assets may bespeak mistakes in
Ascena's management -- Ascena did after all declare Chapter 11
bankruptcy in 2020 -- but they do not constitute culpable conduct
demonstrating the necessary scienter for securities fraud. Second,
the Plaintiffs' allegations that Ascena's internal reporting
mechanisms and the Defendants' own expertise provided them with
scienter are similarly deficient. They demonstrate at best that
Jaffe and Giammatteo were aware of Ascena's business difficulties,
not that they believed those difficulties so affected the value of
Ascena's goodwill and tradenames that an interim impairment test or
write-down was warranted.
Third, as with their prior allegations, the Plaintiffs simply offer
too little in the way of facts to show that Defendants' conduct was
motivated by fraudulent intent or that they disbelieved their own
statements. Without more, the $1.3 billion impairment charge more
plausibly reflects the collision of Ascena's "expansion-driven
strategy" with changes in the clothing retail market—bad luck or
an unsuccessful strategy, perhaps, but a slender basis for an
inference of scienter. Finally, it's far from evident that a
generalized sense of filial loyalty or desire to burnish a
company's image constitutes a benefit that is either concrete or
personal to Jaffe. Moreover, Jaffe's alleged motivation would
clearly not be shared by Giammatteo, who allegedly behaved in a
similar manner.
Hence, the Plaintiff's complaint is thus subject to dismissal on
the additional and alternative basis that it has failed to
adequately allege scienter.
B. Section 20(a) Claim (Count 2)
Liability under Section 20(a) is predicated upon an independent
violation of "this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder."
Claims under Section 20(a), therefore, are "derivative -- requiring
proof of a separate underlying violation of the Exchange Act."
Since the Plaintiffs fail to offer sufficient evidence that the
Defendants made an actionable false statement or possessed the
requisite scienter to state a plausible claim under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5, their claim under Section 20(a) lacks a predicate
violation of the Exchange Act and so must also be dismissed.
C. Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Amend
Having dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint, Judge McNulty will do
so without prejudice to the submission of a properly supported
motion to amend. The Plaintiffs represent that in the course of
their investigation of the case, they have identified "new
allegations from confidential witnesses detailing that management
monitored the ongoing impairment at its underperforming stores" and
that Ascena's internal systems allowed management "to monitor and
analyze the Company's operational data." Judge McNulty notes that
the evidentiary value of confidential sources' information will be
assessed according to the "detail provided by the confidential
sources, the sources' basis of knowledge, the reliability of the
sources, the corroborative nature of other facts alleged, including
from other sources, the coherence and plausibility of the
allegations, and similar indicia." Any amended pleading will
address the deficiencies Judge McNulty has identified in the
Plaintiffs' allegations of material misrepresentation and
scienter.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McNulty grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice to the filing of a properly
supported motion to amend the complaint within 40 days.
A separate order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at http://tinyurl.com/55237ykxfrom Leagle.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Spraggins Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAWNA SPRAGGINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 22 CVS
7737, was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina,
Mecklenburg County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00286-MOC-DSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
breach of contract by failing to disclose to accountholders that
using Zelle's services can cause them to incur overdraft fees.
Bank of America, NA is a banking company based in Charlotte, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-5300
Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
E-mail: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com
- and –
Jamie Dycus, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich St.
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 937-7236
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com
- and –
Kobi Kennedy Brinson, Esq.
Kevin Zhao, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
300 South Tryon St., 16th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 350-7747
Facsimile: (704) 350-7800
E-mail: kbrinson@winston.com
kzhao@winston.com
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cullors Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STACIA CULLORS, LAYLA CULLORS, NOELANI CULLORS,
VIVIENNE CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem STACIA CULLORS,
ANTHONY BACANI, DAHLIA BACANI and ELIAS BACANI, through their
guardian ad litem ANTHONY BACANI, JENNIFER CULLORS, AVA CULLORS and
JOSHUA CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem JENNIFER CULLORS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY; NURTURE, INC.; PLUM, INC. d.b.a. PLUM
ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY; WALMART, INC.; SPROUT FOODS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 2, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02324, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00710-MSN-JFA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict product
liability, negligence, negligent product design, negligent
manufacturing, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by manufacturing,
advertising, and marketing of baby food products containing toxic
heavy metals.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company is a baby food company, headquartered
in New York.
Nurture, Inc. is an organic and baby food company based in New
York.
Plum, Inc., doing business as Plum Organics, is a provider of
packaged food products based in Florida.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas
Sprout Foods, Inc. is a baby food company, headquartered in New
Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bryan D. Merryman, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
BELLZI INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellzi, Inc. The case
is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bellzi, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05476
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bellzi -- https://bellzi.com/ -- is a designer and manufacturer of
plushy stuffed animal toys and accessories to children and
collectors around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bexco Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bexco Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05493 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bexco Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Million Dollar Baby Co.
-- https://www.milliondollarbabyco.com/ -- provides children's
furniture, design, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BLEND LABS: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blend Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Kaliyah Martin, an individual(s), on
behalf of, himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Blend Labs, Inc., Blend Insurance Agency, Inc., Blend
Operations, Inc., Blend Title Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No.
CGC22600420 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Blend -- https://blend.com/ -- is a digital lending platform that
supports and simplifies applications for mortgages, consumer loans,
and deposit accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-599-8292
Fax: 619-599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
BOARDRIDERS IP: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boardriders IP
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boardriders IP
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05465 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boardriders -- https://www.boardriders.com/ -- is a leading action
sports and lifestyle company that designs, produces and distributes
branded apparel, footwear and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE COLEMAN, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-4158 (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting:
a. the Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of the
Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and
b. the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
I. Background
Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP American
Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s (collectively the "BP parties")
motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general
causation expert, Dr. Cook. Plaintiff Coleman opposes the motion.
Also before the Court is the BP parties' motion for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff also opposes this motion.
The case arises from Coleman's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals
following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Plaintiff alleges that he performed cleanup work after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill from May 2010 through October 2010.
Coleman asserts that, as part of this work, he was exposed to known
carcinogenic compounds via exposure to crude oil and the Corexit
dispersants used. The Plaintiff also represents that this exposure
has resulted in the following conditions: light sensitivity,
chronic eye irritation, chronic chemically-induced conjunctivitis,
blurred vision, eye burning, irritated sinuses, cough, congestion,
acute and chronic sinusitis, sensitivity to dust, decreased sense
of smell, facial pain or sinus pain, nasal discharge, nosebleed,
sore throat, shortness of breath, reactive airway disease,
wheezing, depression/anxiety, insomnia, mood swings,
hypersensitivity dermatitis, acne, blistering, boils, crusting,
dryness/flaking, inflammation, redness or swelling, itching,
peeling, welts, chronic headaches, arthralgias/myalgias, joint
pain, lightheadedness, dizziness, excessive hunger/thirst,
abdominal cramps and pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting.
Coleman's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed
from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either
opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Coleman is a plaintiff
who opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was
severed, it was reallocated to the Court. The Plaintiff asserts
claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and
gross negligence against the Defendants as a result of the oil
spill and its cleanup.
To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms Coleman alleges in his
complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an
occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the
Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation.
In his report, Dr. Cook utilizes a "general causation approach to
determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of
exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. Dr. Cook
concludes that "general causation analysis indicates" that the
following conditions "can occur in individuals exposed to crude
oil, including weathered crude oil:" chronic rhinitis, chronic
sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), bronchitis, asthma, reactive airway disease, dermatitis,
skin irritation, skin rash, skin itching, acute conjunctivitis,
chronic conjunctivitis, and dry eye disease.
The BP parties now move to exclude Dr. Cook's expert opinion,
arguing that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for
summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation
opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on
causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Exclude Dr. Cook's Testimony
At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general
causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil
and dispersants can cause the medical conditions Coleman alleges,
the Plaintiff offers the testimony of an environmental
toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook asserts that his report is "based
on the scientific methods used in the field of environmental
toxicology." More specifically, he states that his "causation
analysis regarding health effects of oil spill exposures draws on
the process of evaluating epidemiology studies and the work from
established expert groups similar to the Surgeon General's Advisory
Committee to make a more likely than not conclusion.
Based on Dr. Cook's report, defendants argue that Coleman is unable
to prove general causation with relevant and reliable expert
testimony. They contend that Dr. Cook's general causation report is
unreliable because he failed to: (1) verify Coleman's diagnoses;
(2) follow the accepted methodology for analyzing epidemiology and
adequately evaluate the scientific literature; and (3) identify the
harmful level of exposure to any chemical that can cause any of
plaintiff's alleged medical conditions. The Defendants further
argue that even if Dr. Cook's report were reliable, it is unhelpful
because it addresses "few if any" of Coleman's medical complaints,
and fails to specify what particular toxins can cause which
particular conditions. They also note that two other sections of
this Court have excluded Dr. Cook's report for similar reasons,
Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff, as the party offering the
testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of
establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report.
Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the
"minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the
case, Judge Vance will grant the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr.
Cook's testimony.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that
the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific
causation. Although the parties dispute whether the Plaintiff is
required to present admissible expert testimony to establish
specific causation, neither party contests that expert testimony is
necessary to establish general causation.
In the case, the Court has excluded testimony from the Plaintiff's
only expert offering an opinion on general causation. Although the
Plaintiff has also retained Dr. Rachel Jones as an "exposure
assessment expert," she does not provide a general causation
opinion, and notably does not provide the information or analysis
that Dr. Cook's report lacks. Specifically, she does not identify a
harmful level of exposure to the chemicals that Coleman was
allegedly exposed to that can cause the conditions he alleges.
Although Dr. Jones summarizes reports that measured the levels of a
variety of toxic chemicals at different cleanup sites, she does not
address the issue of causation. In other words, Dr. Jones' report
does not identify the level of those toxins that is harmful and
that can be associated with the symptoms at issue.
Because the Court excludes Dr. Cook's opinion on general causation,
and the Plaintiff has produced no other admissible general
causation evidence in the case, Judge Vance need not reach the
question of specific causation. Because Coleman cannot prove a
necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims
must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance will grant the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Conley grants the BP parties'
motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook. She also grants the BP
parties' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yckukvntfrom Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Dawkins Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FREDERICK LLOYD DAWKINS, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (4), Civil Action No. 17-3533
(E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana issues an Order and Reasons
granting:
a. the BP parties' motion to exclude the testimony of the
Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and
b. their motion for summary judgment.
I. Background
Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP American
Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s (collectively the "BP parties")
motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general
causation expert, Dr. Cook. Plaintiff Dawkins opposes the motion.
Also before the Court is the BP parties' motion for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff also opposes this motion.
The case arises from Plaintiff Dawkins's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he performed cleanup work after
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from June 2010 through February
2011. Dawkins alleges that, as part of this work, he was exposed to
known carcinogenic compounds via exposure to crude oil and the
Corexit dispersants used. He also represents that this exposure has
resulted in the following conditions: muscle spasms, muscle
weakness, fatigue, hypertension, deep vein thrombosis, acute
embolisms, hematuria, cognitive impairment, abnormal gait, memory
deficiency, abdominal pain and cramps, GERD, dizziness, and skin
itching.
The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for the
Plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement. Dawkins is a plaintiff who opted out of the settlement.
After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to the
Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime
negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the
defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup.
To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms Dawkins alleges in his
complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an
occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the
Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation.
In his report, Dr. Cook utilizes a "general causation approach to
determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of
exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work." Dr. Cook
concludes that "general causation analysis indicates" that the
following conditions "can occur in individuals exposed to crude
oil, including weathered crude oil:" chronic rhinitis, chronic
sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, bronchitis, asthma, reactive airway disease, dermatitis,
skin irritation, skin rash, skin itching, acute conjunctivitis,
chronic conjunctivitis, and dry eye disease.
The BP parties now move to exclude Dr. Cook's expert opinion,
arguing that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for
summary judgment, asserting the Plaintiff is unable to carry his
burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. In their
Daubert motion, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has not
offered admissible expert testimony as to general causation. In
their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that the
Plaintiff lacks admissible evidence on both general causation and
specific causation.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Exclude Dr. Cook's Testimony
At issue in the case is whether the Plaintiff has produced
admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to
the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical
conditions Dawkins alleges, the Plaintiff offers the testimony of
an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook asserts that his
report is "based on the scientific methods used in the field of
environmental toxicology. More specifically, he states that his
"causation analysis regarding health effects of oil spill exposures
draws on the process of evaluating epidemiology studies and the
work from established expert groups similar to the Surgeon
General's Advisory Committee to make a more likely than not
conclusion."
In sum, Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff, as the party offering
the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of
establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report.
Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant
chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's
complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable
of establishing general causation. In addition to finding Dr.
Cook's general causation analysis unreliable, the Court also finds
that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of
the same reasons. Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his
inability to link any specific chemical that Dawkins was allegedly
exposed to, at the level to which he was exposed, to the conditions
that he alleges in his complaint.
Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the
"minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the
case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr.
Cook's testimony.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
In the motion for summary judgment, the BP parties argue that
plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation.
Although the parties dispute whether the Plaintiff is required to
present admissible expert testimony to establish specific
causation, neither party contests that expert testimony is
necessary to establish general causation.
In the case, Judge Vance has excluded testimony from the
Plaintiff's only expert offering an opinion on general causation.
Although the Plaintiff has also retained Dr. Rachel Jones as an
"exposure assessment expert," she does not provide a general
causation opinion, and notably does not provide the information or
analysis that Dr. Cook's report lacks.
Specifically, she does not identify a harmful level of exposure to
the chemicals that Dawkins was allegedly exposed to that can cause
the conditions he alleges. Although Dr. Jones summarizes reports
that measured the levels of a variety of toxic chemicals at
different cleanup sites, she does not address the issue of
causation. In other words, Dr. Jones' report does not identify the
level of those toxins that is harmful and that can be associated
with the symptoms at issue here.
Because she excludes Dr. Cook's opinion on general causation, and
the Plaintiff has produced no other admissible general causation
evidence in the case, Judge Vance need not reach the question of
specific causation. Because Dawkins cannot prove a necessary
element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be
dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance grants the BP parties'
motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook. She also grants the BP
parties' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4njnn7x5from Leagle.com.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Judd v. Sheriff Miller Dismissed W/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY JUDD, Plaintiff v. QUENTIN MILLER,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-MR (W.D.N.C.), Judge
Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, issued an order
dismissing the action without prejudice for the Plaintiff's failure
to prosecute.
The matter is before the Court on its own motion on the Plaintiff's
failure to respond to the Court's Order for him to notify the Court
of his new address and to either pay the filing fee or submit an
Amended Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
On April 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). In the Plaintiff's IFP application, he attested
that he cannot pay the cost of these proceedings because he is "in
custody/no wages."
On April 6, 2022, the Clerk entered an Order for a certified copy
of the Plaintiff's most recent trust fund account statement for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
On May 16, 2022, the Clerk received the Plaintiff's trust fund
account statement from an attorney for Buncombe County. The
attorney advised the Court that the Plaintiff was released from
custody on May 4, 2022. The Court's own research also suggested
that the Plaintiff was released from custody.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff may no longer be eligible
for IFP status and ordered that he had 21 to notify the court of
his new address and to file an amended application to proceed in
forma pauperis. The deadline to comply with the Court's Order has
expired and the Plaintiff has not complied in any respect.
Judge Reidinger, therefore, dismisses the action without prejudice
for the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
The Plaintiff purports to pursue his Complaint as a class action
and names other detainees as the Plaintiffs in the action. The
Court will address these other Plaintiffs should it conduct initial
review of the Plaintiff's Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mpfbbpn9 from Leagle.com.
CAT-MAN-DOO INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cat-Man-Doo Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cat-Man-Doo Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05454 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Cat-Man-Doo -- https://www.catmandoo.biz/ -- and Life
Essentials lines consist of exceptional products for cats or
dogs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CEC EMPLOYEE GROUP: Pahl Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CEC Employee Group
LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Pahl, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CEC Employee Group LLC, Colorado
Technical University Inc., Case No. 34-2022-00322588-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
CEC Employee Group, LLC operates in the business services
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, PC
11780 W. Sample Rd., Ste. 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141
Phone: 310-601-6766
Fax: 310-295-2385
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Files Writ of Certiorari in McGraw Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd. filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioner v. LOUISE
MCGRAW, by and through her daughter, NANCY REUSCHEL, as power of
attorney, and CHARLOTTE RODGERS, by and through her daughter,
LORETTA HOLCOMB, as power of attorney, on their own behalf and all
others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-1564.
Response is due on July 15, 2022.
Petitioner Chancellor Senior files for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia in the case titled CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD.,
Defendant-Petitioner v. LOUISE MCGRAW, by and through her Daughter,
NANCY REUSCHEL as Power of Attorney, and CHARLOTTE RODGERS, by and
through her Daughter, LORETTA HOLCOMB as Power of Attorney, on
their own behalf and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, Case No. 20-0794.
This a putative class action brought on behalf of elderly residents
of four assisted living residences located in West Virginia. The
Petitioner is under contract to the owner-operator to provide
certain management services for residencies. Respondents, the
representative plaintiffs, are the daughters of former residents
who are now deceased. The Respondents allege that the Petitioner,
whom they mistakenly alleged to be licensed owner/operators of the
residences deliberately provided insufficient staffing levels to
deliver the levels of service promised in the written residency
agreements entered into with all residents at all four residences
over a four-year period. The Respondents allege that this
constitutes multiple violations of the West Virginia Consumer
Protection Act, West Virginia Code Section 46A-1-101 et seq.
On June 5, 2019 -- more than two and one-half years after the
filing of the original complaint -- the Petitioner moved to compel
arbitration based upon the arbitration provision set forth in the
parties' Residency Agreements. In response thereto, the Respondents
filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Arbitration
of Plaintiffs' Claims and Memorandum of Law in Support," seeking a
determination that the arbitration provision was invalid as a
matter of law because it did not comply with the rules the
petitioner incorporated into the agreement, the application of
which would result in dismissal of any arbitration.
By order entered Oct. 2, 2020, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County,
West Virginia, found that while the claims asserted by the
Respondents would otherwise be subject to arbitration, the
arbitration provision could not be enforced because it was
contained in the admissions documentation, i.e., the Residency
Agreements, rather than in a separate document, and therefore the
agreement could not be enforced as written. In short, the court
found that the petitioner "made a prima facie showing of the
existence of an arbitration agreement. The Respondents, however,
have met their burden of proof by demonstrating that the subject
agreement cannot be enforced as written because it does not comply
with its own stated standards." As a result, the court denied the
Petitioner's motion to compel arbitration.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2022, the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the order
entered by the Circuit Court, on Oct. 2, 2020, denying the
Petitioner's motion to compel arbitration.
The Petitioner requests that the Supreme Court issue a writ of
certiorari to resolve the split of authority and provide guidance
on the proper standards for application of Section 5 of the FAA,
and to correct the decision of the West Virginia Court that is
inconsistent with federal law as embodied by Section 2 and Section
5 of the FAA.
The questions presented are: (i) Whether the West Virginia Court's
determination that the parties' arbitration agreement is invalid
and unenforceable because "it fails to 'comply with its own stated
standards,'" on the basis that it does not satisfy the peculiar
requirements of American Health Lawyers Association Rule 2.1,
conflicts with the command of Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration
Act that agreements to arbitrate shall be "valid, irrevocable and
enforceable"?; and (2) Whether, under circumstances in which an
arbitration forum suggested or selected in the parties' arbitration
agreement becomes unavailable, Section 5 of the FAA mandates that a
court "shall designate and appoint an arbitrator" and, thus,
preserve the validity and enforceability of the core agreement to
arbitrate? [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD. is
represented by:
Avrum Levicoff, Esq.
THE LEVICOFF LAW FIRM, P.C.
4 PPG Place, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-5200
E-mail: ALevicoff@Levicofflaw.com
COAST DENTAL SERVICES: Awad Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast Dental
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Amer Awad, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coast Dental Services,
LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01478 (M.D. Fla., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Coast Dental -- https://www.coastdental.com/ -- has more than 100
Dental Clinics in Florida, Georgia and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
COLLEGIATE MERCHANDISE: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collegiate
Merchandise Group Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Collegiate Merchandise Group Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05512
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Collegiate Merchandise Group Inc. is a leading import company in
USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
COOKUNITY INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cookunity Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cookunity Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05487 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CookUnity -- https://www.cookunity.com/ -- is a collective of
talented chefs ready to stock your fridge with their best
dishes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Notes of Class Action Over Ties to Russia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
22-cv-02477, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Credit Suisse securities between March 19, 2021 and March 25, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Credit
Suisse securities during the Class Period, you have until June 28,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Credit Suisse, together with its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services in Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East, Africa,
the Americas, and Asia Pacific. The Company offers private banking
and wealth management solutions, including advisory, investment,
financial planning, succession planning, and trust services, and
financing and lending, and multi-shore platform solutions.
