/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220714.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 134 Headlines 39 1ST AVE: Faces Xo Suit Over Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages ABOVE AND BEYOND: Must File Reply to Scott's Complaint by Aug. 1 ALASKA AIRLINES: Synoracki Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling AON PLC: Fails to Protect Patients' Private Info, Rushing Says BC FOODS: Violates Biometric Information Privacy Act, Espinoza Says BED BATH: Faces Raslavich FTSA Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls BENEFITS HEALTH: Blaine Appeals Ruling Dismissing RICO Suit BEYOND MEAT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Mislabeled Meat Products C3.AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Trust Suit in CA Court CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Labor Suit in California Court CARMAX INC: Faces Miller Labor Suit in California Court CARNIVAL PLC: Court Dismisses Florida Securities Suit CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Faces Kim Shareholder Suit in MD Court CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Faces Sydney Shareholder Suit in MD Court CPA DATA: Records Inbound Calls Without Consent, White Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Faces Dampolo Class Suit Over Sale of Cotton Swabs DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 19 DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Anti8trust Suits Over Price Fixing DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Involving 162 Drugs DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drug Price Fixing DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drug Price Rigging DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suits Involving 135 Drugs DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Pravastatin Sodium EXEL INC: Thorpe Sues Over Unpaid Wages After Kronos Hack FEDERAL EXPRESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Taito's 2nd Amended Complaint FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces McCarthy Suit Over Alleged Data Breach GANNETT PUBLISHING: Order Denying OK of Aronson Settlement Appealed GILSTRAP EXTERMINATING: Wolensky Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GOJO INDUSTRIES: Robles Appeals Purell Mislabeling Case Dismissal HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Robinson Alleges Illegal Post-Lease Buyout Terms IMEDIA BRANDS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Duffek Suit KOHANA COFFEE: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Protective Order in Thai Suit Partly OK'd MCG HEALTH: Failed to Protect Patients' Private Info, Taylor Says MENDOZA AUTO: Misclassifies Non-exempt Workers, Castillo Alleges NATIONAL FUTURES: Kumaran Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NOMURA INT'L: Faces Securities Suit in Toronto NORTHERN SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges PAUL HOTEL: Faces Thaw Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages PIZZETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges PRELUDE PAINTING: Mayen Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL R&S CONCRETE: San Martin Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Files 1st Cir. Appeal in Powers Suit SERVICE CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, McWhorter Claims SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Dorton Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls SOLANA LABS: Faces Young Suit Over Unregistered Solana Tokens TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Pennsylvania UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies Appeal Ruling to D.C. Cir. UNITED STATES: Appeal on Dist. Court Orders in Miller Suit Ends UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued Over Alleged Violation of ERISA UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Omits Products' Caloric Info, Collins Alleges VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Suit Dismissed VISTA YACHTS: Faces Pertusiello FTSA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts WALGREEN CO: Antiseptic Product Sold at Higher Prices, Suit Says ZAXBY'S COMPANY: Faces Dorton Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ********* 39 1ST AVE: Faces Xo Suit Over Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN XO and DOMINGO JUN XO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 39 1ST AVE CHICKEN LLC d/b/a POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN, SHAMA AZMAT and NAFEES BUKHARI as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05459 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay proper minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide spread of hours compensation, and failed to furnish accurate wages statements and written wage notices. Plaintiffs JUAN XO and DOMINGO JUN XO were employed by the Defendants as cooks and kitchen workers while performing related miscellaneous duties from March 2022 until May 2022 and from December 2021 until May 2022, respectively. 39 1st Ave Chicken LLC, d/b/a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, operates a quick-service restaurant specializing in the sale of fried chicken, seafood, and other quick service foods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ABOVE AND BEYOND: Must File Reply to Scott's Complaint by Aug. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH SCOTT, Plaintiff v. ABOVE AND BEYOND RETAIL SERVICES, INC., and ROBERT C. ABSHER, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-CV-019-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, grants the parties' Joint Motion To Extend Stay of the Case with modification. The Defendants will file an Answer, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint by Aug. 1, 2022. The motion, filed July 1, 2022, has been referred to Judge Keesler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, he will grant the motion, with modification. Further extensions will not be allowed. Judge Keesler notes that the Plaintiff initiated the action with the filing of a "Collective And Class Action Complaint" on Feb. 22, 2022. On March 25, 2022, the Defendants filed a consent motion to extend time to respond to the Complaint, at least in part to "allow time for the Parties to confer regarding potential resolution of this matter." Since then, the Court has allowed two more extensions of time for the parties to pursue settlement discussions. The parties now seek another extension delaying the action at least another month. While he commends the parties' efforts to resolve the case, Judge Keesler says, there has been more than enough time to complete the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell's requirement of an Initial Settlement Conference pursuant to the "Standing Order Requiring An Initial Settlement Conference In Civil Cases," docketed in the case on Feb. 22, 2022. He will allow the counsel one final brief extension. Of course, if the parties cannot finalize a settlement by this deadline, they may continue their discussions, but must also promptly move forward with the litigation. For these reasons, Judge Keesler grants that the parties' motion with modification. The parties will file a Certificate Of Settlement Conference pursuant to Judge Bell's "Standing Order," by July 22, 2022. The Defendants will file an Answer, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint by Aug. 1, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8jz7m5 from Leagle.com. ALASKA AIRLINES: Synoracki Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Leo Synoracki filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The Plaintiff and the class he represents are current or former employees of defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc., who are or were military service members. During the class period, plaintiff was a member of the Reserve Component of the United States Air Force. In that role, he took approximately 71 military leaves of absences, some of which lasted months at a time and which together totaled over 2,500 days. The Plaintiff retired from the Reserves as a Lieutenant Colonel on April 1, 2017. The Plaintiff filed the suit on December 12, 2018, asserting that Defendants violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 when they (1) denied the accrual of sick time during periods of military leave and (2) denied the accrual of vacation time during the first 90 days of military leave. On May 22, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a sub-class for both the sick time and vacation time claims. On November 13, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court granted on May 31, 2022 through an Order signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. On the same day, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Alaska Airlines Inc. and Alaska Air Group Inc. against Plaintiff Leo Synoracki. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the summary judgment ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Leo Synoracki v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-35504, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, filed on June 29, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Leo Synoracki Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 6, 2022; -- Appellant Leo Synoracki opening brief is due on August 29, 2022; -- Appellees Alaska Air Group, Inc., Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Does answering brief is due on September 28, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant, LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 826-5354 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PILOT LAW, P.C. 850 Beech Street, Suite 713 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 255-2398 E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - and - Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com Defendants-Appellees ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, are represented by: Mark Wayne Robertson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-4329 E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com - and - Kathryn S. Rosen, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: katierosen@dwt.com AON PLC: Fails to Protect Patients' Private Info, Rushing Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Rushing, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AON, PLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03452 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2022) is a class action brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. On February 25, 202, the Defendant identified a cyber incident that, upon investigation, impacted a limited number of systems. Once the incident was discovered, the Defendant launched an investigation and determined that an unauthorized third-party accessed certain of Defendant's systems at various times between December 29, 2020 and February 26, 2022. Despite learning of the data breach in February 2022, the Defendant did not begin notifying Plaintiff and Class Members until around May 27, 2022. The Defendant delayed in sending notice of the data breach even though Defendant is well aware of the need to move quickly in responding to data breach events, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected private information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, the suit asserts. AON, PLC is a global professional services firm providing a range of risk, retirement, and health solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON LAW FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com BC FOODS: Violates Biometric Information Privacy Act, Espinoza Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO ESPINOZA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. BC FOODS, Inc. and PAYCHEX, INC., Case No. 2022LA000586 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., June 30, 2022) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. BC Foods operates a warehouse in Bolingbrook, Illinois from which it supplies and distributes food ingredients, primarily dehydrated vegetables, spices and aromatic herbs, to wholesale customers. Paychex designs and manufactures fully integrated time and attendance products and services for businesses, ranging from small service companies to global corporations. The Plaintiff was employed by BC Foods at its Bolingbrook warehouse in the role of Warehouse Worker from on or about November 18, 2019 to June 15, 2020. During the course and scope of his employment, BC Foods required Plaintiff and his coworkers to use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked, says the suit. One of the products Paychex manufactures is biometric solutions such as biometric time keeping devices that utilize either fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal, or other biometric data or other similar devices (collectively "Biometric Time Clocks") which require scans of users' biometric data in order for those users to clock in and out of work. Paychex's systems and software require users to scan their biometric identifiers, namely their fingerprints or hand geometry, when using Biometric Time Clocks as an authorization method to track their time worked. The Biometric Time Clock scans the worker's biometric identifier to clock in and out of work shifts and meal breaks. Upon information and belief, once a user has registered his or his biometric identifier with Paychex's Biometric Time Clock, that biometric identifier and related biometric information is stored in Paychex's and BC Foods' database(s), alleges the suit. As a result, the Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fletcher, Esq. Max P. Barack, Esq. GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 6252 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60659 Telephone: (312) 736-7991 E-mail: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com max@garfinkelgroup.com BED BATH: Faces Raslavich FTSA Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BED BATH AND BEYOND, INC., Case No. 152506028 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough, June 30, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendant is a home goods retailer. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3). The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) without "prior express consent” as defined by Fla. Stat. section 501.059(1)(g), (4) on or after July 1, 2021." The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several thousands, if not more. The Defendant has placed alleged telephonic sales calls to telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers in Florida without their prior express written consent. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, the Defendant contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. BENJAMIN W. RASLAVICH, ESQ. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com BENEFITS HEALTH: Blaine Appeals Ruling Dismissing RICO Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs KODIAK BLAINE, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled KODIAK BLAINE, DOUGLAS DARKO, CHRISTOPHER FLOWER, REYNOLDS HERTEL, KAREN LAPPI, APRIL POSEY, TERRI SEARSDODD, EDWARD NELSON, JON L. WILLIAMS, and EMILY HARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., BENEFIS HOSPITALS. INC., BENEFIS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., MAGELLAN RESOURCES PARTNERS, LLC (a.k.a "MEDEQUITY," "MEDEQUITY, INC.," AND "MEDEQUITY CORP."), MEDEQUITY CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00092-BMM, in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 31, 2021, this class action is brought against the Defendants for alleged tortious interference with business relations, unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive fraud, breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, deceit, conversion and misappropriation, declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Montana Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a common practice and procedure of secretly coding the payer party as MedEquity rather than the health insurer, Medicaid, or Medicare when a patient involved in a motor vehicle accident or other third-party liability scenario presents for medical services. In reality, MedEquityis not a payer party at all. The rates reflected in the MedEquity liens are the chargemaster prices, which far exceed the negotiated reimbursement rates the Defendants would receive if the patient's medical bills were submitted to the health insurer or government provider and result in such patients paying more for services than they are contractually or legally required to pay, says the suit. On March 18, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Court granted on May 24, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge Brian Morris. The Plaintiffs seeks a review of this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Kodiak Blaine, et al. v. Benefis Health System, et al., Case No. 22-35497, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Kodiak Blaine, Douglas Darko, Christopher Flower, Emily Haro, Reynolds Hertel, Karen Lappi, Edward Nelson, April Posey, Terri Searsdodd and Jon L. Williams Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 5, 2022; -- Appellants Kodiak Blaine, Douglas Darko, Christopher Flower, Emily Haro, Reynolds Hertel, Karen Lappi, Edward Nelson, April Posey, Terri Searsdodd and Jon L. Williams opening brief is due on August 22, 2022; -- Appellees Benefis Health System, Benefis Hospitals, Inc., Benefis Medical Group, Inc., Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Magellan Resource Partners, LLC and Medequity Corporation answering brief is due on September 21, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KODIAK BLAINE, et al., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by: Dennis Patrick Conner, Esq. Keith D. Marr, Esq. CONNER, MARR & PINSKI, PLLP P.O. Box 3028 Great Falls, MT 59403-3028 Telephone: (406) 727-3550 Defendants-Appellees BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM; BENEFIS HOSPITALS, INC.; BENEFIS MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; MAGELLAN RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC, AKA Medequity, AKA Medequity Corp., AKA Medequity, Inc.; and MEDEQUITY CORPORATION are represented by: David M. McLean, Esq. MCLEAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 320 West Broadway, Suite D Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 541-4440 - and - Charles Edward Weir, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park, E Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 - and - Ryan Willmore, Esq. MCLEAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 3301 Great Northern Avenue, Suite 203 Missoula, MT 59808 Telephone: (406) 541-4440 - and - Gary M. Zadick, Esq. UGRIN ALEXANDER ZADICK & HIGGINS, PC P.O. Box 1746 Great Falls, MT 59403-1746 Telephone: (406) 771-0007 - and - James Zadick, Esq. UGRIN ALEXANDER ZADICK, P.C. 2 Railroad Square Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 771-0007 - and - Julie A. Shepard, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 515 S Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 BEYOND MEAT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Mislabeled Meat Products ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ and CHRISTOPHER BATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04404 (C.D. Cal., June 28, 2022) is a civil class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all consumers who purchased Defendant's Beyond Meat products for personal or household use with alleged false and misleading marketing claims in violation of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Defendant's Beyond Meat products for personal or household use, include but are not limited to: Beyond Meat Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Links Hot Italian 14 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Sausage Links Brat Original 14 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based 16oz Patties, Beyond Meat Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground Beef, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Classic 7.4 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Spicy 7.4 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Chicken Plant-Based Breaded Tenders Classic 8 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Meatballs Italian Style Plant-Based Meatballs 12 ct Classic 10 oz, Beyond Meat Beyond Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Links Classic 8.3 oz. According to the complaint, Beyond Meat Products' labels, and related marketing claims, are false and misleading because Defendant: (1) miscalculates and overstates the Products' protein content, which is measured in grams per serving determined by nitrogen testing; (2) miscalculates and overstates the quality of the protein found in its products, which is represented as a percentage of daily value and calculated by the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score method; and (3) misleads consumers into believing that the products provide equivalent nutritional benefits to that found in traditional meat-based products. The Defendant also makes numerous false and misleading claims and/or omissions on its website, in its promotional and marketing materials, and on the products' nutritional labels, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Classes were injured by Defendants' false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and equitable remedies for themselves(s) and members of the Proposed Class. Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, is a Los Angeles, California–based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in 2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 401 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (714) 651-8845 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. Russell Busch, 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 rbusch@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com C3.AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Trust Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------- C3.AI, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned "The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.", 22-cv-01413-HSG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, and certain current and former officers and directors. