/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***