Credit Suisse has a history of business dealings with Russian
oligarchs, or ultra-high net worth business leaders possessing
significant political influence. For example, an article published
by Financial Times on February 7, 2022, entitled "Credit Suisse
securitizes yacht loans to oligarchs and tycoons", cited a recent
investor presentation for a synthetic securitization deal, in which
Credit Suisse sold off $80 million worth of risk related to a $2
billion portfolio of loans backed by assets owned by certain of the
bank's ultra-high net worth clients (the "Securitization Deal"),
which disclosed that, in 2017 and 2018, Credit Suisse experienced
12 defaults on yacht and aircraft loans, a third of which were
related to U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs. Press reports
at the time indicated that Russian billionaires Oleg Deripaska,
Arkady Rotenberg, and Boris Rotenberg had to terminate private jet
leases with Credit Suisse in those years.
Beginning in or around October 2021, Russia commenced a major
military build-up near the Russo-Ukrainian border, in apparent
preparation for an invasion of Ukraine. Although the Russian
government repeatedly denied it had plans to invade or attack
Ukraine, the U.S. later released intelligence of Russian invasion
plans, including satellite photographs showing Russian troops and
equipment near the Russo-Ukrainian border.
In November 2021, as Russia's military buildup on the
Russo-Ukrainian border continued, the Company entered the
Securitization Deal.
Just months later, on February 24, 2022, Russian military forces
invaded Ukraine. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion,
Western governments including, among others, the U.S., Canada, and
the European Union, imposed significant sanctions on Russia. The
sanctions included, inter alia, measures targeting Russia's
ultrawealthy oligarchs by denying them access to the global
financial system and by, in some cases, authorizing the seizure of
certain of their high-value assets located outside of Russia.
Barely a week after the commencement of the Russian invasion and
the retaliatory sanctions imposed by Western nations, news outlets
reported that Credit Suisse had requested non-participating
investors who received information about the Company's loan
portfolio to destroy and permanently erase any confidential
information that Credit Suisse provided to them regarding the
Securitization Deal.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit Suisse had deficient
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse's practice of lending money
to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and international sanctions
created a significant risk of violating rules pertaining to those
sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to an increased risk of heightened regulatory
scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iv) the Securitization Deal
concerned loans that Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs
previously sanctioned by the U.S.; (v) the purpose of the
Securitization Deal was to offload the risks associated with these
loans and mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely
to be implemented by Western nations in response to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse's request that
non-participating investors destroy documents related to the
Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the Company's
noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in its lending
practices; (vii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and significant
reputational harm; and (viii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 28, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Oversight and Reform sent Credit Suisse a letter asking the Company
to turn over information and documents about a portfolio of loans
backed by yachts and private jets owned by clients, potentially
including sanctioned Russian individuals. In the letter, House
Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney and Rep.Stephen Lynch, chair of the
Subcommittee on National Security, questioned Credit Suisse's
request that hedge funds and other non participating investors
"destroy documents" related to yachts and private jets owned by the
bank's clients. "Given the timing of this request and its subject
matter," the House Democrats wrote, "Credit Suisse's action raises
significant concerns that it may be concealing information" about
whether participants in the deal may be "evading sanctions" imposed
by the West after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On this news, Credit Suisse's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
2.58%, to close at $7.94 per share on March 28, 2022.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
http://www.pomlaw.com/
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
DANDELION CHOCOLATE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dandelion Chocolate,
Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dandelion Chocolate,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05491 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dandelion Chocolate -- https://store.dandelionchocolate.com/ --
offers single-origin small-batch chocolate bars, gifts, hot
chocolate mix, baking chocolate, and everything to make chocolate
at home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, June 17, 2022, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
Berger Montague, Hausfeld, and the Law Offices of Kenneth N.
Flaxman filed a federal class action complaint against Deutsche
Telekom, T-Mobile, and Softbank Group challenging the merger of
T-Mobile and Sprint as a violation of the antitrust laws,
specifically the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. The case is
brought on behalf of AT&T and Verizon subscribers.
The merger reduced the number of mobile carriers in the U.S. from
four to three and eliminated vibrant competition from Sprint. It
left the three remaining behemoths, the new T-Mobile, AT&T, and
Verizon, in a far less competitive market and gave them the
opportunity to charge more while delivering less. The case alleges
that as a result, AT&T and Verizon retail customers have paid
higher prices on a quality-adjusted basis.
"I'm hard-pressed to think of a more anti-competitive and damaging
acquisition in recent history," said Lieff Cabraser partner Brendan
P. Glackin, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Mobile
phones are now integral to American life, and the three carriers
provide mobile wireless service to the vast majority of American
subscribers. The consequences of the merger are currently being
felt in the pocketbook of nearly every person living in this
country and will continue to be felt until competition is restored
and the ill effects of this merger are undone."
The Complaint alleges that before the merger, "T-Mobile and Sprint
were two scrappy upstarts" vying for subscribers by introducing
price cuts and better plan terms. Pre-merger, Sprint frequently
used "competitors' prices as a starting point" and "targeted each
of its three rivals by name and slashed prices accordingly."
T-Mobile similarly advertised itself as the "'Un-carrier,'
introducing one competition-enhancing innovation after another." As
a result, "[r]ates for retail mobile wireless services declined
across the market."
The Complaint goes on to explain, however, that competing as an
"Un-carrier" was "never the long-term plan of Deutsche Telekom,"
T-Mobile's corporate parent in Germany. DT tried for years to find
a merger partner to consolidate the market and boost profits.
According to the Complaint, when the merger finally closed, its CEO
bragged "It's harvest time."
The case alleges further that the only apparent effects of the
merger appear to be less competition and more consumer harm. Real
world post-merger data cited in the Complaint confirms that after
the merger, the competitive landscape shifted and consumers have
less choice. After years of decline in consumer pricing for
wireless services, since the merger quality-adjusted prices have
gone up and introduction of competitive promotions has fallen.
"We seek recovery of overcharges our clients paid due to the
merger, plus restoration of competition in one of the world's
largest and most concentrated markets," said Berger Montague
Chairman Eric L. Cramer, who also represents the plaintiffs. "We
allege that every consumer and small business in the U.S. is paying
the price for this anticompetitive merger, including our proposed
class of AT&T and Verizon customers who, because of the merger, no
longer face any pricing challenges from the former mavericks of the
telecom space."
This case follows an unsuccessful lawsuit filed by ten states to
block the merger and a settlement with the United States Department
of Justice. In both instances, T-Mobile made commitments to
government regulators and the courts to continue to compete
aggressively and at the same time help DISH emerge as a strong
fourth competitor to replace Sprint. The Complaint alleges that
neither promise was fulfilled.
"Courts cannot be expected to predict the future competitive
impacts of proposed mergers with perfect precision. This suit
alleges that the Sprint-T-Mobile merger is one example where
judicial predictions of the merger's effects did not align with
real world outcomes," said Gary I. Smith Jr., a Partner at Hausfeld
LLP. "Private enforcement actions like this one serve an important
function in remediating undesirable effects of a merger that should
not have been, and restoring competitive balance moving forward."
[GN]
DIGITAL TURBINE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 5, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Digital Turbine, Inc. ("Digital Turbine" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: APPS) securities between August 9, 2021 and May
17, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Digital Turbine investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/digital-turbine-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Digital Turbine is a software company that delivers products to
assist third parties in monetizing through the utilization of
mobile advertising. The Company completed the acquisitions of
AdColony Holdings AS ("AdColony") and Fyber N.V. ("Fyber") on April
29 and May 25, 2021, respectively.
On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release revealing
that it will "restate its financial statements for the interim
periods ended June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31,
2021, following a review of the presentation of revenue net of
license fees and revenue share for the Company's recently acquired
businesses."
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.93, or 7.1%, to close at
$25.28 per share on May 18, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and
Fyber, act as agents in certain of their respective product lines;
(2) that, as a result, revenues for those product lines must be
reported net of license fees and revenue share, rather than on a
gross basis; (3) that the Company's internal control over financial
reporting as to revenue recognition was deficient; and (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's net revenues was
overstated throughout fiscal 2022; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Digital Turbine securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
August 5, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of Ruling in Carmona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, LLC filed with the Supreme Court of United States a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled DOMINO'S
PIZZA, LLC, Defendant-Petitioner v. EDMOND CARMONA, ABRAHAM
MENDOZA, AND ROGER NOGUERIA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents Case No. 21-1572.
Response is due on July 18, 2022.
Domino's Pizza files for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled Edmond Carmona, et al. v. Domino's
Pizza, LLC, Case No. 21-55009.
Plaintiff Edmond Carmona and two other D&S drivers filed this
putative class action against Domino's in October 2020, alleging
violations of California labor law. The three lead plaintiffs each
had agreements with Domino's providing that any claim, dispute,
and/or controversy between the parties would be submitted to and
determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act.
The case presents a substantial and important question of federal
statutory law: Whether individuals engaged in the intrastate
transportation of goods that overwhelmingly originate in-state, and
that are purchased and stored in-state until subsequent purchase by
in-state third parties, are "engaged in foreign or interstate
commerce" and thus covered by the residual exemption of Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act.
In response to the D&S drivers' complaint, Domino's Pizza filed a
motion to compel arbitration on November 9, 2020. The district
court denied the motion, finding the Plaintiffs exempt from the FAA
under 9 U.S.C. Section 1 notwithstanding their contracts with
Domino's because they are transportation workers engaged in foreign
or interstate commerce.
The FAA provides that arbitration agreements evidencing a
transaction involving commerce will be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract. Section 1 of the FAA, however,
exempts from the arbitration mandate contracts of employment of
seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged
in foreign or interstate commerce. The clause setting out that last
category, the one relevant here, is sometimes referred to as the
"residual clause." The residual clause is afforded a "narrow
construction" to further the FAA's purpose of overcoming judicial
hostility to arbitration agreements.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 7, 2022, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner Domino's Pizza LLC is represented by:
Courtney Gilligan Saleski, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
1650 Market Street Suite 5000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-2431
E-mail: courtney.saleski@dlapiper.com
DONNELLEY FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Seal Exhibit in Toretto
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP TORETTO, DANIEL C. KING, and SHERI BRAUN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DONNELLEY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. and MEDIANT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-2667-GHW
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the parties' motion to
seal Exhibit A of their settlement agreement.
On June 17, 2022, the parties filed a motion to seal Exhibit A of
the parties' settlement agreement, which in turn is Exhibit 1 to
the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. As the parties' identify, Exhibit A "describes the
business practice commitments, or security-system and practices
enhancements, that are either presently in place or that Mediant
will put in place pursuant to the Settlement Agreement." The Court
granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement by separate order to be entered today.
"There is a common law presumption in favor of permitting public
access to judicial documents, which are those documents 'relevant
to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
judicial process.'" Applications to seal documents must therefore
be "carefully and skeptically reviewed to ensure that there really
is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need" to seal the
documents from public inspection.
A court balances this common law presumption of access against
competing considerations, including "the privacy interests of those
resisting disclosure." In Mirlis v. Greer, the Second Circuit
summarized the three steps that the Court must follow to determine
whether the presumption of public access attaches to a particular
document and bars disclosure.
First, the Court determines whether the document is a "judicial
document," namely, "one that has been placed before the court by
the parties and that is relevant to the performance of the judicial
function and useful in the judicial process." Second, if the
materials are "judicial documents," the Court "proceeds to
`determine the weight of the presumption of access' to that
document." "The weight to be accorded is 'governed by the role of
the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power
and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the
federal courts.'" "Finally, the court must identify all of the
factors that legitimately counsel against disclosure of the
judicial document, and balance those factors against the weight
properly accorded the presumption of access."
Having evaluated these factors, Judge Woods granted the motion to
seal. Exhibit A to the parties' settlement agreement is a judicial
document because it was filed in connection with the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The
weight of the presumption is modest.
Judge Woods considered the details of Mediant's business and
security commitments, but those aspects of the settlement are
prophylactic and intended to guard against possible future
breaches; they do not provide class members with redress for
asserted injuries. Further, the parties contend that Exhibit A
contains "nonpublic, confidential, and commercially sensitive
information" and that "public availability of the details of
Mediant's operating systems and system protections could serve as a
roadmap to anyone seeking unauthorized access to Mediant's
network."
Because release of the information contained in Exhibit A could
pose a security risk or cause commercial harm to Mediant, and
because the parties' request is narrowly tailored to protect only a
limited portion of the settlement agreement, the presumption of
public access is overcome as to Exhibit A. As a result, the motion
to seal is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at
Dkt. No. 144.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8e66a58 from Leagle.com.
EARTH BREEZE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Earth Breeze, Inc.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Earth Breeze, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05492 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Earth Breeze, Inc. -- https://www.earthbreeze.com/ -- offers lovely
eco conscious laundry detergent sheets turn laundry into an act of
loving kindness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ENERGY TRANSFER: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Energy
Transfer LP (NYSE: ET) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired common shares of Energy Transfer stock between April 13,
2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in ET:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form-2?id=28808&from=4
Energy Transfer LP NEWS - ET NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Energy
Transfer LP made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Energy Transfer had inadequate
internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors from
engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling activities,
and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to such
controls and procedures; (b) Energy Transfer, through its
subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC, hired a third-party contractor to
conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities for the Rover
Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the
drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when
a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017; (c)
Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil
liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
was actively investigating the Energy Transfer's wrongdoing related
to the April 13 release and consistently provided it with updated
information about FERC's findings on this matter.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Energy Transfer you have until August 2, 2022 to petition
the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Energy Transfer securities during
the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the ET lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at
212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form-2?id=28808&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
EVENING GLASS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evening Glass, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Evening Glass, L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-05469 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Evening Glass is a Limited Liability Company registered in Spokane,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
EYE CARE LEADERS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Farley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY FARLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EYE CARE LEADERS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00468 (M.D.N.C., June 21, 2022) is brought against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act by failing to protect Plaintiff and the members of
the Class' sensitive information.
In 2021, the Defendant lost control over millions of patients'
highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and
personal health information (PHI) in at least four data breaches by
cybercriminals, then concealed the breach from its customers for
months.
According to the complaint, during the breach, ECL permanently lost
control over patients' PII and PHI. But despite the breach's
devastating nature, ECL obfuscated the nature of the breach to its
customers and concealed it from patients. The Defendant breached
its duties by failing to exercise reasonable care in supervising
its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers, and in handling
and securing the personal information and PII and PHI of Plaintiff
and members of the Class which actually and proximately caused the
data breach and Plaintiff and members of the Class' injury. The
Defendant further breached its duties by failing to provide
reasonably timely notice of the data breach to Plaintiff and
members of the Class, which actually and proximately caused and
exacerbated the harm from the data breach and Plaintiff and members
of the Class'injuries-in-fact.
Ms. Farley is a former patient at Summit Eye Associates, an ECL
customer. She confirmed that she was a data breach victim by
calling Summit's hotline dedicated to the breach, which confirms
whether its patients' information was exposed in ECL's data
breach.
Eye Care Leaders Holdings, LLC is a record-keeping vendor for eye
clinics across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Alex Phillips, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
alexp@turkestrauss.com
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of First
High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
FHS American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's
March 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 11, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in FHS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=28798&from=4
First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. NEWS - FHS NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that First
High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the new
rules, regulations and policies to be implemented by the Chinese
government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were
far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material
adverse threat to the Company and its business; (b) contemplated
Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were
leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new
educational facilities which would have a negative effect on FHS's
enrollment and growth; and (c) as a result, representations made in
connection with the Company's initial public offering regarding
FHS's historical financial and operational metrics and purported
market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual
business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of the
Company at the time of the initial public offering, and were
materially false and misleading and lacked a factual basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in FHS you have until July 11, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased FHS securities during the relevant
period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the FHS lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=28798&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
FIRST HIGH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of First
High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
FHS American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's
March 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 11, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in FHS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=28798&from=4
First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. NEWS - FHS NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that First
High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the new
rules, regulations and policies to be implemented by the Chinese
government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were
far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material
adverse threat to the Company and its business; (b) contemplated
Chinese regulations and rules regarding private education were
leading to a slowdown of government approval to open new
educational facilities which would have a negative effect on FHS's
enrollment and growth; and (c) as a result, representations made in
connection with the Company's initial public offering regarding
FHS's historical financial and operational metrics and purported
market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual
business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of the
Company at the time of the initial public offering, and were
materially false and misleading and lacked a factual basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in FHS you have until July 11, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased FHS securities during the relevant
period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the FHS lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=28798&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
FLAGSTAR BANK: Wiedder Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bank, FSB.
The case is styled as Mark Wiedder, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank, FSB,
Defendant; Philip Angus, Movant; Case No. 4:22-cv-11446-SDK-KGA
(E.D. Mich., June 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Flagstar Bank -- https://www.flagstar.com/ -- offers a range of
banking and lending solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
The Movant is represented by:
John Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 221-6583
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
FLYKITE MEDIA GROUP: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flykite Media Group
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flykite Media Group LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05460 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flying Kite -- https://www.flyingkitemedia.com/ -- is a weekly
online magazine focused on what's next for the city and its
suburbs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GASKETS ACQUISITION: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gaskets Acquisition
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gaskets Acquisition LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05457 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gaskets Acquisition LLC is a Georgia Foreign Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GHP MANAGEMENT: Palmer to Pay $12.5-M to Settle Tenants' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Flemming of the Los Angeles Times reports that a settlement
was reached with respect to a class-action lawsuit was filed
claiming that Geoffrey Palmer, one of L.A.'s most prominent
landlords, withheld security deposits from more than 19,000
tenants.
Four years of court battles later, Palmer has agreed to a proposed
settlement and payout of $12.5 million, which could be an average
of $500 to $600 per tenant.
The settlement, which goes before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Elihu M. Berle on July 18 for preliminary approval, could mark the
end of a four-year legal battle that pitted tenants against
Palmer's company, GHP Management Corp.
Court documents alleged the company -- a subsidiary of G.H. Palmer
Associates, one of the largest landlords in Southern California
with more than 15,000 apartments in 23 Southern California
complexes -- withheld security deposits for years from thousands of
tenants by charging repair and cleaning fees without properly
notifying residents. [GN]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Muller Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL MULLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS (US) LLC, DOES 1 through 10, Case No. CIVSB2208805, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Missouri, St. Louis County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-00670 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of warranty,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC is a
pharmaceutical company based in Warren, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beth Herrington, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Telephone: (312) 324-1000
Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
- and –
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
franco.corrado@morganlewis.com
GOAL ZERO: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goal Zero LLC. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Goal Zero LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05474-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Goal Zero -- https://www.goalzero.com/ -- sells products that
capture and store portable power.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GOOGLE LLC: Phi Finney McDonald Named Class Action Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phi Finney McDonald acts for the Lead Applicant in a class action
commenced in the Federal Court of Australia against Google LLC,
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (Google Asia Pacific) and Google
Payment Australia Pty. Ltd. (Google Australia) (together, Google)
on behalf of eligible users of Android smartphones and tablets who
purchased Android apps distributed via the Google Play Store and/or
in-app digital content in Android apps distributed via the Google
Play Store from 6 November 2017 to 20 June 2022 (Google Class
Action).
The Google Class Action is funded by Vannin Capital and is the
subject of a registered managed investment scheme named the Google
Litigation Funding Scheme (ARSN 655 066 818) operated by CASL
Governance Ltd (Scheme).
Background
Google LLC owns and licenses software to manufacturers of
smartphones and tablets, called Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs). This software includes the Android operating system
(Android OS). Google LLC also developed and owns the Australian
Google Play Store and Google Play Billing, the payment solution
used by Australian Android users when purchasing Android apps and
in-app digital content from Android apps distributed through the
Google Play Store.
Google Asia Pacific is the Google contracting entity in relation to
Android apps distributed through the Google Play Store in
Australia. Google Australia, a subsidiary of Google LLC, accepts
and facilitates the processing of payments for Google Play Store
app and in-app purchases in Australia, and charges a 30% commission
to Android app developers for these purchases, or in some limited
cases, 15%.
Alphabet Inc. is the ultimate holding company of all three
entities, and is one of the largest companies in the world by
market capitalization.
Allegations
1. Google had a substantial degree of power in the markets for the
purchase of Android apps from the Australian Google Play Store (the
Australian Android Mobile App Distribution Market), the market for
the supply of licences for mobile operating systems (the Mobile OS
Licensing Market), and the market for the supply of services to
Android app developers for accepting and processing payments for
the purchase of Android Apps and digital content within an Android
App (the Australian Android In-App Payment Solutions Market).
2. Google was able to impose terms on OEMs and Android app
developers which restricted the ability of those developers to
offer other means of Android app distribution, and payment for
Android apps and in-app digital content from Android apps.
3. As well, Google was able to charge commission rates on those
Android app and in-app purchases over and above what it would
otherwise have been able to charge in a competitive market.