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions about its partnership with Baker Hughes and other strategic alliances, its market potential, and the uptake of the company's products. The complaint alleges that defendants made these misstatements or omissions in connection with the company's IPO in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. C3 AI is an Enterprise AI application software company based in California. CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Labor Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that on July 9, 2021, the class action captioned "Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al.," was filed in the Superior court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. Bendure subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or putative class claim, but rather filed and served a PAGA-only complaint in the Superior court of California for the County of San Bernardino on December 7, 2021, based on the same allegations pleaded in the original complaint. CarMax filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court has stayed all discovery until after it rules on CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. CarMax Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia. CARMAX INC: Faces Miller Labor Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that on August 12, 2021, "Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al.", a putative class action, was filed in the Superior court of California, County of Riverside. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. CarMax Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia. CARNIVAL PLC: Court Dismisses Florida Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Carnival PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that the motion to dismiss with prejudice the Florida class action was granted by the court last March 2022. On December 15, 2020, a consolidated class action with lead plaintiffs, the New England Carpenters Pension and Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and Annuity Fund was filed in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to Carnival Corporation's COVID-19 knowledge and response. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. In March 30, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and no appeal was filed prior to the deadline. Carnival PLC cruise ships and is based in Florida. CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Faces Kim Shareholder Suit in MD Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated June 23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2022, that on May 6, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled "Kim v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. 22-cv-01103. The complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the company's preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty. In June 2, 2022, the Kim filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to require that the company provide preferred shareholders with a vote to approve the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and the Company Merger, and requiring Cedar disclose to preferred shareholders that the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and company merger entitled the preferred stockholders to exercise their change of control conversion right. The court agreed to consolidate the Kim plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with another motion for preliminary injunction, and to hear arguments on both motions at the hearing on June 22, 2022. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is into real estate investment trusts based in New York. CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Faces Sydney Shareholder Suit in MD Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated June 23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2022, that in April 8, 2022, several purported holders of the company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the company, the Board of Directors of the company, and Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, entitled "Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," Case No. C-15-CV-22-00152. On May 6, 2022, plaintiffs in the Sydney action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of the company's preferred stock, among other things, against the company and the Board, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the company's preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty, and, against Wheeler, tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The Sydney amended complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that holders of the company's preferred stock are entitled to exercise either their liquidation rights or conversion rights as set forth in the articles supplementary, compensatory damages, an injunction enjoining the distribution to the company's common shareholders of the proceeds of the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio sale, and an injunction enjoining the Company Merger. On May 6, 2022, the plaintiffs in Sydney filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily enjoin, until the final resolution of the litigation the distribution of the gross proceeds from the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale to the common stockholders, the closing of the Company Merger, and the imposition of a constructive trust over the gross proceeds from both the Grocery Anchored Portfolio Sale and the Company Merger. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is into real estate investment trusts based in New York. CPA DATA: Records Inbound Calls Without Consent, White Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS WHITE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPA DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61250-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2022) is a class action suit brought against Defendant CPA Data Solutions for recording inbound calls from consumers without their consent in violation of Florida's Security of Communications Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made an inbound call to the Defendant and spoke to an employee of the Defendant on January 18 and 19, 2022. The Defendant recorded this call including the parties' oral communications. The Plaintiff never consented to the recording of this call, and was not aware until some time after the call that it had been recorded. Neither Plaintiff nor any Class member consented to having their oral communications recorded and have had their privacy invaded as a result, alleges the suit. CPA Data Solutions, LLC is a data solutions provider with its principal place of business in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com CVS PHARMACY: Faces Dampolo Class Suit Over Sale of Cotton Swabs ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DAMPOLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., foreign corporation, Case No. 0:22-cv-61244-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged misrepresentation of cotton swab products. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the warranty implied in the contract for the sale of the products because it could not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, the goods were not of fair average quality within the description, and the goods were unfit for their intended and ordinary purpose because they were toxic and known to cause serious injuries and death. As a result, Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by CVS to be merchantable, says the suit. Cotton swabs (often referred to as Q-tips, the predominant/top selling cotton swab brand, manufactured by Unilever) were introduced to the public almost 100 years ago with cleaning/removing wax from the ear canal historically being the most common and understood use for the product. Decades of industry marketing taught consumers to use cotton swabs for this purpose and generations of Americans have become accustomed to cleaning out ear wax with a cotton swab. Otolaryngologists across the board agree, though, that the practice of self-cleaning wax from the ear with a cotton swab (or any device for that matter) is dangerous and not medically advised. With sticking anything in the ear and ear canal, there is a very real potential to perforate the ear drum. Further, the process of pushing the cotton swab into the canal can cause wax to impact into the ear. These injuries are not theoretical and are happening more than can be imagined. For instance, an estimated 12,500 children per year are seen in emergency rooms due to ear-related cotton swab injuries. The Plaintiff was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida, over the age of eighteen and otherwise sui juris. While living in Florida, Plaintiff purchased the below described product in the class period, and he relied upon representations from CVS regarding the products. CVS was and is a for profit corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, conducting substantial and not isolated business activity in the State of Florida, including but not limited to by virtue of owning and operating over 800 pharmacy stores throughout Florida and employing thousands of people in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Gitkin, Esq. SALPETER GITKIN, LLP One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 467-8622 Facsimile: (954) 467-8623 DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IRMA BARBOSA and CECILIA MATA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI, INC. AKA "DELTA FRESH"; SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.; ERNIE COSTAMAGNA, an individual, ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA, an individual, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California sets the filing of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for Sept. 19, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action and FLSA Complaint against the Defendants on May 29, 2020. Three days later, on June 1, 2020, the Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order stated that "All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, will be completed no later than two hundred forty (240) days from the date upon which the last answer may be filed with the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Defendants consented to the Plaintiffs' request to waive service of summons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. On April 26, 2021, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulation to modify the Initial Scheduling Order and ordered the parties to complete all class discovery by April 21, 2022, and file for Class Certification by July 21, 2022. Discovery has since been completed and the Plaintiffs are awaiting the putative class/witness list after the Belaire notice process is completed. There is good cause to modify the Class Certification Briefing Schedule because Defendants provided the employee class data to Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions on June 13, 2022. According to the proposed timeline provided by Phoenix, the list of putative class members who agree to disclose their information to Class Counsel will not be provided until July 25, 2022, four days after the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for Class Certification on July 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs require the list of putative class members that do not opt-out of disclosure in order to have an adequate opportunity to investigate, present evidence, and brief issues related to class certification. Therefore, the Parties agree and stipulate that, subject to the Court's order, the Class Certification Brief Scheduling is to be modified as follows: The Plaintiffs must file for Class Certification by Sept. 19, 2022. After consideration of the Stipulation, the Court's file in the action, and good cause appearing to modify the Class Certification Motion Scheduling Order, Judge Nunley modifies the Class Certification Motion Scheduling Order as follows: The Plaintiffs must file for Class Certification by Sept. 19, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p96dtb7 from Leagle.com. STAN S. MALLISON -- StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- HECTOR R. MARTINEZ -- HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- GONZALO QUEZADA JR., MALLISON & MARTINEZ, in Oakland, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated employees. CHRISTINA C. TILLMAN -- Christina.Tillman@mccormickbarstow.com -- MELISSA K. CERRO -- Melissa.Cerro@mccormickbarstow.com -- MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP, in Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendants DELTA PACK COMPANY OF LODI, INC. AKA "DELTA FRESH," ERNIE COSTAMAGNA, and ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA. RONALD H. BARSAMIAN -- ronbarsamian@aol.com --PATRICK S. MOODY -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com -- BARSAMIAN & MOODY, A Professional Company, Attorneys at Law, in Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Anti8trust Suits Over Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that a class action lawsuits were filed against the company alleging violations of the Sherman Act. Since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints on behalf of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs and End Payor Plaintiffs classes were filed against the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., and a number of other pharmaceutical defendants in the United States District court for the District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company's U.S. subsidiary and the other named defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the sale of "Divalproex ER" tablets used in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The actions alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and of state consumer protection and antitrust laws, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment, under a total of thirty-one States and the District of Columbia. The actions seek injunctive relief and recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, on a joint and several basis, on behalf of the plaintiff classes. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Involving 162 Drugs --------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company alleging violations of the Sherman Act and violations of forty-three States' antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes. On December 19, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by certain pharmacy and hospital indirect purchaser plaintiffs. The complaint alleges a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and violations of forty-three States' antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named defendants on a joint and several basis. The complaint alleges an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants involving one hundred and sixty-two drugs and, with slight variations, names approximately twenty-eight generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including the company's US subsidiary, as well as seven pharmaceutical distributor defendants and sixteen individual defendants. The drug-specific allegations against the company's US subsidiary involve nineteen drugs: allopurinol, capecitabine, ciprofloxacin HCL, divalproex ER, eszopiclone, fenofibrate, glimepiride, isotretinoin, lamotrigine ER, meprobamate, metoprolol ER, montelukast granules, omeprazole sodium bicarbonate, oxaprozine, paricalcitol, sumatriptan, tizanidine HCL, valganciclovir and zoledronic acid. The complaints seek injunctive relief, statutory penalties, punitive damages, and recovery of treble damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, against all named defendants on a joint and several basis. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drug Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that on November 18, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the Supreme court of the State of New York, Nassau County, by fourteen New York State Counties (Nassau, Allegany, Clinton. Cortland, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Niagara, Schenectady and Steuben). The complaint alleges an "overarching conspiracy" to fix prices and to rig bids and allocate customers with respect to these drugs. The Company's U.S. subsidiary is specifically named with respect to five drugs: glimepiride, glyburide-metformin, meprobamate, tizanidine and zoledronic acid. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's U.S. subsidiary was part of a larger "overarching conspiracy" with all other manufacturers named as to all of the drugs named in the complaint. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Drug Price Rigging ------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that on June 3, 2020, a Class Action Statement of Claim was filed by an individual consumer in Federal court in Toronto, Canada, against the company's US and Canadian subsidiaries and 52 other generic drug companies. The Statement of Claim alleges an industry-wide, overarching conspiracy to violate Section 36 of the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada. The action is brought on behalf of a class of all persons, from January 1, 2012 to the present, who purchased generic drugs in the private sector. The Statement of Claim states that it seeks damages against all defendants on a joint and several basis, attorney's fees and costs of investigation and prosecution. An Amended Statement of Claim was served on the company's US and Canadian subsidiaries on January 15, 2021 and added an additional 20 generic drug companies. The Amended Statement of Claim also removes the identification of defendant companies with conspiracy allegations regarding specific generic drugs and alleges a conspiracy to allocate the North America Market as to all generic drugs in Canada. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suits Involving 135 Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that class action complaints were filed against the company alleging violations of the Sherman Act, and violations of twenty-eight States' antitrust statutes and twenty-nine States' consumer protection statute. Complaints allege a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of twenty-eight States' antitrust statutes and twenty-nine States' consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. The complaint alleges an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants involving one hundred and thirty-five drugs and, with slight variations, names approximately thirty-six generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including the Company's U.S. subsidiary. The drug-specific allegations against the company's US subsidiary involve eight of the one hundred thirty-five drugs, including allopurinol, ciprofloxacin HCL, fluconazone, glimepiride, oxaprozine, paricalcitol, ranitidine HCL and tizanidine. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Pravastatin Sodium -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints were filed against the company and a number of other pharmaceutical defendants in the United States District court for the District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the company's US subsidiary and the other named defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the sale of pravastatin sodium tablets in the United States. The company's US subsidiary has been dismissed from these actions, without prejudice, in exchange for a tolling agreement with the plaintiffs suspending the statute of limitations as to the claims asserted. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in India. EXEL INC: Thorpe Sues Over Unpaid Wages After Kronos Hack --------------------------------------------------------- MARK THORPE and NICHOLAS MOON, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and LaTOYA CHAVISBURTON, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, Plaintiffs v. EXEL INC. d/b/a DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (USA), Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-11033-FDS (D. Mass., June 28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by DHL to Plaintiffs and similarly situated, along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout DHL's organization. As a result, DHL's workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by DHL to her and DHL's other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but DHL's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack, adds the suit. The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendant working in different locations including Georgia, Illinois, and California. Exel Inc., d/b/a DHL Supply Chain (USA), provides logistics services. The Company offers warehousing, transportation and distribution, and integrated logistics solutions, as well as other related services. DHL Supply Chain serves clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 12 Ericsson St., Ste. 2F Boston, MA 02122 Telephone: (857) 383-4903 Facsimile: (857) 383-4928 E-mail: kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com - and - J. Corey Asay, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 333 W. Vine St., Ste. 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 286-8368 Facsimile: (859) 286-8384 E-mail: casay@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law FEDERAL EXPRESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Taito's 2nd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SIALA TAITO, FUAILILIA TAITO, and KYDIA WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02599-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Jon P. McCalla of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on Feb. 1, 2022. I. Introduction The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Dec. 28, 2021, after the Court granted their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 1, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition on March 1, 2022. They then filed a Notice of Errata correcting page two of their Response in Opposition. The Defendant filed a Reply on March 15, 2022. The Court held a hearing on April 1, 2022. II. Background The Plaintiffs allege that an implied-in-fact contract is created between FedEx and a customer when said customer does not have a FedEx account and purchases shipping services at a FedEx Ship Center or FedEx Office store. Customers who have FedEx accounts are required to assent to FedEx's terms and conditions, which outline the process for obtaining a refund and contain an agreement not to sue as a class plaintiff; Plaintiffs contend, however, that customers without an account do not manifest assent to those terms and conditions. Plaintiffs Siala and Fuaililia Taito ("the Taitos") do not have FedEx accounts and purchased express package service at a FedEx Ship Center in Hawaii on July 16, 2021. The Taitos purchased Priority Overnight service to deliver a package the following day, July 17, 2021. The package was actually delivered on July 19, 2021, and as a result, the Taitos allege a breach of the implied-in-fact contract. Similarly, Kydia