4. By the above conduct, Google, among other things:
-- gave effect to provisions in a contract which, by imposing
restrictive terms on OEMs and Android app developers, prevented or
hindered those developers from distributing Android apps other than
through the Google Play Store and from using payment solutions
other than those controlled by Google; and
-- supplied services to app developers for the distribution of
Android apps on the condition that those developers not use payment
solutions other than those controlled by Google for payments of
Android app purchases via the Google Play Store and of in-app
purchases from Android apps distributed via the Google Play Store.
5. The above conduct had the purpose, effect or likely effect of
substantially lessening competition in the following markets:
-- the Australian Android Mobile App Distribution Market; and/or
-- the Australian Android In-App Payment Solutions Market,
in contravention of ss. 45, 46 and 47 of the Competition and
Consumer Act 2010 (Cth); and
6. This conduct resulted in higher prices for users who purchased
apps and in-app digital content through the Australian Google Play
Store.
7. The above conduct also was, in all the circumstances,
unconscionable in contravention of s. 21 of the Australian Consumer
Law.
The proceeding seeks compensation for eligible users from Google
for the excess price charged to those users.
Eligible purchasers are automatically included as group members in
the claim. No further steps are required at this stage.
Further information about the Scheme is available at the Vannin
Capital website for the Google Class Action:
https://google.vannin.com. [GN]
GREEN TOYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Toys
Incorporated. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Green Toys
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05478 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Green Toys Inc. -- https://www.greentoys.com/ -- is the world's
leading manufacturer of eco-friendly children's products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HAMILTON, ON: Lawyer Responds to Dismissal Ruling in Crashes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Mitchell, writing for Global News, reports that a lawyer from
one of two firms handling a multi-million-dollar class-action
lawsuit tied to crashes on the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP) says
his clients are "disappointed" with a judge's decision to dismiss
the claim.
Robert Hooper, from the firm Grosso Hooper, says the group will
need another few days to make a determination on whether there are
grounds for an appeal and if one will be pursued.
"Clearly for the potential class members we are disappointed in the
result," Hooper told Global News in statement.
"Our team is in the process of reviewing the judgment to determine
if an appeal is warranted. We are meeting in the coming week to
make a final decision."
Superior court Justice David L. Edwards dismissed certification in
a decision on June 20 saying the claim didn't meet the threshold to
go forward.
He suggested the current judicial inquiry, led Justice Herman
Wilton-Siegel, may strengthen a future claim by creating more
public scrutiny than the class action brought forward.
"If the allegations against the city are proven to be true, this is
indeed a matter for significant public concern," Edwards said in
his decision.
The $250-million class-action attempt alleged improper design and
maintenance of the RHVP have resulted in numerous crashes since the
thoroughfare's opening in 2007.
Two Hamilton law firms, Grosso Hooper and Scarfone Hawkins, are
representing the families at the forefront of the claim --
relatives of Corinne Klassen, a London, Ont., homemaker who was
left disabled by a crash on the highway in 2007, and of Michael
Sholer, who died in a 2017 crash on the RHVP.
The claim drew much of its evidence from a 2013 Tradewind
Scientific report, which analyzed friction levels on the parkway
and suggested some safety issues with the roadway.
The audit recommended "remedial actions" and an investigation of
the asphalt after friction values were discovered to be "below or
well below" United Kingdom safety standards, which were used as a
benchmark in the study.
The report came to light in 2018 when the new director of
engineering services for the City of Hamilton came across the
Tradewind study and its recommendations for "further examination of
the pavement surface, composition and wear performance" and "more
investigatory work."
The claim alleged three failures by the city tied to the
construction of the roadway, and two connected to failing to
disclose the third-party report to the public.
The matter is the subject of the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry
(RHVPI) - commissioned by the city in February of 2019 to answer
questions about the Tradewind report - currently in it's ninth week
of hearings.
City lawyer Eli Lederman, in an update to the city's general issues
committee in early April, said the cost of the inquiry climbed to
$13.2 million.
Hamilton's legal staff have gone on record to say the final cost
could hit between $18 million and $20 million by the time it is
completed. [GN]
HOME WARRANTY: Petree TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BOBBIE PETREE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME WARRANTY ADMINISTRATOR OF
FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 2021-005821-NC,
was removed from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in and for
Sarasota County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-01451 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by sending text messages and/or phone calls
without prior express consent.
Home Warranty Administrator of Florida, Inc., doing business as
Choice Home Warranty, is a home warranty company based in New
Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
HONDA MOTOR: Hit With Class Action Over Idle Stop Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of TopClassActions.com reports that a new class
action lawsuit alleges that Honda knowingly sells vehicles with
defective idle stop features that fail to work properly and put the
safety of drivers and passengers at risk.
Who: Hamid Bolooki filed a class action lawsuit against Honda
Motor Company Limited.
Why: Bolooki claims Honda knowingly sells vehicles containing
an idle stop defect
that can cause them to suddenly become inoperable without
notice.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal
court.
Plaintiff Hamid Bolooki claims Honda has had "longstanding
knowledge" of the alleged idle stop defect yet continues selling
vehicles containing the idle stop feature and fails to disclose it
to its customers.
Honda vehicles containing the alleged idle stop defect include its
model year 2016-2020 Honda Pilot, Honda Odyssey, Acura TLX and
Acura MDX, according to the Honda class action.
The purpose of the idle stop feature is to temporarily shut off a
vehicles' engine when the brake pedal is fully applied and the
vehicle is idling before automatically restarting the engine once
the brake pedal is released, according to the Honda class action.
Bolooki claims the alleged idle stop defect is subject to "sudden
and unexpected failure" by not automatically restarting the engine
once the brake pedal is released, causing the vehicle to become
inoperable.
The alleged idle stop defect ultimately causes the affected Honda
vehicles to "suddenly and without notice, become inoperable and
undriveable wherever it rests," the Honda class action.
"Each purchaser or lessee of a Class Vehicle unwittingly paid for a
vehicle with an undisclosed and significant safety defect," the
Honda class action states.
Bolooki claims Honda is guilty of unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment/omission, among other things, and in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
Plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief along with actual and statutory damages for
himself and all class members.
Bolooki wants to represent a nationwide class and Florida subclass
of consumers who purchased or leased a Honda vehicle affected by
the alleged idle stop defect.
In March, Honda recalled 32,000 of its Honda Talon 1000
recreational off-highway vehicles over concerns they were
manufactured with intake funnel band screws that could loosen,
leading to engine failure.
The plaintiff is represented by C. Moze Cowper of Cowper Law PC;
Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren and Daniel R. Ferri of Dicello
Levitt Gutzler LLC; W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, H. Clay Barnett,
III and J. Mitch Williams of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
& Miles, P.C.; and Andrew Trailor of Andrew T. Trailor, P.A.
The Honda idle stop defect class action lawsuit is Bolooki v. Honda
Motor Company Limited, Case No. 2:22-cv-04252, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. [GN]
INOTIV INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Inotiv, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOTV) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Inotiv
securities between September 21, 2021 and June 13, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 22,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
To participate in the action, click
https://www.bespc.com/cases/NVAX
The litigation challenges Inotiv's claims regarding its Envigo
business, which the company acquired in Sept. 2021, including that
Envigo maintained "high standards of animal welfare" at its
Cumberland, Virginia facility and other animal testing sites.
On May 20, 2022, Inotiv announced that on May 18 federal and state
law enforcement conducted a search and seizure warrant on the
Cumberland facility. The company also announced the DOJ sued Envigo
for violations of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA").
Then, on May 21, 2022, the court in the DOJ's case ordered a halt
to vilations of the AWA at Cumberland. The court's order observed
that hundreds of beagle puppies died in the Cumberland facility
(many of which were not given anesthesia before they were
euthanized by intracardiac injection), nursing female beagles were
denied food, and many puppies died from cold exposure. About 3
weeks later, Inotiv announced it was closing Cumberland.
These events sent the price of Inotiv shares crashing.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Envigo RMS, LLC ("Envigo") and Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia
facility (the "Cumberland Facility") engaged in widespread and
flagrant violations of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"); (2) Envigo
and Inotiv's Cumberland Facility continuously violated the AWA; (3)
Envigo and Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to
animal welfare at the Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv
was likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5)
Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the
Cumberland Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due
diligence; and (7) 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.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Inotiv 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.
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 http://www.bespc.com/
Contact:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
http://www.bespc.com/[GN]
INOTIV INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Inotiv,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NOTV) securities between September 21, 2021 and June
13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Inotiv investors have
until August 22, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Inotiv investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On May 20, 2022, after the market closed, Inotiv disclosed that,
after executing a search and seizure warrant at one of the
Company's facilities, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a
complaint alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA") at
Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia facility.
On this news, Inotiv's stock fell $5.19, or 28.3%, to close at
$13.14 per share on May 23, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on June 13, 2022, after the market closed, Inotiv announced
the closure of two of its facilities.
On this news, Inotiv's stock fell $0.25, or 2%, to close at $12.78
per share on June 14, 2022, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Envigo and Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia facility (the
"Cumberland Facility") engaged in widespread and flagrant
violations of the AWA; (2) Envigo and Inotiv's Cumberland Facility
continuously violated the AWA; (3) Envigo and Inotiv did not
properly remedy issues with regards to animal welfare at the
Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv was likely to face
increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5) Inotiv would
imminently shut down two facilities, including the Cumberland
Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due diligence; and
(7) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Inotiv securities, have information or 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Contact:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
IONQ INC: Robbins Geller Notes of August 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of IonQ, Inc. securities between March 30, 2021 and May
2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until August 1, 2022
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Leacock v. IonQ, Inc., No.
22-cv-01306 (D. Md.). Filed on May 31, 2022, the IonQ class action
lawsuit charges IonQ as well as certain of its top executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A
similar lawsuit, Fisher v. IonQ, Inc., No. 22-cv-01536, is also
pending in the District of Maryland.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ionq-inc-class-action-lawsuit-ionq.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: IonQ claims to "build the world's best quantum
computers to solve the world's most complex problems." On or about
September 30, 2021, IonQ became a public entity via a business
combination with dMY Technology Group, Inc. III ("DTG"), a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or "blank-check company").
The IonQ class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum
computer; (ii) IonQ's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from
significant error rates, rendering it useless; (iii) IonQ's quantum
computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible
despite being available through major cloud providers; (iv) a
significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper
round-tripping transactions with related parties; and (v) as a
result, defendants' positive statements about IonQ's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released an investigative 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 IonQ reported "[f]ictitious
'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party round-tripping."
On this news, IonQ's stock price fell approximately 9%, damaging
investors.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased IonQ
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class action lawsuit.
Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action
firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm
is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone - more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is
one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
JACKSON NURSE: $658K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Musgrove Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, E. HOWARD MUSGROVE, an individual on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON NURSE
PROFESSIONALS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 17-6565 FMO
(SSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California issued a judgment
directing the payment of the following:
a. $7,500 service payment to Plaintiff Musgrove, in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order;
b. $658,333.33 in attorney's fees, and $5,424.37 in costs to
the class counsel, in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order;
c. fees and expenses to the Claims Administrator, ILYM,
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; and
d. $37,500 to LWDA pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Olguin so ordered pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Order"), filed
contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment.
All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, against any of the released parties.
Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in
the Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ys9xpcme from Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Amite Sues Over Harm Caused by Youth E-Cigarette Market
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03748 (N.D. Cal., June 24,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance,
negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.
The Amite County School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Amite County School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located at 533 Maggie Street, Liberty,
Mississippi.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Nu Mark LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
FRAZER PLC
30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 647-6464
E-mail: roe@frazer.law
trey@frazer.law
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis, Shenango Area Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHENANGO AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03726 (N.D. Cal., June 24,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, strict product liability, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Shenango Area School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Shenango Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located at 2501 Old Pittsburgh Road New
Castle, Pennsylvania.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Nu Mark LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
FRAZER PLC
30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 647-6464
E-mail: roe@frazer.law
trey@frazer.law
- and –
Bryan G. Baumann, Esq.
KNOX MCLAUGHLIN GORNALL & SENNETT, P.C.
120 West 10th Street
Erie, PA 16501-1461
Telephone: (814) 459-2800
Facsimile: (814) 923-4824
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Republic School Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT #309, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03730-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Republic School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Republic School District #309 is a unified school district with its
offices located at 30306 East Highway 20 in Republic, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: East Hollywood Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03747-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The East Hollywood High School case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
East Hollywood High School is a public charter school with its
offices located in West Valley City, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Eastmont School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EASTMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT #206, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03751 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Eastmont School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Eastmont School District #206 is a unified school district with its
offices located at 800 Eastmont Ave. in East Wenatchee,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Nine Mile Falls Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
NINE MILE FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03722 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Nine Mile Falls School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Nine Mile Falls School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 10110 West Charles Road in Nine Mile Falls,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Nooksack Valley Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOOKSACK VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03725 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Nooksack Valley School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Nooksack Valley School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 3326 East Badger Road in Everson,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Ocosta School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OCOSTA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03728 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Ocosta School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Ocosta School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 2580 South Montesano Street in Westport,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Quillayute Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Epidemic
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLAYUTE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03729 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Quillayute Valley School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Quillayute Valley School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 411 South Spartan Avenue in Forks,
Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Spokane School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03731 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Spokane School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Spokane School District No. 81 is a unified school district with
its offices located at 200 North Bernard in Spokane, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Highline Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHLINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03743 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Highline Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Highline Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 15675 Ambaum Boulevard in Burien, Washington.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KROGER CO: McCook FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAKE MCCOOK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2208805, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01030 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and
the California Fair Chance Act.
The Kroger Co. is an American retail company that operates
supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United
States, headquartered in Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert D. Prine, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-0500
Facsimile: (619) 400-0501
E-mail: Robert.prine@dinsmore.com
LA PETITE: Thompson Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASIA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC.; LEARNING CARE
GROUP (MI), INC.; AIMEE WARD; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 22STCV15788, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 24,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-04348 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 overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations,
failure to timely pay wages, and unfair competition.
La Petite Academy, Inc. is a company that owns and manages child
care and preschool education centers based in Novi, Michigan.
Learning Care Group (MI), Inc. is a child care and early childhood
education company based in Novi, Michigan. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
david.szwarcsztejn@ogletree.com
LUSHA SYSTEMS: Faces Sliozis Suit for Privacy Rights' Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE SLIOZIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUSHA SYSTEMS, INC. and LUSHA USA OPERATION
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10974-NMG (D. Mass., June 22,
2022) is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Illinois' Right of Publicity Act by using Plaintiff's and Class
members' identities for commercial purposes without having obtained
previous written consent.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed class are private
individuals who have no relationship with Defendants Lusha Systems,
Inc. and Lusha USA Operation Inc., nor with the website Lusha owns
and operates at www.lusha.com. The Plaintiff and the Class have
never used Lusha, nor did they provide their names, contact
information, job titles, places of work, cities of residence, or
any other personal information to Lusha.
The Plaintiff alleges that Lusha is using his name, personal
information, and persona to advertise paid subscriptions to
www.lusha.com. He asserts that Lusha advertises subscriptions by
publicly displaying teaser profiles of him and Class members
showing their names, current job titles, locations, and places of
work.
By using Plaintiff's and Class members' names, likenesses,
photographs, and personas in advertisements for website
subscriptions without consent, Lusha has violated their
intellectual property and privacy rights. The Plaintiff and Class
members have the right not to have their personas exploited to
promote a product with which they have no relationship and no
interest in supporting, the suit added.
Lusha Systems, Inc. is a crowdsourced data platform for
business-to-business sales and marketing that connects sales,
business development, and human resource professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett Lee, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
155 Federal Street, Suite 1502
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 383-4906
E-mail: glee@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
102 Bergen St.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Sam Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
MCG HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Lamm, writing for Law360, reports that MCG Health LLC, a
Hearst Health unit, has been hit with a proposed class action in
Washington federal court, accusing the health care technology
company of negligence related to a March data breach that exposed
the Social Security numbers and other personal information of
hospital patients and health plan emembers. [GN]
MDL 2913: Court Certifies Four Classes in Juul's Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and denies each of the Daubert motions made by
the parties.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of purchasers of JUUL
products on theories that the Defendants' marketing of JUUL was
unlawfully deceptive, JUUL was unlawfully marketed to youth, and
JUUL products are not fit for ordinary use. Each of the four sets
of Defendants -- JLI, the Altria entities, the Founder Defendants,
and the Other Director Defendants (ODDs) -- opposes. The
overarching theme of their opposition is that no class can be
certified given the "heterogeneity" of the class members: Each
named Plaintiff and each proposed class member were exposed to
different advertisements over different periods of time; each had
different impressions of the impact (or materiality) of the
misrepresented or information omitted by JLI; each experienced
different levels of alleged economic injury; and each had their own
"nicotine journey" given their unique use of JUUL products (as well
as other nicotine delivery products like cigarettes or other
e-cigarette products) and unique experiences with possible
addiction.
The individual differences the Defendants identify or attempt to
create do not preclude class certification. Some of the identified
differences -- for example, differences in advertisements that the
named plaintiffs or class members may have seen over time or
differences in the amount of JUUL product purchased -- are simply
not material. Given the legal standards applied to the Plaintiffs'
claims, other identified differences -- what an advertisement meant
or portrayed to a specific named Plaintiff or class member -- are
not material for purposes of class certification. Still more
purported differences hinge on classic "battles of the experts"
that must be resolved by the trier of fact. For example, will the
trier of fact believe plaintiffs' experts that JLI's marketing
campaigns conveyed a Unique Selling Proposition ("USP") that made
JLI's alleged failures to disclose material? Or will the trier of
fact believe JLI's experts that no such USP can be inferred from
JLI's marketing, especially given changes in JLI's marketing
materials over the whole class period? At base, the Defendants'
attacks on the Plaintiffs' experts present common questions that
cannot be resolved at this juncture and do not preclude
certification.
II. Background
The classes the Plaintiffs seek to certify, and the laws underlying
each class' claims, are:
1. Nationwide Purchaser Class (All Plaintiffs): All persons
who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL product — based on
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C.
Section 1962) (RICO).
2. Nationwide Youth Class (C.D., Krauel, and L.B): All
persons who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL product and
were under the age of 18 at the time of purchase -- based on RICO.
3. California Purchaser Class (Colgate, C.D., and L.B.): All
persons who purchased, in California, a JUUL product — based on
California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200) (UCL), California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750) (CLRA), California False Advertising Law (Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500) (FAL), Common Law Fraud, Unjust
Enrichment, Implied Warranty of Merchantability, and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2301) (Mag-Moss).
4. California Youth Class (C.D. and L.B.): All persons who
purchased, in California, a JUUL product and were under the age of
eighteen at the time of purchase -- based on California UCL and
Unjust Enrichment.
The classes are limited to individuals who purchased JUUL products
from brick and mortar or online retailers. The damages,
restitution, and/or disgorgement sought are based on retailer
purchases and prices. The proposed classes do not include any
individuals who purchased JUUL products only secondarily from
non-retailers. In addition, excluded from the proposed classes are
the Defendants, their employees, co-conspirators, officers,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or
partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; the class
counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their
immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to the
case.
III. Discussion
A. Class Certification
Certification under Rule 23 is a two-step process. The party
seeking certification must first satisfy the four threshold
requirements of Rule 23(a). Specifically, Rule 23(a) requires a
showing that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a).
Next, the party seeking certification must establish that one of
the three grounds for certification applies. The Plaintiffs seek
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires them to establish
that "the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." In the
alternative to the (b)(3) class, the Plaintiffs seek certification
under Rule 23(c)(4) for any issues that the Court determines are
fit for class treatment.
The process of class-certification analysis "may entail some
overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim."
However, "Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in
free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage." "Merits
questions may be considered to the extent -- but only to the extent
-- that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23
prerequisites for class certification are satisfied."
a. Rule 23(a)
1. Numerosity
The Defendants do not dispute that numerosity is satisfied for each
of the four proposed classes. As noted by the Plaintiffs' expert,
Hal J. Singer, unit sales of JUUL products in 2019 alone exceeded
$2.8 billion, and in conducting his surveys of JUUL users Singer
was able to identify several thousand individuals, including many
hundreds of residents of California and many hundreds of
individuals who used JUUL products as youths.
2. Commonality
The Plaintiffs identify several questions of law and fact that will
be determined on a common basis based on classwide evidence and
proof, including common questions of fact on the existence of a
RICO Enterprise and whether each defendant engaged in a scheme to
defraud. The Defendants do not dispute that some significant
common, classwide questions are raised by the operative class
complaint. Instead, they contend that individualized issues
undermine the predominance of common questions and preclude
certification of any of the four classes sought by the Plaintiffs.
Commonality is satisfied.
3. Typicality
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint Bradley Colgate, C.D.
(through Joseph DiGiacinto), Lauren Gregg, Tyler Krauel, and L.B.
(through Jill Nelson) as the representatives of the Nationwide
Class; C.D., Krauel, and L.B. as the representatives of the
Nationwide Youth Class; Colgate, C.D., and L.B. as the
representatives of the California Class; and C.D. and L.B. as the
representatives of the California Youth Class.
The Defendants argue that typicality cannot be established,
however, pointing to their chart ("Appendix F") that shows numerous
differences between each of the proposed class representatives and
deposed class members regarding: (i) when and why each proposed
representative or class member first used JUUL; (ii) what each knew
about JUUL prior to their use or their first purchase; (iii) their
experiences with cigarettes or other nicotine products; (iv) when
each became aware of JUUL containing nicotine and its
addictiveness; and (v) how each was impacted by the
purported-addictiveness of the product.
Judge Orrick holds that typicality has been satisfied for each of
the proposed class representatives. He says that the differences
the Defendants identify among the proposed class representatives
and other deposed class members are differences in the "factual
scenarios resulting in a claim of the same nature." He says, these
differences do not preclude typicality.
Among other things, Judge Orrick finds that (i) the Defendants fail
to directly connect any of these supposed unique or atypical facts
to specific requirements of the claims underlying each of the
proposed classes; (ii) given knowledge that sales to minors were
illegal, is a common and not unique issue that is better tested at
summary judgment or by the trier of fact who will weigh equities to
determine whether JLI's conduct was unfair with respect (at least)
to the California Youth class; and (iii) the potential unclean
hands defense is not a unique defense that makes L.B. atypical.
4. Adequacy
JLI and the ODDs argue that the following proposed class
representatives are inadequate because of lack of honesty and
credibility -- given alleged illegal behavior or alleged perjury --
as well as their lack of familiarity with the allegations in the
case and their misunderstanding of the role of a class
representative.
Judge Orrick holds the proposed representatives of each class are
adequate. He finds that (i) the slight misunderstanding regarding
the scope of the class claims in this complex case does not rise to
the level of making Colgate inadequate; (ii) that C.D. personally
wants the product off the market, does not make him an inadequate
representative; (iii) L.B.'s testimony shows that she is
sufficiently informed about the general nature of the litigation
and her role and duties as a class representative, and she has
provided an updated Plaintiff Fact Sheet; (iv) Kruel's somewhat
ambiguous testimony may be clarified or confirmed at trial, but it
does not impact his credibility sufficiently to disqualify him as
inadequate; and (v) Gregg is adequate to represent the Nationwide
RICO class.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the four individuals
who have been acting as Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, and their
firms, as Co-Lead Class Counsel. These individuals and their firms,
along with the Court-appointed members of the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee, will continue to work for the benefit of the class. The
Defendants make no challenge to the adequacy of Co-Lead Class
Counsel. Based on their thorough and robust advocacy to date, Judge
Orrick finds that they are adequate.
b. Rule 23(b)(3)
The Defendants' main attack is that the Plaintiffs have failed to
show that common issues predominate sufficiently to justify the use
of the class action device. While many of the Defendants' arguments
are untethered to or mix the various legal claims underlying each
of the four proposed classes, Judge Orrick addresses them in turn.
1. Predominance of Common Issues
The Defendants' overarching theme is that because purchasers of
JUUL are heterogenous, certification of any class is unwarranted.
In support of their arguments, JLI repeatedly mischaracterizes the
deposition testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts (often citing their
own counsel's question, as opposed to the full answer of the expert
being deposed) or cites supposed "admissions" of the Plaintiffs'
experts on topics those experts did not address.
JLI and the other Defendants also point to the deposition testimony
of the class representatives and other putative class members to
show that they had different "journeys" in terms of prior nicotine
use, different understandings of whether JUUL had nicotine and when
they developed those understandings, different knowledge of the
risks of nicotine, different reasons for starting to use JUUL,
different exposures to different (if any) forms of JUUL advertising
or product labels, and exposure to different information from
relatives or friends (who may have provided the Plaintiffs access
to their JUUL products).
The Plaintiffs bring four "types" of fraud-based claims: (1)
misrepresentations in advertising, (2) omissions in advertising,
(3) misrepresentations on the product labels, and (4) omissions
from the product labels. They allege that defendants' "fraudulent
scheme conveyed that JUUL products were less addictive than
combustible cigarettes, and omitted material information to the
contrary." The basis of the Plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims
regarding marketing is their contention that "JUUL marketing
contained deceptive statements and omissions because (1) JUUL
branding and marketing was pervasive and JUUL purchasers were
exposed to the Defendants' messaging and (2) the messaging,
although using different imagery and wording, conveyed consistent
messages about JUUL products that would be likely to deceive
reasonable consumers in similar ways."
Judge Orrick holds that all of these claims predominate. He finds
that (i) the Defendants ignore the specific facts and legal
theories here that distinguish the cases they rely on and the
expert support provided by the Plaintiffs that was missing in those
cases; (ii) the other challenges to Singer's conjoint surveys,
including the criticisms of the Defendants' responsive experts,
will be addressed with respect to the Defendants' Daubert seeking
to exclude Singer's initial and reply class certification reports;
(iii) the Plaintiffs have plausibly shown that "a critical mass of
consumers" were likely misled by the Defendants' conduct; (iv) the
Youth Class members were allegedly harmed themselves; (v) for
purposes of certification of the California UCL, FAL, and CLRA
claims, the named Plaintiffs have shown actual reliance and
materiality of the omitted information from JLI's marketing; and
(vi) there will always be differences between purchasers of
consumer products and those distinctions do not undermine the
disputed but sufficient showing by the Plaintiffs of a presumption
of classwide materiality.
In addition, Judge Orrick finds that (i) the Defendants may dispute
and challenge the opinions of Chandler, Emery, and Pratkanis
regarding the reach, impact, and message of JLI's marketing
activities, but those arguments at this juncture are sufficient to
support a method of showing classwide impact; (ii) exposure will be
addressed on a classwide basis through the Plaintiffs' experts as
to the unjust enrichment claim; and (iii) whether privity is
required between JLI and differently situated classes of purchasers
can be determined on a common basis and might result in a narrowing
of specific classes or class claims.
2. Equitable Claims and Standing
JLI raises a number of other arguments -- separate from
predominance -- that they believe precludes certification of some
of the classes or claims.
Initially, JLI argues that the Youth Class, and all other
equitable-only claims like the California Purchaser Class's claims
based on unjust enrichment, cannot stand under the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th
Cir. 2020). In Sonner, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's
request for restitution under the UCL and CLRA must be dismissed
because "the operative complaint does not allege that Sonner lacks
an adequate legal remedy.
Judge Orrick holds that how Sonner applies is a common issue, at
least when weighed against the different causes of action at issue.
As such, it is not a reason to deny class certification. Similarly,
whether the Plaintiffs' equitable claims fully overlap their
damages claims concerning each set of the Defendants cannot be
resolved at this juncture, especially because each set of the
Defendants repeatedly argues that they are differently situated
with respect to the timeframe of their conduct and the types or
amount of damages/restitution potentially available to the classes
under the various claims.
JLI also argues that because many purported class members were
addicted to nicotine, they received exactly what they intended and
expected (nicotine) while receiving reduced risks from those
associated with combustible cigarettes. Those consumers, JLI
argues, could not be harmed. However, consumers had a range of
e-cigarettes or other nicotine-delivery devices that were
available. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged and for purposes
of this motion offer (contested) expert evidence showing that had
JLI not misrepresented its product and omitted material
information, consumers would have paid less for JUUL products or
have chosen different nicotine-containing products. Hence, standing
is adequately shown at this juncture.
3. Superiority
Plaintiffs propose a Trial Management Plan to show that trying
these claims on a classwide basis is far superior to trying them on
an individual basis. Under the Plan, the Plaintiffs suggest
utilizing a two-phase trial for liability. In Phase I, the
Plaintiffs propose a joint bench/jury trial where the jurors (for
legal claims) and the court (for equitable claims) determine
liability, award aggregate compensatory damages, and determine
entitlement to multiple and punitive damages, as applicable, with
supplemental evidence concerning restitution or disgorgement
presented outside the presence of the jury. In Phase II (assuming
liability has been found in Phase I), the jury will determine the
amount of punitive damages owed by the Defendants. Following trial,
the Plaintiffs propose that damages will be allocated to individual
members of the Classes through a claims administration process.
JLI and Altria argue that the Plaintiffs' trial plan is unlawful.
They contend that allowing an aggregate damages award and
preventing the Defendants from contesting each class member's
entitlement to damages or restitution violates the Defendants' due
process and Seventh Amendment rights as well as the Rules Enabling
Act. JLI focuses particularly on wanting to test whether class
members purchased JUUL as opposed to other products or purchased
products for resale or purchased from a friend, which JLI contends
would put the purchasers outside of the class of injured consumers.
Altria particularly focuses on its right to contest whether each
class member purchased JUUL at retail during the time period Altria
was participating in the RICO Enterprise and whether particular
class members resold the JUUL products to others. Both JLI and
Altria argue that they cannot be stripped of their right to argue
their affirmative defenses to certain purchases, including
illegality, failure to mitigate damages, and resale for profit.
Judge Orrick holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated
the superiority of resolving the economic loss claims collectively
through a class process that protects the Defendants' ability to
fully raise and resolve potential defenses to those economic loss
claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is granted.
B. Defense Daubert Motions
JLI moves to exclude the opinions of five experts on whom the
Plaintiffs rely in support of class certification: Dr. Alan
Shihadeh, Dr. John Chandler, Dr. Anthony Pratkanis, Dr. Sherry
Emery, and Dr. Hal Singer.
Judge Orrick denies JLI's Omnibus Motion to Exclude.
Dr. Alan Shihadeh, an engineer specializing in tobacco products,
retained by the Plaintiffs to offer an opinion on whether or not
the "abuse liability" of JUUL products (i.e., the risk of these
products causing addiction) could be determined using attributes
common to all JUUL devices, and, if so, how that would be done. JLI
moves to exclude Dr. Shihadeh's opinions, arguing that his
testimony undercuts the appropriateness of class certification
because, among other things: (i) he admits there is wide
variability across the class; and (ii) his opinions on possible
warnings are both unscientific and illegal (as contrary to federal
requirements).
JLI's motion to exclude unspecified portions of Dr. Shihadeh's
opinion is denied. Judge Orrick holds that Shihadeh's opinions will
not be excluded on the basis of JLI's argument that his testimony
on subjects that he was not designated to opine on (e.g., warnings,
addictiveness of nicotine, differences in an individual's "nicotine
journey") somehow "admits" that class certification is not proper.
Those arguments go to weight and not admissibility. JLI's challenge
to Shihadeh's opinions regarding use of design aspects to opine on
abuse liability, and whether they are undercut by contrary
testimony regarding variance in user use, are matters for
cross-examination at the merits stage.
Dr. John Chandler, a Clinical Professor of Marketing at the
University of Montana and former Research Director at Microsoft
Advertising, was retained by the Plaintiffs to assess JUUL's
marketing and opine on its pervasiveness or "reach" meaning the
number of individuals who were exposed to JUUL's advertising. JLI
challenges Dr. Chandler's opinions because, among other things: (i)
he merely repeats "reach" estimates he found in JLI's internal
documents, many of which were estimates of the impact of campaigns;
and (ii) there is a disconnect between the information upon which
he relies and his conclusory opinions because he fails to match
"exposure" of any actual class members to the alleged message JLI
was supposedly conveying and that changed over time.
JLI's motion to exclude Chandler is denied. Judge Orrick finds that
to the extent that JLI attacks Chandler's statements about brand
awareness, Chandler relied on contemporaneous JLI documents as well
as marketing and sales data as additional sources for those
opinions. That is sufficient for present purposes. Chandler's
opinions about JLI's "intent" to target certain audiences and
"pervasiveness" are not excludable and are, instead, matters that
should be tested on cross-examination. There is sufficient
foundation for Chandler to opine on these topics at this
juncture.50 Finally, that Chandler did not look at any advertising
campaigns after 2019, yet the class period extends beyond that
time, does not require his exclusion in whole; advertising in 2019
may be relevant to purchasing patterns in 2020 and 2021. The
Defendants may, of course, argue at summary judgment or trial that
the class period or liability should be trimmed based on a
purported lack of evidence about advertising campaigns in 2020 and
2021.
Dr. Anthony Pratkanis, an experimental social psychologist and
Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of
California-Santa Cruz, was retained by the Plaintiff to analyze
JUUL marketing to determine the USP common to all of JLI's
marketing campaigns and apply his experience studying the science
of social influence and marketing. JLI argues that Pratkanis'
methodology used to determine the USP is based on nothing more than
review of JLI documents and historical advertisements to "reverse
engineer" the USP Pratkanis wanted to reach.
Judge Orrick denies JLI's motion to exclude Pratkanis. He holds
that at summary judgment and trial, JLI will be free to offer
evidence that actual consumers had a different understanding of
JLI's USP, that JLI's advertisements did not convey any consistent
USP, or that consumers took away a wholly different message from
JLI's actual marketing campaigns to show that some significant
portion of consumers would not have been misled by JLI's marketing
or would have found omitted material regarding health impacts
immaterial. At this juncture, however, Pratkanis' approach and
opinions provide an adequate basis for his USP and, relatedly,
class certification under the reasonable consumer standard.
Dr. Sherry Emery, Senior Fellow in the Public Health Group and
Director of the Social Data Collaboratory at NORC at the University
of Chicago who currently studies the impact of media marketing on
the sales of e-cigarettes for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), was retained by plaintiffs to review JUUL
marketing strategies and their appeal to youth. JLI seeks to
exclude Emery's opinions as not reliable or relevant because, among
other things, she: (i) conducted no original research for purposes
of this litigation; and (ii) failed to differentiate between
content-created by JLI and the more expansive content created by
third parties, which I have found could not form an independent
basis for liability under the UCL on a "ratification" theory,
except for a three month period in 2018 (reviewing JLI-Instagram
posts).
Judge Orrick denies JLI's motion to exclude Emery. He holds that
Emery's analysis of sales data and user interaction/response to
various phases of JLI's-own campaigns shows why JLI's own actions
and content intended and caused the subsequent content. The
Defendants' experts may attack these opinions -- presumably based
on their own empirical research, by criticizing Emery's correlation
analysis, or by distinguishing the methodology and approaches of
the articles Emery relied on -- but at this juncture Emery's
opinions will not be excluded.
Dr. Hal J. Singer, managing director at Econ One, senior fellow at
the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, and an adjunct
professor teaching advanced pricing to MBA candidates at the
McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, was retained
as the Plaintiffs' damages expert to offer an opinion on whether
economic injury as to the Nationwide and California Classes and
aggregate damages as to all Class Members can be reliably
determined using data and methods common to the Class. The
Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Singer's opinions because: (i) the
conjoint study is irrelevant because it does not match the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability; (ii) the conjoint study is based
on unreliable survey data; (iii) the conjoint study methodology is
flawed and biased; and (iv) the youth survey is unreliable.
Among other things, Judge Orrick holds that (i) Singer employed a
methodology to address the damages to Youth Class purchasers under
the theory that JLI's products should not have been sold to youth
but were nonetheless marketed to youth.; (ii) the challenged
portions of the Singer Reply Report were properly considered
rebuttal, but nonetheless gave the Defendants the opportunity to
file supplemental reports and allowed the Plaintiffs to a sur-reply
from Singer; and (iii) contentions that the respondents are
overinclusive considering the narrower class definition and
Singer's damages are resultingly overestimated go to weight and not
admissibility. In sum, JLI's motion to exclude Singer is denied.
C. The Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion
Dr. Dominque M. Hanssens, the Distinguished Research Professor of
Marketing at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, was retained
by JLI to review and evaluate the expert reports and opinions of
Pratkanis that JLI's marketing communications sought to create
demand for the JUUL product by using a "unique selling proposition"
of a "tech lifestyle product that satisfies," and the report and
opinions of Chandler that JLI reached all or nearly all media
consumers through its advertising. Hanssens concludes that
Pratkanis' report and opinions are based on the following, but not
limited to, critical flaws: (i) he ignored that JUUL's advertising
and messaging changed over time such that JUUL could not have had a
"unique selling proposition"; and (ii) due to marketing messages
and disclosure regarding JUUL varying over time, there were
necessarily "differential impacts" of JLI's alleged
misrepresentations and omission.
The Plaintiffs move to exclude the opinions of Hanssens. They
argue, first, that his opinions that marketers do not study or
recognize the impact on "reasonable consumers" is false, contrary
to established marketing theory, and made only for the misdirected
purpose of attempting to undermine Pratkanis's opinions regarding
"reasonable consumers." They note multiple cases and numerous
marketing treatises recognizing the concept of "consumers acting
reasonably," including cites from Hanssens own publications. The
Plaintiffs contend that Hanssens's critique of the reasonable
consumer standard is contradicted by the general practice of
marketing academics, and should be rejected as "an unreliable
personal opinion." JLI's responds that Hanssens' opinion that
"reasonable consumer" is a legal construct and not independently
recognized in marketing theory or research is well grounded in his
experience and does not create a basis to exclude.
Judge Orrick finds that Hanssens will not be excluded on these
arguments at this juncture. The Plaintiffs may, of course, renew
their argument at summary judgment or in limine. There is adequate
support for Pratkanis' opinions regarding the alleged USP as well
as Chandler's reach opinions to support certification. Hanssens'
position that marketers do not utilize the concept of the
"reasonable consumer" is not relevant to the standards applied to
determine whether to certify the classes sought by the Plaintiffs.
What Hanssens will be able to testify about on the merits will be
circumscribed by the jury instructions and applicable legal
standards. The Court need not delve into those questions at this
juncture.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Orrick denies the parties' motions
to exclude under Daubert. He grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The following classes are hereby certified under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
a. Nationwide Class: All persons who purchased, in the United
States, a JUUL product.
b. Nationwide Youth Class: All persons who purchased, in the
United States, a JUUL product and were under the age of eighteen at
the time of purchase.
c. California Class: All persons who purchased, in California,
a JUUL product.
d. California Youth Class: All persons who purchased, in
California, a JUUL product and were under the age of eighteen at
the time of purchase.
The classes are limited to individuals who purchased their JUUL
products from brick and mortar or online retailers. The damages,
restitution, and/or disgorgement sought are based on retailer
purchases and prices. The proposed classes do not include any
individuals who purchased JUUL products only secondarily from
non-retailers. In addition, excluded from the proposed classes are
Defendants, their employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliated companies; class counsel and their
employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family
members and associated court staff assigned to the case.
Judge Orrick appoints Bradley Colgate, Joseph DiGiacinto on behalf
of C.D., Lauren Gregg, Tyler Krauel, and Jill Nelson on behalf of
L.B. as representatives of the Nationwide Class; C.D. Krauel, and
L.B. as the representatives of the Nationwide Youth Class; Colgate,
C.D., and L.B. as the representatives of the California Class; and
C.D. and L.B. as the representatives of the California Youth Class.
He appoints Sarah London, Dena Sharp, Dean Kawamoto, and Ellen
Relkin, as the Co-Lead Class Counsel, with the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee continuing to work for the benefit of the class
alongside, and under the direction of, Co-Lead Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs will propose a Notice and Notice Plan, after meeting
and conferring with the Defendants, absent stipulation between the
parties, within 45 days of the date of the Order. As part of that
process, the Plaintiffs will propose a Class Period for the classes
certified. To the extent the Defendants have remaining objections
to the Notice, Notice Plan, or Proposed Class Period, after meeting
and conferring, the parties will submit a joint filing, not to
exceed 10 pages exclusive of exhibits, for Judge Orrick's ultimate
determination.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yc29cscefrom Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Pixel Tracking Tool
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Peng, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Meta Platforms
Inc. was sued over claims that private medical data is being shared
secretly with Facebook when patients access web portals for some
health-care providers.
Facebook's Pixel tracking tool redirects patient communications and
other supposedly "secure" information without authorization and in
violation of federal and state laws, according to the lawsuit filed
on June 17 in San Francisco federal court as a proposed class
action on behalf of millions of patients.
The world's largest social network has been sued and investigated
by regulators over privacy issues frequently over the last decade,
most often over allegations that the company illegally collects
information on users that it uses for targeted advertising. The
Pixel case is different because it alleges Facebook grabbed
confidential data while acting as a service provider on a hospital
web portal.
The plaintiff, who wasn't identified, described himself in the
complaint as a patient who has used a Baltimore health system's
portal to review his lab results, make appointments, and
communicate with his providers.
He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract,
violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and
a constitutional claim for invasion of privacy, among other
allegations.
On June 17, The Markup, a non-profit news organization, published
an investigation that found that 33 of Newsweek's top 100 hospitals
use Pixel on their appointment scheduling pages, which the report
alleged may violate federal health information privacy laws.
Several of the identified hospitals have since removed Pixel,
according to the report.
The lawsuit alleges the scope of the problem is much more
widespread. It cites at least 664 hospital systems or medical
providers whose websites have received patient data via the Pixel.
Meta didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The company's business help center page says: "If Meta's signals
filtering mechanism detects Business Tools data that it categorizes
as potentially sensitive health-related data, the filtering
mechanism is designed to prevent that data from being ingested into
our ads ranking and optimization systems."