Washington does not have a FedEx account and purchased express package service at a FedEx Office store in Brandon, Florida on Oct. 21, 2021. Ms. Washington purchased Standard Overnight shipping in order to have the package delivered the following day, Oct. 22, 2021. The package was delivered on Oct. 25, 2021 instead, and as a result, Ms. Washington alleges that FedEx breached the implied-in-fact contract. The Plaintiffs allege a class action on behalf of individuals without FedEx accounts who purchased express package service that FedEx failed to deliver on time and that did not receive any refund. III. Analysis A. Plaintiffs' Imposition of an Unconditional Obligation is Pre-Empted by the ADA. Under the Airline Deregulation Act ("ADA"), state common law claims are preempted unless they are part of the contract agreement the parties entered into. As a result, the Defendant contends that the "Plaintiffs' claim is preempted by the ADA because it directly implicates FedEx's prices and services and seeks to impose additional obligations on FedEx." The Defendant contends that the "Plaintiffs here essentially allege they were misled as to what they were paying for," and such a "claim is more akin to a fraud or consumer protection claim related to FedEx's prices and services, which would be preempted by the ADA." It contends that "the allegations also suggest it is inappropriate for FedEx to retain the full price paid for the service when they provided the Plaintiffs an inferior service" and that such a "claim is akin to one for unjust enrichment, which is also preempted by the ADA." In response, the Plaintiffs contend that "their claim is based squarely on FedEx Express's self-imposed undertaking to deliver the package at the delivery speed for which they paid," so "the claim is therefore not subject to ADA preemption." The Defendant, on Reply, contends that the "Plaintiffs cannot avoid preemption by styling a claim as a breach of contract when the facts do not support that the air carrier agreed to the pled contract terms." It contends that "absent proof that the defendant agreed to enter into the implied-in-fact contract on the terms asserted by the Plaintiff, there can be no implied-in-fact contract." Judge McCalla holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that the delivery date was a term of any implied-in-fact contract between the Parties or that the Defendant assented to delivery date as being a term of such a contract. For that reason, their delay of delivery argument does not plausibly allege breach of the terms of the implied-in-fact contract and is instead alleging unjust enrichment or breach of other common law consumer protection doctrines that are pre-empted by the ADA. B. The Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege that the Delivery Date Is a Term of the Alleged Implied-in-Fact Contract. The Defendant also contends that the "Plaintiffs' implied-in-fact contract claim fails because the asserted 'contract' conflicts with the parties' written contract terms." It contends that "the existence of the Terms and Conditions was disclosed on the point-of-sale terminal and on their receipts," so even though the Plaintiffs did not review them, they would still be subject to them. It also contends that "to the extent the Plaintiffs allege FedEx's contractual duties are defined solely by their interaction with the service counter employees, those interactions cannot bind FedEx or alter FedEx's contractual duties related to delayed shipments because Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that individual service counter employees have the power to contractually obligate FedEx." In response, the Plaintiffs assert that "the SAC makes detailed factual allegations explaining why they did not manifest assent to FedEx Express's Terms and Conditions when they purchased express package service." They contend that "the SAC specifically alleges that the role of the service representatives is solely to communicate to customers the express package services and rates offered by FedEx Express" and thus, the SAC does not allege that the representatives have actual or apparent authority to contract for FedEx. Instead, the Plaintiffs contend that "the contract for express package service between FedEx Express and the customer is formed by the customer's interaction with FedEx Express's electronic system and tender of payment for the service." In reply, the Defendant contends that the "Plaintiffs have no factual basis for enforcing an implied-in-fact contract with a 'delivery speed' term." As a result, it contends that "there is no term reflecting 'delivery speed' displayed on the electronic device" and that "Plaintiffs thus cannot rely on the electronic system as the basis for FedEx agreeing -- subjectively or objectively -- to the 'delivery speed' term forming the basis of their Second Amended Complaint." As a result, the Defendant contends "that the Plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating FedEx's agreement to the implied-in-fact contract the Plaintiffs allege." FedEx further contends that even if the Terms and Conditions are not part of the contract between the Parties, they "evidence an agreement quite different than the one Plaintiffs plead, rendering it implausible that FedEx agreed to the obligation the Plaintiffs allege." Taking the Plaintiffs' argument as true, that there is an implied-in-fact contract via their interaction with the electronic page confirming shipment details and their selecting "ship" without scrolling down, Judge McCalla holds that there is no plausible factual allegation that delivery speed was a part of that implied-in-fact contract, because such a term is missing from the electronic screen, at least as pled in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Thus, he says, even if the Plaintiffs are not bound by the Terms and Conditions, they have not put forth any factual allegations to show that Defendant is bound by their purported delivery speed obligation. As a result, delivery speed cannot be a part of the implied-in-fact contract terms and instead imposes an additional obligation that is preempted by the ADA. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth, Judge McCalla grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4stwpurf from Leagle.com. FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces McCarthy Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11536-RHC-APP (E.D. Mich., July 7, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to prevent data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant's customers, like the Plaintiff and the Class, provided certain Personal Identifying Information ("PII") to the Defendant, which is necessary to obtain banking or mortgage lending services. As a national bank with an acute interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the PII entrusted to it, the Defendant is well-aware of the numerous data breaches that have occurred throughout the U.S. and its responsibility for safeguarding PII in its possession. The Defendant represents to consumers and the public that it possesses robust security features to protect PII. On or before June 2, 2022, the Defendant learned of a "cyber incident that involved unauthorized access to its network. The Defendant failed to prevent the data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failed to detect that its databases were subject to a security breach, says the suit. FLAGSTAR BANK FSB operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public which includes personal banking, online transaction, and debit and