The case is John Doe v. Meta Platforms, 3:22-cv-3580, US District
Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
— With assistance by Kurt Wagner [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Settles Facebook Tracking Class Action for $90-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Facebook agreed to pay $90 million
to resolve claims of unlawful user tracking on external websites to
collect data.
The settlement benefits people who were Facebook users between
April 22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011, and who visited non-Facebook
websites that displayed a Facebook "Like" button.
Facebook is a social media website used by billions of people
around the world. Since the website was launched, the social media
company has been at the center of repeated data privacy scandals,
according to according to Fortune.
According to a class action lawsuit against the social media giant,
Facebook tracked consumer activity through "Like" buttons on
external websites. This button allegedly allowed Facebook to use
session and tracking cookies to identify a user on an external
website that used the Facebook "Like" plugin. Even if the user
didn't interact with this plugin, Facebook was able to track their
activity across the web, plaintiffs contend.
"When Facebook's session and tracking cookies link the URLs to
specific persons, anonymity disappears," the Facebook tracking
class action lawsuit alleges. "Facebook can link the web browsing
of more than one billion people to their actual identities."
Plaintiffs in the case say Facebook promised it would never receive
user-identifying cookies through third-party website plugins if
users were logged out of Facebook while interacting with these
sites. Despite this promise, Facebook allegedly failed to remove
all user-identifying cookies -- allowing the company to track user
activity and match this activity with specific user identities.
The consolidated Facebook class action lawsuit argues users had
their privacy rights violated by this conduct. Specifically, the
complaint includes claims under the Federal Wiretap Law and the
Stored Communication Act.
Facebook hasn't admitted any wrongdoing in the consolidated class
action lawsuit but agreed to pay $90 million to resolve these
allegations. The deal comes after the The Supreme Court refused to
review an appeals court's decision to revive the complaint.
Under the terms of the Facebook user tracking settlement, the $90
million fund will be distributed among class members in equal
shares of the settlement fund.
Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims
filed with the settlement. The more class members who participate,
the smaller payments will be -- and vice versa.
The settlement also requires Facebook to "sequester and delete"
consumer data it collected during the class period.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 12, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the Facebook user tracking
settlement is scheduled for Oct. 27, 2022.
In order to receive benefits from the settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 22, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits people who were Facebook users between
April 22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011, and who visited non-Facebook
websites that displayed a Facebook "Like" button.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is necessary, but class members should enter
all usernames or URLs for Facebook accounts they used between April
22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011. Entering their username will increase
the chances of the settlement administrator finding their account;
if the class member cannot remember their username, the
administrator will try to find their account based on the other
information.
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
09/22/2022
Case Name
In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, Case No.
5:12-MD-02314-EJD in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California
Final Hearing
10/27/2022
Settlement Website
FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation
c/o Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com
844-665-0905
Class Counsel
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
GRYGIEL LAW LLC
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
Defense Counsel
COOLEY LLP [GN]
MICHAEL CAMPBELL: Sihler Files Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Campbell. The
case is styled as Janet Sihler, Charlene Bavencoff, Individually
and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v.
Michael Campbell, Respondent, Case No. 8:22-mc-00021-SDM-AEP (M.D.
Fla., June 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Compel.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY PC
4475 Peachtree Lakes Dr.
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
Phone: (657) 845-3100
- and -
Jordan Reid Wagner, Esq.
KIBBEY WAGNER
416 SW Camden Ave
Stuart, FL 34994
Phone: (772) 286-0023
Fax: (772) 221-8888
Email: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com
MOSS BROS: $638K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMAL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOSS BROS. AUTO GROUP,
INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. ED CV 19-2456 FMO (SPx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Central issued a Judgment directing the payment of the following in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the
Order:
a. $5,000 service payment to Plaintiff Johnson;
b. $625,700 in attorney's fees, and $12,588.03 in costs to the
class counsel; and
c. fees and expenses to the Claims Administrator, Epiq,
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Olguin so ordered pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Order"), filed
contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment.
All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, against any of the released parties.
Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in
the Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc8ftdwf from Leagle.com.
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Khadka Sues Over Proposed Equity Grant to CEO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Hari Khadka, directly on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE INC.,
Plaintiff v. MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE INC., DAVID MICHERY, JERRY ALBAN,
KENT PUCKETT, MARY WINTER, MARK BETOR, WILLIAM MILTNER and JONATHAN
NEW, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0542 (D. Ch., June 23, 2022) is a
verified stockholder class action complaint against Mullen and the
Company's board of directors for breaches of fiduciary duty arising
from the Board's failure to disclose patently material information
in connection with the stockholder vote on Mullen's mega-equity
grant/award to its Board Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer David Michery.
On June 10, 2022, Mullen filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission the Proxy soliciting stockholder approval of
the CEO Award at the Company's July 26, 2022 annual meeting of
stockholders.
According to the complaint, the Proxy omits patently material
information necessary to allow stockholders to make an informed
decision on whether to support the unorthodox and outsized Award.
Among other things, the Proxy fails to disclose (i) a copy of the
actual CEO Award Agreement entered into between Michery and Mullen
(and instead merely includes a less than one-page description of
the Award that omits critical information on the Award's terms);
(ii) the expected or illustrative grant date fair value (i.e., the
probability-adjusted value at the time of grant) for the CEO Award,
failing to provide any information from which stockholders can
understand the actual or expected value of the CEO Award or any of
its performance tranches; (iii) any details about the process
undertaken by the Compensation Committee to review and approve the
CEO Award; and (iv) that the benchmarks underlying several of the
tranches have already been met, entitling Michery to equity valued
at tens of millions of dollars immediately upon the CEO Award's
approval by stockholders.
Allegedly, the Proxy also falsely indicates that the vote will not
impact Michery's influence over the Company. Rather, in direct
contravention of the Proxy's beneficial ownership table, the Proxy
states that Michery purportedly already controls the Company
through possession of a majority of Mullen's voting power, says the
suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an order preventing the
Company from convening the stockholder vote on the CEO Award unless
and until the Board discloses to public stockholders all
information necessary for them to make an informed decision
regarding whether to support the Award.
Mullen Automotive Inc. is an American automotive and electric
vehicle developer and manufacturer. Mullen is incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Brea, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Dabkowski Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Department of
Assessment of the County of Nassau, et al. The case is styled as
Grzegorz Dabkowski, Jadwiga Dabkowski, all other similarly situated
Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The
Department of Assessment of the County of Nassau, Respondents, Case
No. 608397/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Department of Assessment --
https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible
for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential
and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Galeano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Department of
Assessment of the County of Nassau, et al. The case is styled as
Jose Galeano, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Department of Assessment of
the County of Nassau, Respondents, Case No. 608400/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., June 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Department of Assessment --
https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible
for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential
and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
NATIONAL FUTURES: Nefertiti Risk Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC filed an appeal
from a court ruling dismissing its lawsuit entitled SAMANTHA SIVA
KUMARAN, OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED CUSTOMERS 1-100, OTHER
SIMILARLY-SITUATED CTA'S 1-100, and NEFERTITI RISK CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION; JANE DOE 1,
COMPLIANCE OFFICER NFA; JANE DOE 2, COMPLIANCE OFFICER NFA; and TOM
KADLEC, BOARD MEMBER NFA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03668-UA, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit
was filed on May 11, 2020 arising from the Defendants' violation of
the Commodities Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated customers who opened accounts at ADM Investor
Services (ADMIS) during 2014, allege that the Defendants engaged in
a fraudulent scheme with ADMIS since September 2014 up to the
present, wherein the private futures account data, trading position
details, and personal private data of commodities futures customers
and commodity trading advisors (CTAs) were sold and/or distributed,
and gave fully disclosed access to the owners, employees, and
affiliates of the disbarred futures clearing merchant, Vision
Financial Markets, LLC, without customers' knowledge, permission
and consent.
The complaint further states that the scheme enabled by the
National Futures Association (NFA), solicits millions of dollars of
unauthorized fees and charges, estimated to total over $50 million,
from ADMIS accounts to be used to make personal payments to Howard
Rothman, Robert Boshnack and other Vision affiliates, across
interstate lines in Stamford, Connecticut, and other financial
benefits, which are fraudulently concealed from customers and CTAs
prior to account opening. The illegal acts of the Defendants and
ADMIS caused irreparable harm and damages to the Plaintiffs and
Class members and directly and deliberately thwarted fair market
competition at the expense of small customers and businesses.
On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint which the Court granted on June
2, 2022 through an Order entered by Judge Gregory H. Woods. The
Plaintiffs' claims against the NFA Defendants were dismissed with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Kumaran v. National Futures
Association, Case No. 22-1314, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 17, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC is
represented by:
David Kostus, Esq.
KOSTUS LAW
138 Norwood Avenue, Suite 1020
Lodi, NJ 07644
Telephone: (917) 664-1407
Defendants-Appellees National Futures Association, LLC, Tom Kadlec,
Board Member NFA, Nicole Wahls, and Vilia Sutkus-Kiela are
represented by:
Gregory M. Boyle, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 923-2651
E-mail: gboyle@jenner.com
- and -
Zachary C. Schauf, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 637-6379
- and -
Daryl Schumacher, Esq.
KOPECKY SCHUMACHER ROSENBURG LLC
120 North Lasalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 380-6556
E-mail: dschumacher@ksrlaw.com
NATIONAL RIFLE: Files First Circuit Appeal in McEwen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
National Rifle Association of America, et al., has filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TRAVIS McEWEN,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and INFOCISION,
INC., d/b/a INFOCISION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00153-LEW, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maine, Portland.
In this action filed on May 5, 2020, Plaintiff Travis McEwen
pursues class action claims on behalf of certain classes of persons
annoyed or harmed by unsolicited calls received from Defendant
InfoCision, Inc., on behalf of Defendant National Rifle Association
of America. For Counts A and B, the Plaintiff describes a class
comprised of all persons in the United States, who received a call
from the Defendants that utilized an "automatic telephone dialing
system," or "ATDS." For Counts C and D, the Plaintiff describes a
class comprised of all persons in the United States, who registered
their number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry but nonetheless
received more than one call from the Defendants within any
twelve-month period thereafter. Finally, for Counts E and F, the
Plaintiff describes a class comprised of all persons in the United
States, who requested to be placed on InfoCision's or the NRA's
internal do-not-call list but received more than one call within
any twelve-month period thereafter.
In April 2021, Judge Walker granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Counts C, D, E, and F (the do-not-call claims). Judge
Walker did so on grounds that the Defendants' calls do not come
within the meaning of "telephone solicitation," as that term is
used in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
227(a)(4).
In December 2021, Judge Walker denied the Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of Counts A and B (the
ATDS claims) because Judge Walker found that the Plaintiff
"plausibly alleges that InfoCision called him using an ATDS."
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2022, Judge
Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine:
(a) granted the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Certify the
Court's Dec. 20, 2021 Order for Interlocutory Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b); and
(b) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for (1) Rule 54(b) Entry of Final
Judgment on Claims in Counts C, D, E, and F;
(2) Certification of Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b); and (3) Stay of Further Discovery in this
Court.
Judge Walker ruled that final judgment will enter on Counts C, D,
E, and F pursuant to Rule 54(b) and discovery will be stayed
pending the anticipated appeal.
He further ruled that interlocutory certification is granted as to
Counts A and B, and the Dec. 20, 2021 Order is amended to include a
finding that the Order involves a controlling question of law as to
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.
The appellate case is captioned as NRA, et al. v. McEwen, Case No.
22-8015, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on June 17, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form is due on July 5, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and
INFOCISION INC., doing business as Infocision Management
Corporation, are represented by:
Terry M. Brennan, Esq.
Sam Camardo, Esq.
Daniel M. Kavouras, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Sq. Ste 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 861-7304
E-mail: tbrennan@bakerlaw.com
scamardo@bakerlaw.com
dkavouras@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Patrick N. Strawbridge, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
10 Post Office Sq
8th Flr S PMB #706
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 227-0548
E-mail: patrick@consovoymccarthy.com
Plaintiff-Respondent TRAVIS MCEWEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kaleigh Boyd, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRIAN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 7TH Ave Ste 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Ste 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0676
- and -
David G. Webbert, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEBBERT LLP
160 Captiol St., Ste 3
Augusta, ME 04330
Telephone: (207) 623-5110
E-mail: dwebbert@johnsonwebbert.com
NEW YORK TIMES: Hit With Class Action Over Auto Renewal Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com reports that a new class action lawsuit alleges
that The New York Times engages in an illegal "automatic renewal"
scheme with its subscription plans.
Who: The New York Times is being sued by a subscriber
Why: She says the Times auto-renewed her subscription without
her full knowledge
Where: New York federal court
Plaintiff Megan Perkins filed a class action lawsuit against The
New York Times Company June 21 in a New York federal court,
alleging deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment.
Perkins alleges that when consumers sign up for The New York Times
at the New York Times website or app, the company actually enrolls
consumers in a program that automatically renews customers'
subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year, and results in
monthly or annual charges to the consumer's credit or debit card.
"In doing so, however, Defendant fails to provide the requisite
disclosures and authorizations required to be made to North
Carolina consumers," the lawsuit states.
11 unauthorized charges, plaintiff says
The New York Times systematically violates the Autorenewal Statute
by failing to present the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear
manner in the contract offer, and for failing to disclose clearly
how to cancel the contract, the lawsuit alleges.
As a result of the company not making the disclosures, it
automatically renewed Perkins's NYT Subscription and charged
Perkins's payment method twenty three times after she signed up for
12 months, for a total of eleven unauthorized charges amounting to
$136 to Perkins's PayPal account without her knowing consent, the
lawsuit states.
Perkins is looking to represent anyone in North Carolina who
incurred renewal fees in connection with a New York Times
subscription.
She is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs, and a jury trial.
In 2021, The New York Times Company agreed to a $5.563 million
class action settlement benefiting certain consumers whose
subscriptions to the newspaper renewed automatically.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph I. Marchese, Philip L.
Fraietta, and Alec M. Leslie of Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
The New York Times Auto Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Megan
Perkins v. The New York Times Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05202 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
NEW YORK: DOH, OPWDD Face Class Suit Over PWDs' Discharge Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Silberstein, writing for the Times Union, reports that a
federal class-action suit filed in June charges that the state
Department of Health (DOH) and Office of People with Developmental
Disabilities (OPWDD) violate the rights of hundreds of New Yorkers
with developmental disabilities each year by keeping them in
restrictive institutional settings unnecessarily.
The case, filed June 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Disability Rights New York (DRNY), the
Manhattan-based Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm and Mental Hygiene
Legal Service (MHLS), names eight individuals with disabilities who
against their wishes are locked away in hospital rooms or
prison-like facilities despite having been approved for placement
in community-based housing.
One plaintiff, a 32-year-old woman from Albany whose initials are
M.L., has been living at Sunmount Developmental Center, an
isolated, fenced-in facility in Tupper Lake, since October 2012.
M.L. has been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability,
childhood traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.
She lived with her grandmother until she was 12 and was admitted to
a psychiatric hospital at 16, eventually attending a residential
school for children with disabilities where she benefited from a
therapeutic environment. She was placed at Sunmount after allegedly
pulling a fire alarm but the charges were eventually dismissed,
advocates working on behalf of M.L. said.
Living at Sunmount, which is cut off from public transportation,
deprives M.L. of a social life, family connections, work
opportunities, economic independence and cultural enrichment, the
complaint states.
She wants to live independently in a group home and was approved by
OPWDD for placement in November 2020. M.L. was offered a spot in a
home operated by a voluntary agency, Crystal Run Village, but the
offer was rescinded in May without explanation.
DOH and OPWDD, which jointly operate New York's Medicaid program
for individuals with developmental disabilities, are required by
federal law to develop specialized community-based residential
programs and services for people with developmental disabilities in
order to provide care in the least restrictive environment
possible.
But many patients eligible for these programs are kept in
hospitals, nursing homes, and other inappropriate facilities for
prolonged periods, often years, according to state data cited in
the complaint.
"We are talking about a statewide crisis. People who are approved
for community-based services languish in hospitals, nursing homes,
and intermediate care facilities. These are our family members who
want to be part of their communities. Instead, they are forced to
remain segregated in institutional settings." Disability Rights NY
Executive Director Timothy A. Clune said.
The eight individuals seek to represent a class of all similarly
situated individuals with disabilities who are approved by OPWDD
for community-based services but are instead institutionalized due
to the state's failure to provide community-based services in a
timely manner, the complaint states.
Complex case discharge delays are a growing challenge for the
mental health system across the U.S. It particularly impacts
patients with behavioral health or developmental disabilities who
have co-occurring conditions.
Delays are often attributed to difficulty finding an appropriate
placement as well as lengthy administrative processes, according to
a 2021 report from the Healthcare Association of New York State.
"Our system of care has a design flaw — it is primarily designed
for people with a clear path, for those who do not have complex
care needs upon discharge," the report states.
OPWDD simply doesn't have adequate mechanisms to transfer people
with complex needs, according to the lawsuit.
The Mental Hygiene and Legal Service analyzed 12,557 transfer
requests for eligible patients received by OPWDD between Jan. 1,
2015, and Oct. 31, 2021 and found that 4,494 never resulted in a
residential placement.
Of the requests that were honored, placement often took more than a
year.
The agency ranks requests by the level of urgency. Even individuals
categorized as having an "emergency need" saw an average wait time
of 278 days before they were transferred, according to the OPWDD
data, which was obtained by Mental Hygiene and Legal Service via a
Freedom of Information Law request.
State agencies have violated their obligations by failing to
provide the requisite medical assistance and services with
reasonable promptness if at all, the court filings state.
The delays are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and other federal statutes, according to the court documents. The
class is believed to comprise at least several hundred individuals
across New York State.
"Disabled individuals are being wrongly institutionalized and
denied their statutory right to reside in less restrictive
community-based residential settings that are more appropriate for
their needs, in many cases for years. We look forward to
vindicating our clients' rights to more humane treatment," said
David J. Abrams, partner and chair of the pro bono committee at
Kasowitz Benson Torres.
Today hundreds of patients with complex needs unnecessarily
languish in emergency departments and hospital beds, according to
the suit. Hospitals wind up serving as long-term housing rather
than a place to handle acute medical needs. It has taken a toll on
local emergency departments.
The ethics committee at Schenectady's Ellis Hospital wrote a letter
to former OPWDD Commissioner Theodore Kastner on Aug. 24, 2020 to
bring attention to the plights of two individuals with
developmental disabilities who had been languishing for months on
the hospital's inpatient psychiatric unit.
"We are seeing a pattern of cases where people with developmental
disabilities become stranded in an acute care psychiatric setting
for weeks, even months due to slow access or unavailable care
services within the (OPWDD) system," the letter states. "Hospital
staff are experiencing moral distress as the patient at hand awaits
a bed in an appropriate OPWDD residential facility. Staff see the
negative impact on the patient but are unable to do anything about
it, which is contrary to their duty to care and counterintuitive to
OPWDD's responsibility to serve people with developmental
disabilities."
Ellis staff recommended adding resources to OPWDD so the mission of
serving people with disabilities can be met, "correcting this
ethical dilemma."
The Office of People with Developmental Disabilities and the
Department of Health declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN]
NEW YORK: Mayor Issues Emergency Executive Order for City Jails
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Mayor Eric Adams on June 21 disclosed that WHEREAS, on
September 2, 2021, the federal monitor in the Nunez use-of-force
class action stated steps must be taken immediately to address the
conditions in the New York City jails; and
WHEREAS, excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and
supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and
disorder, and creates a serious risk to the necessary maintenance
and delivery of sanitary conditions; access to basic services
including showers, meals, visitation, religious services,
commissary, and recreation; and prompt processing at intake; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing shortages
are affecting health operations, including the availability of
escorts to bring patients to the clinic and of DOC personnel to
staff the clinics; and
WHEREAS, this Order is given to address the effects of excessive
staff absenteeism and in order to address the conditions at DOC
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, issued on
September 15, 2021, and extended most recently by Emergency
Executive Order No. 104, issued on May 26, 2022, remains in
effect;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:
Section 1. I hereby direct that section 1 of Emergency Executive
Order No. 120, dated June 15, 2022, is extended for five (5) days.
Sec. 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]
NORTH CAROLINA: State Health Files Writ of Certiorari in Lake Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees, et al., filed
with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the matter styled STATE HEALTH PLAN FOR TEACHERS AND
STATE EMPLOYEES, et al., Petitioners v. I. BEVERLY LAKE, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 21-1565.
The Petitioners seek a discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S.
Section 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of
Appeals of North Carolina, reversing and remanding an order of
summary judgment entered on May 19, 2017 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson,
Jr. in Superior Court, Gaston County.
Response is due on July 15, 2022.
Petitioners State Health Plan, et al., file for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of North Carolina in the case titled I. BEVERLY LAKE, JOHN B.
LEWIS, JR., EVERETTE M. LATTA, PORTER L. McATEER, ELIZABETH S.
McATEER, ROBERT C. HANES, BLAIR J. CARPENTER, MARILYN L. FUTRELLE,
FRANKLIN E. DAVIS, ESTATE OF JAMES D. WILSON, ESTATE OF BENJAMIN E.
FOUNTAIN, JR., FAYE IRIS Y. FISHER, STEVE FRED BLANTON, HERBERT W.
COOPER, ROBERT C. HAYES, JR., STEPHEN B. JONES, MARCELLUS BUCHANAN,
DAVID B. BARNES, BARBARA J. CURRIE, CONNIE SAVELL, ROBERT B.
KAISER, JOAN ATWELL, ALICE P. NOBLES, BRUCE B. JARVIS, ROXANNA J.
EVANS, JEAN C. NARRON, and all others similarly situated v. STATE
HEALTH PLAN FOR TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES, a corporation,
formerly known as the North Carolina Teachers and State Employees'
Comprehensive Major Medical Plan, TEACHERS' AND STATE EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NORTH CAROLINA, a corporation, BOARD OF
TRUSTEES of the TEACHERS' AND STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
NORTH CAROLINA, a body politic and corporate, DALE R. FOLWELL, in
his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of North Carolina,
and the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 2022-NCSC-22.
In this case, a class of more than 220,000 former State employees
(the Retirees) sued the State of North Carolina and various
officials and agencies after the General Assembly enacted a statute
that eliminated their option to remain enrolled in a premium-free
preferred provider organization health insurance plan which
allocated 80 percent of the costs of health care services to the
insurer and 20 percent to the insured (the 80/20 PPO Plan).
According to the Retirees, the State had undertaken a contractual
-- and thus constitutional -- obligation to provide them with the
option to remain enrolled in the 80/20 PPO Plan or one of
equivalent value, on a noncontributory basis, for life. In
response, the State argues that it never promised the Retirees the
benefit of lifetime enrollment in any particular premium-free
health insurance plan and that, even if it had done so, the
noncontributory plan the State continues to offer provides the
Retirees with a benefit of the same or greater value than the one
available to them prior to 2011, when the statute eliminating the
noncontributory 80/20 PPO Plan option was enacted. The trial court
agreed with the Retirees and entered partial summary judgment in
their favor. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the State, says
the suit.
The question presented is: Did the State assume a contractual
obligation to provide the Retirees the benefit of lifetime
enrollment in the premium-free 80/20 PPO Plan or its substantive
equivalent, such that the Retirees possessed a constitutionally
protected vested right?[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners State Health Plan for Teachers and
Employees, et al., are represented by:
Ryan Young Park, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
E-mail: rpark@ncdoj.gov
OKTA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Okta, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OKTA) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.
Class Period: March 5, 2021 to March 22, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in OKTA:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/okta-inc-loss-submission-form?id=28803&from=4
Okta, Inc. NEWS - OKTA NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Okta,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity
controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data
breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused
by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta
customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently
downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Okta you have until July 19, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Okta securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the OKTA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/okta-inc-loss-submission-form?id=28803&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Shriver Files Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SHRIVER, and JAMES LEE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN OF
CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03719 (N.D. Cal., June 23,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and for violations
of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
On March 19, 2022, the Defendant discovered that its internal
administrative system was breached by a ransomware group known as
Hive, which accessed, exfiltrated and/or published the personally
identifiable information of more than 854,913 individuals,
including that of Plaintiffs and Class Members.
According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to properly secure
and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected
health information that Defendant's enrollees entrusted to it,
including, without limitation, name, Social Security number, date
of birth, Driver's License number (if provided), Tribal ID number
(if provided), medical record number, treatment, diagnosis,
prescription and other medical information, health insurance
information, member portal username and password, email address,
and address maintained by PHC.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal information was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As the
result, the personal information of Plaintiffs and Class Members
was accessed, exfiltrated, and/or published by unauthorized third
party, alleges the suit.
Partnership HealthPlan of California is non-profit community based
health care organization that contracts with the State to
administer Medi-Cal benefits through local care providers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@ForThePeople.com
- and -
John Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
PJ OPS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Edwards FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CORY EDWARDS, et al., On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ OPS IDAHO,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN, in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho, Boise.
The lawsuit seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable
relief based on Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Idaho wage law.
Plaintiff Edwards worked for Defendants as a delivery driver at
their Papa John's Pizza restaurant at 1323 Broadway in Boise,
Idaho. Defendants improperly applied a tip credit to delivery
driver wages and failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers
for their delivery expenses, thereby rendering their compensation
below the minimum wage rate, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff also
claims overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 16, 2022, Judge
David C. Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
granted the Plaintiffs' December 3, 2021 Motion for Certification
of Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Under Idaho, Colorado,
Kentucky, New York, and North Dakota Law.
The Defendants seek a review of this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, et al. v.
Cory Edwards, et al., Case No. 22-80056, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 21, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, PJ HOLDINGS KY, LLC, PJ
OPS KANSAS, LLC, PJ OPS COLORADO, LLC, PJ OPS LOUISIANA, LLC, PJ
OPS NEW YORK, LLC, PJ OPERATIONS, LLC, PJ WEST FARGO, LLC, PJ
FALCON COLORADO, LLC, PJ COLORADO SPRINGS CO OP, LLC, PJ OPS
MINNESOTA, LLC, PJ ACQUISITIONS, LLC, TOM WYLIE, and DAVID "DOUGIE"
ALLEN are represented by:
Melodie McQuade, Esq.
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 388-1200
E-mail: melodiemcquade@givenspursley.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents CORY EDWARDS, et al., are represented by:
Andrew Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 MOntgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
- and -
John Grady Hepworth, Esq.
HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES
2229 W State Street
P.O. Box 2815
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: (208) 333-0702
E-mail: jhepworth@idalawyer.com
- and -
Mark Potashnick, Esq.
MARK POTASHNICK, P.C.
11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 275-9150
SANDERSON FARMS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDERSON FARMS, INC., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
granting class certification in IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In this complaint, the Purchasers of chicken meat (a product known
as "Broilers") allege that the Broiler producers conspired to raise
prices in violation of the Sherman Act. At the outset of the case,
the Court appointed interim class counsel for three classes of
purchasers: (1) direct purchasers; (2) commercial and institutional
indirect purchasers; and (3) end-user consumers (and all three
classes together, the "Plaintiffs"). Each class has moved for
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Plaintiffs rely on expert opinions from Dr. Colin A. Carter, Dr.
Russell W. Mangum and Dr. David L. Sunding to support their
motions, and Defendants have moved to exclude those experts
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. Defendants
also produced an expert witness, but Plaintiffs have not moved to
exclude his testimony.
The Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the
admissibility of expert witness testimony. A Daubert motion is type
of motion which seeks to exclude the presentation of an expert's
testimony to a jury.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2022, Judge
Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants'
Daubert motions, and granted the Plaintiffs' motions for class
certification.
Judge Durkin found that (i) the Defendants have produced electronic
sales data identifying thousands of direct purchases of Broilers;
(ii) the Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of class counsel
and there is no evidence in the record indicating that the
representatives' interests are not aligned with the class as a
whole for purposes of the litigation; (iii) the question of whether
the Defendants illegally conspired to restrict supply and increase
the price of Broilers is common to each class, as are questions
about the nature of the conspiracy, whether the conspiracy caused
the price increase, and what is the appropriate measure of damages;
and (iv) the differences in bargaining power do not undermine
typicality in the case.
Having found that all three classes satisfy the elements of
subsection (a) of Rule 23, Judge Durkin proceeded to address
subsection (b). He found that the opinions of Carter, Mangum, and
Sunding are based on reliable methods and data, and therefore
should not be excluded. He also finds that the Plaintiffs' experts
have demonstrated that common impact can be shown with common
evidence. Accordingly, he found further that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominate in
the case.
As to superiority, Judge Durkin found that class treatment of the
Plaintiffs' claims is superior to joinder of individual claims. He
did not perceive there to be another "available method" to address
the Plaintiffs' claims that is superior to certifying a class.
The Defendants seek a review of the Court's class certification
order.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 22-8007, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 10, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners Sanderson Farms, Inc., et al., are
represented by:
Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
Theresa Cederoth Horan, Esq.
Jenna M. Stupar, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
- and -
Paul D. Clement, Esq.
Erin E. Murphy, Esq.
Matthew D. Rowen, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com
STREMICKS HERITAGE: Duenas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GERARDO DUENAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STREMICKS HERITAGE FOOD, JACK
NOENICKX, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2202014, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01039 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 provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
Stremicks Heritage Food is a fluid milk company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Catherine L. Brackett, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
catherine.brackett@ogletree.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 securities of
Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) between October 28, 2021 and
April 27, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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 1934.
Teladoc provides virtual healthcare services in the U.S. and
internationally through Business-to-Business ("B2B") and
Direct-to-Consumer ("D2C") distribution channels. The Company
offers its customers various virtual products and services
addressing, among other medical issues, mental health through its
BetterHelp D2C product, and chronic conditions.
Teladoc touts itself as "the first and only company to provide a
comprehensive and integrated whole person virtual healthcare
solution that both provides and enables care for a full spectrum of
clinical conditions[.]" Despite recent market concerns over new
entrants to the telehealth field, such Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon")
and Walmart Inc. ("Walmart"), the Company has continued to assure
investors of the Company's dominant market position in the
industry.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
increased competition, among other factors, was negatively
impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care businesses; (ii)
the growth of those businesses was less sustainable than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result, Teladoc's revenue
and adjusted EBITDA projections for FY 2022 were unrealistic; and
(iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Teladoc would be forced to
recognize a significant non-cash goodwill impairment charge.
On April 27, 2022, Teladoc announced its first quarter ("Q1") 2022
financial results, including revenue of $565.4 million, which
missed consensus estimates by $3.23 million, and "[n]et loss per
share of $41.58, primarily driven by [a] non-cash goodwill
impairment charge of $6.6 billion or $41.11 per share[.]"
Additionally, the Company revised its FY 2022 revenue guidance to
$2.4 - $2.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA guidance to $240 - $265
million "to reflect dynamics we are currently experiencing in the
[D2C] mental health and chronic condition markets." On a conference
call with investors and analysts that day to discuss Teladoc's Q1
2022 results, Defendants largely attributed the Company's poor
performance, revised FY 2022 guidance, and $6.6 billion non-cash
goodwill impairment charge to increased competition in its
BetterHelp and chronic care businesses.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell over 40% to close at
$33.51 per share on April 28, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 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 TDOC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Teladoc Health, Inc.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
TELADOC HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 5, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TDOC) securities between October 28, 2021 and
April 27, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Teladoc investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/teladoc-health-inc-1/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On April 27, 2022, Teladoc released its first quarter 2022
financial results, reporting revenue of $565.4 million – $3.23
million less than consensus estimates – and "[n]et loss per share
of $41.58, primarily driven by [a] non-cash goodwill impairment
charge of $6.6 billion or $41.11 per share." Additionally, the
Company revised its Full Year 2022 revenue guidance "to reflect
dynamics we are currently experiencing in the [D2C] mental health
and chronic condition markets." The Company attributed its poor
performance to increased competition in its chronic care
businesses.
On this news, Teladoc's stock fell $22.48, or 40.2%, to close at
$33.51 on April 28, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) increased competition, among other factors, was
negatively impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care
businesses; (2) accordingly, the growth of those businesses was
less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (3)
as a result, Teladoc's revenue and adjusted EBITDA projections for
FY 2022 were unrealistic; (4) as a result of all the foregoing,
Teladoc would be forced to recognize a significant non-cash
goodwill impairment charge; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 5,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
TELADOC HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 5, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Teladoc Health, Inc.
(NYSE: TDOC), if they purchased the Company's securities between
October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
If you purchased securities of Teladoc as above and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-tdoc/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 5, 2022.
About the Lawsuit
Teladoc and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On April 27, 2022, the Company disclosed a host of negative
financial results, including revenue of $565.4 million, below
consensus estimates by $3.23 million, net loss per share of $41.58,
primarily driven by a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $6.6
billion or $41.11 per share, and revised FY 2022 revenue guidance
to $2.4 - $2.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA guidance to $240 - $265
million, which the Company largely attributed to increased
competition in its BetterHelp and chronic care businesses.
On this news, shares of Teladoc fell $22.48 per share, or 40.15%,
to close at $33.51 per share on April 28, 2022.
The case is Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al., No.
22-cv-04687.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com/
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
TERRAFORM LABS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on June 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Defendants TerraForm Labs Pte. Ltd ("TFL"), Jump Crypto, Jump
Trading LLC, Republic Capital, Republic Maximal LLC, Tribe Capital,
DeFinance Capital, DeFinance Technologies, GSR/GSR Market Limited,
Three Arrows Capital Pte. Ltd, TFL's co-founder and Chief Executive
Officer, Do Kwon, and its Head of Research, Nicholas Platias.
The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and captioned Patterson v.
TerraForm Labs Pte Ltd. Et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03600, asserts
claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act"), as well as under §§10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased so-called Terra
Tokens from May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff deadline
in this action is August 19, 2022.
If you purchased Terra Tokens, including UST, LUNA, KRT, ANC,
WHALE, ASTRO, APOLLO, XDEFI, MINE, aUST, vUST, MIR, Mirrored Assets
(e.g. mBTC, mETH, mVIXY, mTSLA, etc.), Liquidity Pool tokens (e.g.
UST-mVIXY-LP, bLUNA-LUNA-LP, XDEFI-UST-LP, etc.) and/or Bonded
Assets (e.g. bLUNA and bETH) between May 20, 2021, and May 25,
2022, inclusive, and have suffered significant losses, realized or
unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Sean
Masson (212) 519-0522, or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com, for
more information.
TFL is a company that operates the Terra blockchain and its related
protocol, which hosts, supports, and funds a community of
decentralized financial applications and products known
collectively as the Terra ecosystem.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct
that TFL intended to and did deceive retail investors and thereby
caused them to purchase Terra Tokens at artificially inflated
prices; endorsed false statements they knew or recklessly should
have known were materially misleading; and, made untrue statements
of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make the statements made not misleading. The complaint alleges that
TFL and the Individual Defendants also violated provisions of the
Securities Act by selling non-exempt security without registering
it. The complaint alleges that the TFL and Individual Defendants
also violated provisions of the Securities Act by participating in
TFL's failure to register the Terra Tokens. The complaint further
alleges non-securities claims, such as California common law claims
for aiding and abetting and for civil conspiracy. Finally, the
complaint alleges that all Defendants violated provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by
conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity. The complaint further alleges that the
Defendants violated provisions of California Common Law by
possessing the monetary value of Terra Tokens at inflated value
which rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the
Class.
On May 25, 2022, the price of the UST hit a low of $0.07 per token,
down from $1, which it has not been able to recover. The price of
UST and LUNA Tokens dropped by 91% and 99.7% between May 7, 2022,
and May 12, 2022, and has not recovered.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is August 19, 2022. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 19, 2022. Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the
proposed class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Plaintiff's
counsel, Sean Masson of Scott+Scott, at (212) 519-0522 or via email
at smasson@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency
cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals,
and other entities worldwide, with offices in New York, London,
Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia.
CONTACT:
Sean Masson
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
(212) 519-0522
smasson@scott-scott.com [GN]
TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Texas Record reports that a class action complaint
recently brought against Tesla is accusing the company of violating
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by
terminating workers without providing sufficient notice.
John Lynch and Daxton Hartsfield, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed the suit June 19 in the U.S.
District Court for Western Texas.
Prior to their terminations, Lynch and Hartsfield were employed in
Tesla's Gigafactory 2 plant in Sparks, Nevada. On June 10, 2022,
Lynch was notified that his employment was being terminated
effective immediately. Tesla did not provide 60 days advance
written notice, or any advance notice at all, to Lynch, according
to the suit.
Five days later, Hartsfield learned that his employment was being
terminated effective immediately without sufficient notice.
"Upon information and belief, thousands of other employees working
for Tesla across the United States have been terminated," the suit
states. "In fact, Tesla terminated more than 500 employees alone at
its Gigafactory 2 plant in Sparks, Nevada where the named
Plaintiffs were employed.
"Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have
not received written notice at least sixty (60) days in advance of
the termination of their employment, and have not received as much
notice as practicable under the circumstances."
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and attorney's
fees.
They are represented by Herrmann Law in Fort Worth.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00597 [GN]
TESLA MOTORS: Sued By Former Employees for Illegal Staff Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Tesla Canada reports that Tesla is facing a new lawsuit from
ex-staffers alleging the company illegally laid off workers without
appropriate notice. Elon Musk recently announced Tesla would have
another round of job cuts.
The lawsuit was filed by two ex-employees, John Lynch and Daxton
Hartsfield, based in Nevada, and they are complaining Tesla did not
give them the 60-day notice required by the law.
The law in question is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification act. It mandates companies to pay their workers during
the 60 days waiting period.
The duo wants other laid-off employees to join them in the
class-action suit, according to a report by The Telegraph.
The lawsuit was filed in Texas, where Musk recently moved its
headquarters. It says in part, "Tesla has failed to give plaintiffs
and the class members any advance written notice of their
terminations. Instead, Tesla has simply notified the employees that
their terminations would be effective immediately. Tesla has also
failed to provide a statement of the basis for reducing the
notification period to zero days advance notice.
"Tesla's failure to provide its employees with any advance written
notice has had a devastating economic impact on plaintiffs and the
class members."
The ex-employees want to claim pay and benefits for the 60-day
period and other relief the law may say they are entitled to.
In a memo sent to the company executives earlier this month, Musk
warned that Tesla would shed up to 10 percent of its workforce
because he had a "super bad feeling" about the economy. The company
would also freeze all hiring globally.
Many employees have since come forward to say they were let go as
part of the planned cuts. [GN]
TEXAS A&M: Athletic Boosters Can't Pursue Football Games Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Texas A&M
University's athletic boosters are barred from pursuing as a class
action their claims over the school's decision to drop priority
seating and parking benefits at football games, after the Texas
Supreme Court let stand a state appeals court ruling in favor of
the school.
The state high court denied the petition for review without
explanation in an order filed June 17.
Nathan Hines sought to pursue a class action on behalf of those who
made endowments to the university's 12th Man Foundation Permanently
Endowed Scholarship Program. The program ran from the 1970s until
the 2000s. [GN]
TRILLER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Biometric Collection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that plaintiffs
have voluntarily dropped their proposed class action against
Triller Inc. over its alleged illegal collection of "facial
imprint" biometric data, according to a filing in New York federal
court.
Tamara Wilson, who sued the social media app in December, had
accused Triller of analyzing users' faces with its audio syncing
features and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Video
Privacy Protection Act, among other laws.
Wilson's notice of voluntary dismissal, filed June 17 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, didn't cite a
reason for moving for dismissal. [GN]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Tupperware Brands
Corporation ("Tupperware" or the "Company") of a class action
securities lawsuit.
The lawsuit on behalf of Tupperware investors has been commenced in
the the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired
certain Tupperware Brands Corporation securities between November
3, 2021 and May 3, 2022. Follow the link below to get more
information and be contacted by a member of our team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=28943&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Tupperware Brands Corporation NEWS - TUP NEWS
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Tupperware was facing
significant challenges in maintaining its earnings and sales
performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware's full-year 2022 guidance
was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Tupperware's financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Tupperware during the relevant timeframe, you have until August 15,
2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=28943&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
U.S. WELL: Brager Eagel Launches Probe Over Profac Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, has launched an investigation into whether the
officers or directors of U.S. Well Services, Inc. ("USWS") breached
their fiduciary duties or violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the company's acquisition by ProFrac Holding Corp.
(NASDAQ: PFHC) ("ProFrac").
To learn more and participate in the action, click
https://www.bespc.com/cases/usws
On June 21, 2022, USWS announced that it had entered into an
agreement to be acquired by ProFrac in a stock-for-stock deal.
Pursuant to the merger agreement, USWS shareholders will receive
0.0561 shares of ProFrac Class A common stock for each share of
USWS Class A common stock. The deal is scheduled to close in the
fourth quarter of 2022.
Bragar Eagel & Squire is concerned that USWS's board of directors
oversaw an unfair process and ultimately agreed to an inadequate
merger agreement. Accordingly, the firm is investigating all
relevant aspects of the deal and is committed to securing the best
result possible for USWS's stockholders.
If you own shares of USWS and are concerned about the proposed
merger, or you are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Melissa Fortunato by email at mergers@bespc.com or telephone at
(646) 860-9157, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
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 http://www.bespc.com/
Contact:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
mergers@bespc.com [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Uber
and Lyft exploit their drivers while maintaining a duopoly with
their ride hailing services, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Taj Gill, Esterphanie St. Juste, and Benjamin Valdez
claim Uber and Lyft are violating California antitrust and consumer
protection laws while depriving their drivers of "economic
independence."
Gill, St. Juste, and Valdez, all current Uber and Lyft drivers,
claim the rideshare companies are doing what is known as "vertical
price fixing," which they argue "harms drivers and customers by
allowing Uber and Lyft to increase customer prices even while
suppressing driver pay."
Further, the drivers argue Uber and Lyft have adopted price
restraints aimed at suppressing competition between the two
companies in regard to working conditions and compensation for
drivers.
"Defendants label their drivers independent contractors, yet
deprive those drivers of economic independence by fixing the prices
that drivers must charge to customers for rides," states the Uber
class action.
Gill, St. Juste, and Valdez want to represent a California Class of
individuals who have driven for Uber or Lyft within the past four
years and who have opted out of the companies arbitration
agreements.
The drivers claim Uber and Lyft limit their drivers' compensation
in order to give them "no choice but to participate in game-like
compensation packages that offer drivers a premium payment."
An example of a "game-like compensation package," according to
Gill, St. Juste, and Valdez, is for Uber/Lyft to offer higher pay
for completing a set number of trips within a short period.
"These practices are designed to make it harder for Uber and Lyft
drivers, nominally independent contractors, to switch between
ride-hailing platforms based on which would pay them more," states
the Lyft class action.
Gill, St. Juste, and Valdez claim Uber and Lyft are in violation of
California's Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law and Business
and Professions Code.
Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief along with treble and punitive damages for
themselves and all Class Members.
Uber agreed in April to an $8.44 million settlement made to resolve
claims it misclassified its drivers as independent contractors.
If you work as an Uber or Lyft driver anywhere in the United States
and provided an opt-out notice regarding arbitration to the
company, you may be eligible for an employee misclassification
class action lawsuit investigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Rachel W. Dempsey and David H.
Seligman of Towards Justice, and Rafey Balabanian, Yaman Salahi,
and P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo of Edelson PC.
The Uber Lyft Price Fixing Class Action Lawsuit is Gill, et al. v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Francisco. [GN]
UNILEVER PLC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Unilever PLC
(NYSE: UL) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Unilever American Depositary Receipts between September 2,
2020 and July 21, 2021, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 15, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in UL:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/unilever-plc-loss-submission-form?id=28815&from=4
Unilever PLC NEWS - UL NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Unilever PLC made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: a) in July 2020, the board of Ben &
Jerry's, one of Unilever's marquee brands, passed a resolution to
end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" ;
and b) this boycott decision risked adverse governmental actions
for violations of laws, executive orders, or resolutions aimed at
discouraging boycotts, divestment, and sanctions of Israel adopted
by 35 U.S. states.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Unilever you have until August 15, 2022 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Unilever securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the UL lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at
212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/unilever-plc-loss-submission-form?id=28815&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
UNITED STATES: All Except Religious Claims in Crosby v. DOD Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOWARD CROSBY, et al., Plaintiffs v. LLOYD AUSTIN,
III, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-2730-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, dismissed all of Crosby's claims, other
than his religious objections.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' "Motion to
Dismiss," filed on June 1, 2022. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff Crosby
filed a response in opposition.
The Plaintiff, a noncommissioned officer in the United States Army,
challenges the U.S. military's covid-19 vaccine mandate. His
challenges are based on alleged violations of: (1) informed consent
laws due to the alleged unavailability of an FDA-licensed vaccine;
(2) the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"); (3) the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"); and (4) the First Amendment's
Free Exercise Clause.
Upon review, Judge Barber finds that all of the Plaintiff's claims,
other than his religious objections, are subject to dismissal for a
"simple overarching reason: Under Article II of the Constitution,
the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces." The President, not the
federal courts, runs the U.S. military. Except for the Plaintiff's
religious claims, Judge Barber declines to intrude upon the
authority of the Executive in military affairs and will not attempt
to adjudicate the wisdom of professional military judgments.
As to the Plaintiff's religious claims, in the interest of judicial
economy, Judge Barber transfers the case to the Honorable Steven D.
Merryday, with his consent, as it appears related to a pending
class action lawsuit before his Honor.
Accordingly, all claims, other than Plaintiff Crosby's religious
objections, are dismissed. The Clerk is directed to transfer this
case to Judge Merryday, with his consent.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mufhue5p from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: All Except Religious Claims in Hyatt v. DOD Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN HYATT, Plaintiff v. LLOYD AUSTIN, III, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-1188-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom
Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, dismissed all claims, other than Plaintiff
Hyatt's religious objections.
Plaintiff John Hyatt, a Chief Warrant Officer-4 in the United
States Marine Corps, challenges the U.S. military's covid-19
vaccine mandate. His challenges are based on alleged violations of:
(1) informed consent laws due to the alleged unavailability of an
FDA-licensed vaccine; (2) the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and (4) the First Amendment's
Free Exercise Clause.
Upon review, Judge Barber finds that all of the Plaintiff's claims,
other than his religious objections, are subject to dismissal for a
"simple overarching reason: Under Article II of the Constitution,
the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces." The President, not the
federal courts, runs the U.S. military. Except for the Plaintiff's
religious claims, Judge Barber declines to intrude upon the
authority of the Executive in military affairs and will not attempt
to adjudicate the wisdom of professional military judgments.
As to the Plaintiff's religious claims, in the interest of judicial
economy, Judge Barber transfers the case to the Honorable Steven D.
Merryday, with his consent, as it appears related to a pending
class action lawsuit before his Honor.
Accordingly, all claims, other than Plaintiff Hyatt's religious
objections, are dismissed. The Clerk is directed to transfer the
case to Judge Merryday, with his consent. The Clerk is directed to
terminate the Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Action Pursuant to
Local Rule 1.07 as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc3uwpy3 from Leagle.com.
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
WEI ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID J. GIROUARD,
and SANJAY DATTA, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03668 (N.D. Cal.,
June 22, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased Upstart
securities between March 18, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive,
against Upstart and certain of its officers seeking to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Upstart is a financial technology firm that uses artificial
intelligence (AI) and data science to underwrite consumer credit.
The Company partners with banks to offer credit to consumers,
either through the Upstart website or through banking partner
websites embedded with Upstart technology. Upstart claims that its
underwriting process allows banking partners to originate credit
with higher approval rates, lower loss rates, and a high degree of
automation.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants claimed that the lack
of loans the Company retained on its balance sheet ensured it only
was exposed to limited credit risk. In reality, as investors
learned after markets closed on May 9, 2022, the Company's highly
touted, AI underwriting model was unable to adequately assess
credit risk in changing macroeconomic conditions. As a result,
Upstart had been increasingly underwriting progressively less
creditworthy loans throughout the Class Period, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities
when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
VERRICA PHARMA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Verrica
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: May 28, 2021 to May 24, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 5, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in VRCA:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=28810&from=4
Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NEWS - VRCA NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Verrica
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were
manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract
manufacturer produced a bulk solution for the Company's lead
product candidate, VP-102; (2) these deficiencies were not
remediated when Verrica resubmitted its New Drug Application for
VP-12 for molluscum; (3) the foregoing presented significant risks
to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum;
and (4) 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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Verrica you have until August 5, 2022 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Verrica securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the VRCA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=28810&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
VIKING RIVER: Supreme Court Ruling in Moriana PAGA Suit Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Supreme Court ruled 8-1
(Viking River Cruises v. Moriana) that California's Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) -- aka the trial lawyer enrichment act
-- doesn't supersede class-action waivers. Now watch unions and
trial lawyers turn lemons into lemonade with a recipe from Justice
Sonia Sotomayor.
Viking employee Angie Moriana agreed when she was hired to
arbitrate disputes individually. But after leaving the company she
sued Viking under PAGA for failing to provide final wages within 72
hours as required by state law. Ms. Moriana added to her complaint
violations allegedly suffered by others.
PAGA is the bane of each employer in California. It lets employees
stand in for the state Attorney General and sue employers over
minor and unintentional labor violations. Workers who prevail hold
25% of the penalties towards employers -- a lot of which matches to
trial legal professionals -- and the state will get 75%.
Viking moved to arbitrate Ms. Moriana's particular person declare
and dismiss these she filed on behalf of Viking employees. The U.S.
Supreme Court in recent times has repeatedly affirmed that the
Federal Arbitration Act broadly pre-empts inconsistent state legal
guidelines, however California courts nonetheless dominated that
Viking's class-action waiver was unenforceable below PAGA.
At problem earlier than the Supreme Court was whether or not PAGA
might prohibit class-action waivers in employer arbitration
agreements. The three liberal Justices joined 5 conservatives (with
Justice Clarence Thomas within the dissent) in a slender resolution
that Viking might compel Ms. Moriana to arbitrate individually.
But the Court additionally urged her claims on behalf of different
employees might theoretically be severed and litigated in court
docket. The rub, as Justice
Samuel Alito notes within the majority opinion, is that "PAGA
provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate" class-wide
claims as soon as a person's declare has gone to arbitration.
That means present state regulation doesn't let employees sure by
class-action waivers sue employers on behalf of different
employees. But Justice Sotomayor in a concurrence invitations the
state Legislature "to modify the scope of statutory standing under
PAGA within state and federal constitutional limits."
Translation: Democrats might amend state regulation to allow third
events equivalent to unions to sue on behalf of employees. Trial
legal professionals, unions and Democratic legislators pounced on
her suggestion. Democratic state Sen. Dave Cortese stated he was
“prepared to author legislation to respond" to the Court
resolution.
Trial legal professional Shannon Liss-Riordan, who sues gig firms
for a dwelling, advised the Legislature to "get busy." Labor
activist Lorena Gonzalez tweeted: "Well #CALeg- Justice Sotomayor
just handed huge PAGA changes to you to modify the scope of
statutory standing within state & federal constitutional limits in
Viking River. We are here to help!" No doubt.
The Court's Viking resolution could possibly be a pyrrhic victory
for employers. It additionally appears to augur extra judicial
pragmatism among the many three liberal Justices who joined the
conservative majority on a slender ruling that lets unions and
trial legal professionals reside to struggle one other day. And
struggle they'll.[GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Class Action Over Defective Water Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Volkswagen Group agreed to a water
pump class action settlement to resolve claims that certain
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles are equipped with defective water
pumps.
The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles from model years 2014 to 2021.
Affected Volkswagen models include:
2019-2021 Areteon
2018-2020 Atlas
2014-2018 Beetle
2015-2021 Golf
2014-2021 Jetta
2014-2021 Passat
2020-2021 Terramont
2018-2021 Tiguan
Affected Audi models include:
2015-2020 A3
2015-2020 A4
2015-2019 A5
2015-2020 A6
2015-2020 Q3
2015-2021 Q5
2017-2020 Q7
2015-2020 TT
However, not all vehicles from these model years are included in
the settlement. Prospective class members can check their
eligibility using the settlement website's VIN lookup tool.
Volkswagen and Audi are two luxury car brands owned by the
Volkswagen Group. The company also sells cars under brands such as
Porsche, Lamborghini, Ducati and Bentley.
According to a 2021 class action lawsuit, Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles are equipped with defective engine water pumps. These
components are allegedly manufactured with defective thermoplastic
that can fail prematurely and overheat, resulting in sudden
catastrophic engine failure.
When a water pump fails in a Volkswagen or Audi vehicle, drivers
may unexpectedly stop -- posing a danger to themselves and others.
Even if they escape the situation unscathed, owners and lessees of
these vehicles are allegedly forced to pay out of pocket to repair
the issue.
Drivers say Volkswagen was aware of this issue and should have paid
to repair defective engine parts instead of passing the bill to
drivers.
Volkswagen hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve
these allegations with a class action settlement. The total
settlement fund amount has not been disclosed.
The settlement provides reimbursement for one past engine water
pump repair that occurred within eight years or 80,000 of service.
Repairs completed by an authorized dealer will be 100% reimbursed.
Repairs not completed by an authorized Volkswagen or Audi dealer
will be limited to a maximum reimbursement of $1,150.
Class members can recover similar reimbursement for engine damage
caused by a failure of a defective engine water pump.
Reimbursement for these repairs ranges from 5% to 100% depending on
the number of miles and years on the vehicles at the time of the
repairs. Authorized dealer repairs are not otherwise limited, while
repairs not by authorized VW or Audi dealers are capped at $4,500
maximum reimbursement.
In addition to providing cash payments, the water pump settlement
provides a warranty extension. The extended warranty covers one
repair or replacement of a failed engine water pump within eight
years or 80,000 miles of service. The extended warranty also covers
engine damage resulting from a defective water pump, though
coverage for these repairs ranges from 5% to 100% depending on the
age and mileage of a vehicle. These repairs must be completed by an
authorized Volkswagen or Audi dealer.
The deadline for exclusion and objection in the Volkswagen and Audi
defective water pumps settlement is July 25, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the deal is scheduled for Aug. 30,
2022.
In order to receive reimbursements from the water pump settlement,
class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 8, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles from model years 2014 to 2021.
Affected Volkswagen models include:
2019-2021 Areteon
2018-2020 Atlas
2014-2018 Beetle
2015-2021 Golf
2014-2021 Jetta
2014-2021 Passat
2020-2021 Terramont
2018-2021 Tiguan
Affected Audi models include:
2015-2020 A3
2015-2020 A4
2015-2019 A5
2015-2020 A6
2015-2020 Q3
2015-2021 Q5
2017-2020 Q7
2015-2020 TT
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
A repair order and/or other records (original or legible copies)
for the repair that include the following information:
Name
Address
Make, model and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of class
vehicle that had the repair
Date of the repair
Name and address of the authorized VW or Audi dealership or
non-dealer service facility that performed the repair
Description of the repair work performed (demonstrating this was a
repair covered under the settlement), including the parts repaired
or replaced and a breakdown of parts and labor costs
Vehicle's mileage at the time of the repair
Proof of payment, including the amount paid, for the repair
Proof of adherence to vehicle maintenance schedule set forth in the
warranty and maintenance booklet that are relevant to the coolant
system, including use of the specification of coolant fluid
recommended by VW or Audi, during the period you owned and/or
leased the vehicle up to the date/mileage of the repair or
replacement. Adherence to these maintenance requirements can be
within a variance of 10% of each required time/mileage maintenance
interval. If the class member is unable to obtain said documents or
records despite a good-faith effort to obtain them, they may submit
a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, detailing the
efforts made to obtain the records, why the records are not
available, and attesting to adherence to the vehicle maintenance
schedule relevant to the cooling system while the class member
owned the vehicle.
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
09/08/2022
Case Name
Michael Zhao, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-11251 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey
Final Hearing
08/30/2022
Settlement Website
WaterPumpSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Water Pump Settlement - 7577
PO Box 2636
Faribault, MN 55021-9636
info@waterpumpsettlement.com
833-711-0261
Class Counsel
Matthew Schelkopf
Joseph Kenney
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
Bonner Walsh
WALSH PLLC
Defense Counsel
Michael B. Gallub Esq
Brian T. Carr Esq
HERZFELD & RUBIN PC [GN]
WORLD WRESTLING: Five Law Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Middleton, writing for Wrestling Headlines, reports that five
law firms are now looking into potential class action lawsuits
against WWE on behalf of shareholders.
The firms have announced that they are looking to take up class
action against WWE after it was revealed that the WWE Board of
Directors is investigating allegations of misconduct by Vince
McMahon and John Laurinaitis.
The shareholder rights law firms are investigating potential
violations of federal securities laws by WWE, and/or other unlawful
business practices.
You can see all five announcements below.
WWE has dealt with similar class action lawsuits in the past, with
some not going anywhere and others being settled, including the $39
million settlement in August 2021 after WWE was sued for
misrepresenting their business dealings in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. It will be several months before we find out the outcome of
these latest potential suit, if they move forward at all.
As we've noted, it was revealed on June 22 that WWE's Board of
Directors have been investigating Vince over a "secret $3 million
settlement" he made to a former WWE paralegal that was hired in
2019. Laurinaitis is also being investigated for his involvement,
and the Board is looking into other instances with former female
employees as well. It was then announced on June 15 that Stephanie
McMahon has returned from her leave of absence to act as the
Interim CEO & Interim Chairwoman as Vince voluntarily steps away
from his Chairman & CEO corporate duties, but still continues his
creative responsibilities. It was then revealed on June 20 that
WWE's Senior Vice President and RAW/SmackDown Executive Producer
Bruce Prichard is also now working as the Interim Senior Vice
President of Talent Relations, filling in for Laurinaitis during
the investigation. You can find full details at the links below,
including statements from Vince and Stephanie, full details on the
anonymous e-mails that led to the announcements, and more.[GN]
XCEL ENERGY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Arandell Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ARANDELL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs v. XCEL
ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC.,
Plaintiff v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 07-cv-076-wmc, 09-cv-240-wmc (W.D. Wis.),
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin issues an Opinion and Order granting:
(1) the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the MDL
court's grant of summary judgment as to certain of their
claims following the Ninth Circuit's reversal of summary
judgment decisions in related lawsuits; and
(2) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
I. Introduction
In these consolidated cases, certain commercial and industrial
consumers of natural gas in Wisconsin claim that the Defendants
conspired to increase natural gas prices between 2000 and 2002.
After spending more than a decade in a multi-district ligation
("MDL") based in the District of Nevada, these cases were remanded
back to the Court for additional, pre-trial decisions and trial.
Pending before the Court are two, lingering motions: (1) the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the MDL court's grant of
summary judgment as to certain of their claims following the Ninth
Circuit's reversal of summary judgment decisions in related
lawsuits; and (2) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
II. Background & Opinion
A. Motion for Reconsideration
In the early 2000s, a group of natural gas traders, including many
of the defendants in these two consolidated actions, allegedly
manipulated the price of gas futures contracts on the New York
Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX"). In 2003, others who bought and sold
natural gas futures on the NYMEX during this period filed class
action lawsuits against the alleged price fixers in the Southern
District of New York -- In re Natural Gas Commodity Litig., No.
03-CV-06186-VM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2003). The NYMEX defendants and
class representatives entered settlements in 2006, which contained
the release.
In 2006 and 2009, these Wisconsin plaintiffs filed these two
lawsuits in Wisconsin state courts, which were then removed to the
Western District of Wisconsin, claiming plaintiffs allege that
defendants conspired to fix the price of natural gas by lying to
privately-published price indices on which plaintiffs and other
Wisconsin businesses relied in determining the price they paid to
defendants for natural gas. Four of the seven, named Wisconsin
plaintiffs had been class members in the NYMEX litigation.
In light of numerous, similar suits filed around the country under
applicable local state law, a number of which were filed before the
Wisconsin actions, the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") had created an MDL in the District of Nevada to coordinate
pre-trial proceedings. See In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1566, No. 2:03-cv-01431 (D. Nev.). At
defendants' request, these two cases were transferred to the MDL
action on June 14, 2007, and May 22, 2009, as tag-along actions.
Material to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the MDL action
also included cases brought by Reorganized FLI, Inc., the
successor-in-interest to Farmland, in Kansas (the "Farmland
action") and Sinclair Oil Corporation in Oklahoma and Wyoming (the
"Sinclair action").
On July 18, 2011, the MDL court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' state law claims based on federal
preemption grounds. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed; and on
April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed
that reversal. The cases were then remanded back to the MDL court
and assigned a new judge.
On March 2, 2016, the Defendants next filed a motion for summary
judgment in the Farmland action, arguing that the NYMEX class
settlement release covered Farmland's claims in this litigation.
The MDL court also granted that motion, finding claim preclusion
barred Farmland's claims in light of the NYMEX release. Defendants
then filed a similar motion in the Sinclair action, and, here, too,
the MDL court granted summary judgment. As a result of these
decisions, final judgments were entered in both cases, allowing
each to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Defendants then filed a "virtually identical" motion against
the four Wisconsin plaintiffs who were class members in the NYMEX
litigation -- Arandell Corp., Briggs & Stratton Corp., Carthage
College, and NewPage Wisconsin System Inc. In their brief in
support of that motion for summary judgment, the Defendants
consistently represented that the "facts and legal issue" presented
were "virtually identical to those the MDL court had already
adjudicated in its order granting summary judgment in the Farmland
case." The MDL court agreed and granted summary judgment with
respect to the claims asserted by these four Wisconsin plaintiffs
against all but one of the defendants.
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, two separate three-judge panels
reversed the MDL court's grant of summary judgment against the
Farmland and Sinclair plaintiffs, finding that the class releases
in the NYMEX litigation did not bar the physical gas
purchase-related antitrust claims at issue in those cases. In
response to the first of these Ninth Circuit's decisions in
Farmland, the Wisconsin plaintiffs naturally moved for
reconsideration of the MDL court's grant of summary judgment
against four of their group, but the MDL court denied it because
the appeal in Sinclair was still pending and could still uphold
claim preclusion. After the MDL court's decision in Sinclair was
also reversed on Aug. 1, 2018, the Wisconsin plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration once again, and while the MDL court acknowledged
the two reversals, it declined to address that motion. Instead, the
MDL court granted the plaintiffs' request for suggested remand to
the JPML, which was granted and left the plaintiff's renewed motion
for reconsideration to be decided by the Court.
In Farmland, the Ninth Circuit concluded that while "the language
of the NYMEX Releases is broad enough to encompass the instant
claims," the NYMEX litigation releases were not enforceable against
the Farmland plaintiff under the "identical factual predicate
rule," which limits the reach of prior class settlements to claims
based only on identical facts. Applying this rule, the Ninth
Circuit went on to hold that the Farmland and NYMEX lawsuits did
not arise from identical factual predicates because Farmland's
claims "depended on a different cause of action (the Kansas
restraint of Trade Act)" and "depended on proof of different facts
to establish a different injury.
In reversing the MDL court's grant of summary judgment in Sinclair,
the Ninth Circuit did not cite to the identical factual predicate
rule, but again found that the facts underlying the Sinclair action
were distinct from those asserted in NYMEX. It emphasized "the fact
that the same collusive conduct that gave rise to the claims in the
NYMEX case may have also affected the prices of retail purchases
(whose prices were pegged to the NYMEX index) does not bring those
retail purchases within the ambit of the settlement."
Having escaped this controlling law in the Ninth Circuit by remand
from the MDL, the Defendants now argue that the "identical factual
predicate rule" by that circuit differs from that adopted by the
Seventh Circuit, and indeed any other federal circuit court of
appeals who has examined this rule; and in "applying Seventh
Circuit law," the Plaintiffs' claims were "released by the NYMEX
settlement." In particular, they contend that the Ninth Circuit
requires not only that the "'factual predicates of each claim are
identical' but also that (1) the claims are brought under the same
cause of action and (2) result in identical injuries." In further
support, they cite to a treatise on class actions, which explains
that "the Ninth Circuit --unlike every other Circuit -- applies a
stringent test that "distinguishes the 'identical factual predicate
test' from the 'same transaction' test, viewing the former as
narrower than the latter."
Judge Conley finds at least two, core problems with the Defendants'
argument. First, contrary to their representation, the treatise
does not describe the Ninth Circuit as having adopted a minority
view of this test; instead, the treatise simply notes that one
Ninth Circuit case, Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 664-65 (9th
Cir. 1995), rev'd on other grounds 516 U.S. 367 (1996),
"distinguished the 'identical factual predicate test' from the
'same transaction' test, viewing the former as narrower than the
latter." Second, even if the Defendants could credibly argue that
the Ninth Circuit has adopted a narrower test in some cases, the
Farmland court relied on differences in the factual predicate of
the MDL actions to determine that the NYMEX release did not bar
that action. In particular, while the Ninth Circuit concluded that
the Farmland action "depended on proof of different facts to
establish a different injury," the court did not hold that it was
the "different injury" that precluded application of the release to
the claims at issue in the MDL action. Finally, the Ninth Circuit's
finding of a different factual predicate is entirely consistent
with the parties' treatment of the two actions in earlier court
submissions.
Accordingly, Judge Conley grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and vacates the MDL court's grant of summary
judgment to most of the Defendants on claims asserted by Plaintiffs
Arandell Corp., Briggs & Stratton Corp., Carthage College, and
NewPage Wisconsin System Inc.
B. Motion for Class Certification
The seven, proposed class representatives are a wide variety of
Wisconsin companies and institutions, ranging from a printer of
catalogs, Arandell Corp., to a manufacturer of metal components,
Ladish, Co., Inc., to a liberal arts college, Carthage College. The
Defendants are (or were) engaged in marketing natural gas, which
was often produced by or on behalf of corporate affiliates. In
2000, Wisconsin consumed approximately 389,543 MMCFs ("million
cubic feet") of natural gas, and Wisconsin had thousands of
industrial and commercial consumers. The Defendants or their
affiliates, including agents, sold gas to the Plaintiffs and the
members of the class, although as the Defendants point out in their
brief opposing the certification of a class, the Defendants and
their affiliates filled other roles as well, including, at times,
being buyers of natural gas themselves. Nevertheless, the
Plaintiffs contend that between 2000 and 2002, they and other
putative class members purchased natural gas for their own use or
consumption at artificially inflated prices due to the Defendants'
manipulation of the market.
In 2003, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigated
price manipulation in the natural gas industry between 2000 and
2002, concluding in a March 2003 report, that there was "evidence
of manipulation (direct and indirect) of the published natural gas
price indices at significant trading points all over the United
States." Specifically, the Report documented false reporting of
prices, including reporting fictious trades and altering the volume
or price component of actual trades. That Report specifically
identified certain manipulative trading practices, including "wash
trading," which is a prearranged pair of trades of the same good
between the same parties, involving no economic risk and no net
change, and "churning," which is a pattern of successive bursts of
trading activity within a short period of time in an effort to give
the appearance of market volatility to drive up prices.
Some of the Defendants admitted wrongdoing. The Defendants contend
that none of these reports, however, found evidence of
inter-company conspiracy; rather, this evidence simply reflected
traders misreporting price-related information "for their
individual unilateral reasons." The United States Department of
Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also
investigated price manipulation between 2000 through 2002,
resulting in the imposition of various civil and criminal penalties
on a number of the defendants, as detailed in the Plaintiffs'
brief. Finally, during the course of discovery in these two cases,
the Plaintiffs have also collected evidence of wash trades, which
the MDL court concluded was indicative of an antitrust conspiracy.
Because these cases were transferred to the MDL court, that court
issued various decisions potentially relevant to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. First, the MDL court resolved
various Daubert challenges to the Plaintiffs' experts, including
denying motions as to the expert opinions of Drs. Harris and Dwyer,
who purport to have created a "but-for market model" to estimate
natural gas prices during the relevant period had defendants not
issued false reports and engaged in wash-trading and churning.
Second, the MDL court denied class certification to the Wisconsin
plaintiffs in an opinion and order addressing four separate class
certification motions. However, on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the
Plaintiffs pointed to instances of limited analysis by the MDL
court (and inconsistent or contradictory treatment rulings within
the opinion), resulting in the appellate court vacating the ruling.
Third, and finally, while the MDL court denied the Plaintiffs'
motions for class certification, it nonetheless certified a number
of classes for settlement purposes with some of the defendants,
including a Wisconsin class. With respect to those classes, the
court further concluded that the requirements under Rule 23 were
satisfied, including commonality and predominance.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for a violation of Wisconsin
Statute Section 133.03, which renders antitrust conspiracies
illegal in Wisconsin. For relief, they further point to two
statutes, Wisconsin Statutes Section 133.14 and Section 133.18.
They also seek treble damages under Section 133.18. Finally, the
Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Rule 23(b)(3):
"All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their
own use or consumption during the Relevant Time Period (Jan. 1,
2000, to Oct. 31, 2002), and which gas was used or consumed by them
in Wisconsin."
To certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3),
plaintiffs must satisfy a two-step analysis. First, the proposed
class must satisfy the four threshold requirements under Rule
23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. Second,
the proposed class must satisfy the two requirements under Rule
23(b)(3): predominance and superiority.
Judge Conley holds that (i) as the Defendants concede, the
numerosity requirement is easily satisfied; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
experts have articulated a credible theory for demonstrating that
industrial and commercial consumers paid higher prices for natural
gas for the period 2000 to 2002, across the market due to the
Defendants' alleged conspiracy, regardless of whether gas was
purchased based on indices or contracts; (iii) typicality satisfied
for the same reasons as it found commonality satisfied; and (iv)
the proposed class counsel can adequately represent the interests
of the class members.
Judge Conley further finds that (i) given the significant issues
that can be resolved at the class level based on the Plaintiffs'
theory of liability and the evidence of a single, nationwide
natural gas market due to the Defendants' allegedly illicit
actions, the predominance requirement is satisfied; and (iii)
allowing this case to proceed as a class action is most likely to
adjudicate the class' claims fairly and efficiently.
III. Order
In light of the foregoing, Judge Conley grants the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for reconsideration of the MDL court's Wisconsin
NYMEX decisions and their motion to certify class under Rule 23.
Judge Conley certifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) the following class: All industrial and commercial
purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during
the Relevant Time Period (Jan. 1, 2000, to Oct. 31, 2002), and
which gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs Arandell Corp., Merrick's, Inc., Sargento Foods, Inc.,
Briggs & Stratton Corp., Carthage College Ladish Co., Inc., and
NewPage Wisconsin Systems, Inc. are appointed as class
representatives.
The counsel for Plaintiffs Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins
Coie LLP and Polsinelli PC are appointed as class counsel.
The parties are directed to meet and confer on a proposed class
notice. By July 15, 2022, the parties should submit a proposed
notice. If they are unable to reach an agreement, by July 15, 2022,
the parties should submit their own proposed versions; responses to
the other parties' submission are due July 22, 2022.
Judge Conley grants the Defendants' joint motion for leave to file
sur-reply in opposition to class certification. He denies as moot
the Plaintiffs' letter to court seeking status update. He grants
the Plaintiffs' motion requesting trial date.
The Clerk's office is directed to set a telephonic conference with
Judge Crocker to reset remaining pretrial deadlines and a trial
date.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/msu29metfrom Leagle.com.
YEXT INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Yext, Inc. ("Yext" or the
"Company") (NYSE: YEXT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired Yext
securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/yext.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly
deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and
performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (2)
accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its
full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023
outlook; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/yext 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 Yext you have until August 16, 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]
YEXT INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of August 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Yext, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of YEXT 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/yext-class-action-lawsuit/?id=28888&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: March 4, 2021 to March 8, 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) Yext's revenue and earnings
were significantly deteriorating because of, among other things,
poor sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related
disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus
estimates for its full year fiscal 2022 financial results and
fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
DEADLINE: August 16, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/yext-class-action-lawsuit/?id=28888&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of YEXT 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 August 16, 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]
YEXT INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that purchasers or
acquirers of Yext, Inc. (NYSE: YEXT) securities between March 4,
2021 and March 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
August 16, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Menzione
v. Yext, Inc., No. 22-cv-05127 (S.D.N.Y.). The Yext class action
lawsuit charges Yext and certain of its top executive officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-yext-inc-class-action-lawsuit-yext.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Yext operates Yext platform, a cloud-based
platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide
answers to consumer questions, control facts about their businesses
and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer
reviews. As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently
assured investors that pandemic-related impacts on Yext's business
were limited as Yext adapted to lockdowns and improved efficiencies
in its sales and other operations.
The Yext class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were
significantly deteriorating because of, among other things, poor
sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related
disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus
estimates for its full year fiscal 2022 financial results and
fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, Yext's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 8, 2022, Yext reported fourth quarter of fiscal 2022
revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of consensus estimates by
$140,000; first quarter of fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $96.3
million to $97.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $103.79
million; first quarter of fiscal 2023 non-Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") net loss per share outlook of $0.08
to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of $0.05; full year fiscal
2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3 million, versus
consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and full year fiscal 2023
non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17, versus
consensus estimates of $0.09. Yext further disclosed the departure
of its CEO and CFO. On this news, Yext's stock price fell more than
9%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Yext
securities shares during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Yext class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Yext class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the
Yext class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
YEXT INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Yext,
Inc. (NYSE: YEXT) securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8,
2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yext
organizes a business's facts to provide answers to consumer
questions online.
What is this Case About: Yext, Inc. (YEXT) Failed to Disclose the
Truth About the Impact of COVID-19 and Other Factors on its Revenue
and Earnings
According to the complaint, as COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021,
Yext consistently assured investors that pandemic-related impacts
on the Company's business were limited as the Company adapted to
lockdowns and improved efficiencies in its sales and other
operations. In reality, defendants failed to disclose that Yext's
revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of,
inter alia, poor sales execution and performance, as well as
COVID-19 related disruptions, and therefore was unlikely to meet
consensus estimates for its full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial
results and fiscal 2023 outlook.
Specifically, on March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release
announcing disappointing fourth quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022
results as well as the departure of its CEO and CFO. On a
conference call discussing these results, the Company's incoming
CEO disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our
business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events
were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]" while opining that
Yext could "[a]bsolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's
more efficient during disruptions like that[.]" Following this
news, Yext's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 9.29%, to close
at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022.
Next Steps: If you acquired your shares of Yext, Inc. between March
4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, you have until August 16, 2022, to ask
the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Yext, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
[*] Harris Beach Attorneys Discuss PFAS Consumer Class-Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
William Flynn, Esq., Kelly Jones Howell, Esq., Gene Kelly, Esq.,
and John McManus, Esq., of Harris Beach PLLC, in an article for
JDSupra, report that from mascara to microwave popcorn, and from
water to wrappers, the glut of litigation related to the presence
of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) has forced companies
and attorneys to pay attention to prospective consumer class-action
suits.
PFAS are a category of chemicals known for their flame-retardant,
water-resistant and stain-resistant qualities. They have long been
used for applications across myriad industries, including
construction, electronics and pharmaceuticals, to name a few. They
are commonly used in clothing, cosmetics, and food packaging and,
due to their longstanding widespread use in all manner of products,
are ubiquitous in the environment. Allegations regarding adverse
health impacts from exposure have given rise to litigation and
regulation.
Recently, plantiffs' counsel have sought to identify new categories
of defendants and claims. While scrutiny will be trained on PFAS
manufacturers, claimants may go after new companies, products and
industries to allege that the presence of PFAS in the labeled
product renders the labeling false or misleading -- as, they argue,
the presence of PFAS must be disclosed on the label. Intensifying
matters, the Biden Administration has appointed government
officials who have experience in dealing with PFAS issues,
presumably for broader regulation and litigation. Federal
regulatory initiatives may give way to enhanced legal liability; as
well as a groundswell of private litigation.
What should the defense strategy be for consumer class action
claims alleging misleading or false product labeling, based on
PFAS? How are these lawsuits different from other class action
claims? Below, our analysis of key legal nuances:
In the case of an alleged affirmative misrepresentation, the
inquiry is the same on a pleadings challenge: whether the labeling
of a product containing undisclosed PFAS is likely to mislead a
reasonable person. Plaintiffs typically invoke the "premium price"
theory, meaning the plaintiff claims he or she would not have
purchased the item, or would have paid less, had the PFAS been
disclosed. These allegations provide the defense with an
opportunity to attack the damages model on class certification,
similar to other types of consumer class actions.
For example, a class action lawsuit is developing against the
retailer Spanx, alleging the presence of PFAS in several lines of
its seamless leggings. As mentioned above, the suit does not focus
on contamination, but rather misrepresentation to the consumer.
Regardless of the outcome, the efforts could force Spanx to
fine-tune its marketing message by subtly disclosing the presence
of PFAS. If so, the company could look to McDonald's - likely the
rare instance in which tummy control can align with fast food! As
McDonald's has argued in defense of recent litigation, "forever
chemicals" comprise a broad and expansive category of which the
majority - including those found in its grease-resistant packaging
- are known to be safe and approved by regulators. In response to
an Illinois lawsuit, McDonald's moved to dismiss the action,
arguing there's no claim of harm or injury, only attempts to
dispute the price due to lack of awareness of PFAS. McDonald's
emphasized that the PFAS compounds in its packaging are approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Bottom line: in addition to proven defense strategies, the need for
testing and recorded regulatory approval can yield additional
strategies for class-action defense of PFAS litigation. Our
attorneys can provide guidance and support at every stage, from
proactive monitoring to litigation strategy.
EPA Health Advisory Issued
On June 15, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
issued lifetime health advisory levels (HALs) for PFOA and PFOS,
the two most studied PFA substances, as well as other chemicals
known as "GenX chemicals." These HALs, which EPA set at 0.004
parts-per-trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS, are
several orders of magnitude stricter than the 70-ppt level
established by the Obama administration. EPA also set separate,
first-time HALs of 2,000 ppt for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
(PFBS) and 10 ppt for hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its
ammonium salt, the so-called "GenX chemicals."
As stated in the advisory, EPA's new health advisory "provides
technical information that federal, state, and local agencies can
use to inform actions to address PFAS in drinking water, including
water quality monitoring, optimization of existing technologies
that reduce PFAS, and strategies to reduce exposure to these
substances. EPA is encouraging states, Tribes, territories,
drinking water utilities, and community leaders that find PFAS in
their drinking water to take steps to inform residents, undertake
additional monitoring to assess the level, scope, and source of
contamination, and examine steps to reduce exposure."
The newly-announced HALs drew immediate criticism from a slew of
constituencies, mainly due to the fact that the HALs are dependent
on a state of detection and analysis precision that does not
currently exist.
Responding to this criticism, Linda Birnbaum, the former director
of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS), explained that the levels are "totally non-regulatory,"
adding that the levels provide a signal to industry concerning the
need to phase out PFAS and to states for the need to regulate at a
level more stringent than the 70-ppt level that many states have
adopted. It should be noted that New York has established a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 10-ppt for PFAS.
While these HALs do not carry any regulatory authority, they may
signal an intent on EPA's part to promulgate a nationwide drinking
water standard that mirrors, or even goes beyond, the MCLs
established by the most stringent state standards. EPA announced
last fall an intent to do so as part of the agency's PFAS Roadmap.
Bottom line: EPA's HALs, while carrying no regulatory weight,
appear to signal a coming nationwide drinking water standard for
PFAS and GenX chemicals. Industries potentially affected by such
regulatory action should be implementing compliance strategies in
consultation with technical and legal consultants knowledgeable in
this emerging realm of regulation. [GN]
[*] UK Litigation Funders Hunting for Class Action Suits to Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that UK-based
litigation funders have amassed record war chests to finance the
growing interest in class action law suits, according to a new
study by RPC.
Litigation funders' assets jumped 11% last year to hit GBP2.2bn,
almost double the GBP1.3bn that had been built up in 2017/18 and a
more than ten-fold increase over the past decade. RPC's analysis is
based on regulatory data submitted by 15 of the largest UK
litigation funders.
Gary Barnett, executive director of the International Legal Finance
Association (ILFA), a lobbying group representing funders, said the
increase in capital flooding into the market has been driven by a
broader acceptance of such funding. While funders still only
invested in meritorious cases, such cases had also seen greater
levels of judicial endorsement, as there was a general acceptance
of funding in the courts, including in the UK Competition Appeal
Tribunal, for example.
Chris Ross, a partner at RPC, said: "Some estimates suggest that
90% of cases put forward to litigation funders are rejected,
underlining how selective funders are about the cases they take
on."
With funders actively looking for and seeding new cases, the focus
is on picking winners.
"[Funders] want to deliver a high ROI for their investors; that's
not easy when so much money is chasing the same legal cases," said
Ross.
As an uncorrelated asset class, Barnett said, funders are also
seeing a marked increase in interest from institutional investors.
Lucy Glyn of Exton Advisers agreed, citing capital investment from
multi-strategy hedge funds and global credit funds, which has
generated increased market competition and increasingly innovative
funding options.
Raymond van Hulst, EMEA executive director of Omni Bridgeway, added
that while low interest rates and excess liquidity had previously
driven growth, a combination of rising inflation and higher
interest rates means only the most successful funds will likely be
attractive going forwards.
"Growth of available capital for litigation funders will level
off," he said, as funders with low success rates will struggle.
One area targeted by funders and law firms alike is class actions,
given the potential pay outs on offer. In August last year, the
Competition Appeals Tribunal allowed a GBP15bn class action against
MasterCard to proceed.
Ross said: "Class actions can bring big rewards for litigation
funders. They allow a funder to deploy a lot of capital at once as
they are expensive cases to run. Still, they can also be efficient
investment vehicles because each class action can attract thousands
of claimants."
Steve Shinn, CEO at FinLegal, said many such claims were impossible
to get off the ground without financing as they incurred
considerable up-front costs.
"Funders must also embrace technology when financing class actions
or risk-reducing the value of their returns," Shinn said. "Opt-in
claims can be expensive due to initial costs in book-building and
managing hundreds, or thousands, of claimants with multiple systems
that require lots of manual intervention."
He added: "Even in opt-out claims, where the returns are better,
funders are still at risk of reducing their returns by not using a
holistic software solution in settlement distribution."
Luke Harrison, a founding partner of Keidan Harrison, said:
"Technological advances in the administration of class actions, via
specialist software, has meant many class actions that wouldn't
otherwise have been viable are now attractive funding
propositions."
He added: "Funders are starting to see the opportunities of putting
together these deals and then taking some immediate profit by
selling part or all of their interest in the transaction."
Recent research by Thomson Reuters found that FTSE 100 companies
were facing a 10% increase globally in class actions compared to
2021.
John Lazar, managing director of Burford Capital's EMEA operations,
said: "We view the evolution of the class action landscape in the
UK and EU as a growth opportunity, although challenges do remain --
and thus far, the UK is ahead of the EU," noting risks on
jurisprudence and ensuring how funders were paid.
Investment manager Alistair Croft of Omni Bridgeway noted the UK
was historically a long way behind the US and Australia in
assembling collective redress claims, as well as the Netherlands,
which allows class actions in most litigation and claimants to
assign their claims to an SPV.
Funders, Croft said, would remain focused on ensuring tight
economies of scale in book-building consumer cases. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***