credit card services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 739-1950 Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Morgan & Morgan 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com GANNETT PUBLISHING: Order Denying OK of Aronson Settlement Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vicky Aronson filed an appeal from a court ruling denying preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit styled Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00996-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The Plaintiff filed this suit on May 30, 2019 asserting these claims in her complaint against all of the Defendants: (1) PAGA Penalties For Willful Misclassification (Labor Code Section 226.8, 2698); (2) Failure To Pay Separately And Hourly For Time Spent By Newspaper Carriers On Rest Periods And Nonproductive Time (Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2); (3) Failure To Provide Paid Rest Breaks And Pay Missed Rest Break Premiums (Labor Code Section 226.7; IWC Wage Order No. 9); (4) Failure To Provide Meal Periods And Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums (Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Order No. 9); (5) Failure To Reimburse Business Expenses (Labor Code Section 2802); (6) Unlawful Deductions From Pay (Labor Code Sections 221, 223, 400-410)"; (7) Failure To Pay All Wages Owed In A Timely Manner (Labor Code Section 204); (8) Failure To Provide Complete Wage Statements (Labor Code Sections 226 and 226.3); (9) Waiting Time Penalties (Labor Code Sections 201-203)"; (10) UCL Violations (Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17204); and (12) PAGA And Other Penalties (Labor Code Sections 2698-2699.5). The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 7, 2020, the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike; and mooting the Defendant's motion to strike certification of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff appealed this ruling but voluntarily dismissed the appeal on October 19, 2021. On November 4, 2021, the Defendant file a notice of settlement of the entire action. On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement which the Court denied on June 13, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The appellate case is captioned Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-80059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 28, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner VICKY ARONSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (760) 480-4162 - and - James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (858) 375-7385 Defendants-Respondents GANNETT PUBLISHING SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; LDC DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a California limited liability company; and LOUIS COX, an individual, are represented by: Richard B. Lapp, Esq. Camille Annette Olson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 233 S Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5914 - and - Paul J. Leaf, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 - and - Bethany Pelliconi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park, E Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 - and - Katelyn K. Empey, Esq. Quynhvi B. Sotelo, Esq. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY, LLP 1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: (760) 322-2275 GILSTRAP EXTERMINATING: Wolensky Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM J. WOLENSKY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. GILSTRAP EXTERMINATING LLC, MELANIE P. CHAFIN-GILSTRAP, and JAMES "JAMIE" EDWARD GILSTRAP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00128-RWS (N.D. Ga., June 30, 2022) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) who worked as technicians for the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Wolensky is an individual who is employed by the Defendants as a pest technician. Mr. Wolensky was hired by Defendants on or about June 9, 2020. He was an "employee" of the Defendants as defined by the FLSA. Mr. Wolensky was initially paid a salary of $35,360.00 per ear, paid every other week, says the suit. Mr. Wolensky further brings a claim of retaliation under the FLSA for the Defendants' retaliatory actions of harassing him, threatening him, and instructing him to resign if he filed this lawsuit. These actions were perpetrated in direct response to Mr. Wolensky's complaints about Defendants' illegal pay practices described herein, the suit alleges. Putative collective members are all individuals who, during the period beginning three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and terminating upon its final disposition, performed pest-control or extermination services for Gilstrap Exterminating LLC, and were allegedly not compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Kyle Paske, Esq. BRISKIN, CROSS & SANFORD, LLC E-mail: kpaske@briskinlaw.com 33 South Main Street, Suite 300 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (770) 410-1555 Facsimile: (770) 410-3281 - and - J. Daniel Cole, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com GOJO INDUSTRIES: Robles Appeals Purell Mislabeling Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Krista Robles filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing the lawsuit entitled Krista Robles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A PURELL, an Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:21-cv-00928, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26, 2021, the lawsuit is brought regarding the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with their hand-sanitizers which do not perform as advertised. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members are reasonable consumers who purchased Purell Hand Sanitizer because they believed that they would be protected from almost all disease-causing germs. Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers rely on statements made by well-known and long-standing brands such as Purell. Reasonable consumers do not independently verify the accuracy of claims made on the front labels of products. Reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff, pay a price premium for Purell products because of statements that suggest that the hand sanitizer kills more than 99.99% of germs that can cause illness. GOJO charges consumers more for Purell Hand Sanitizers because it knows that consumers will pay a price premium for a product that promises to protect them from nearly all disease-causing germs. Had Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers known the truth regarding Purell products, they would have purchased hand sanitizer products that cost less and achieve the same results, says the suit. On March 16, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint which the Court granted for failure to state a claim on June 17, 2022, through a judgment entered by Judge James V. Selna. The Plaintiff seeks a review of Judge Selna's Judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Krista Robles v. Gojo Industries, Inc., Case No. 22-55627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 29, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Krista Robles Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 6, 2022; -- Appellant Krista Robles opening brief is due on August 26, 2022; -- Appellee Gojo Industries, Inc. answering brief is due on September 26, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTA ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., an Ohio corporation, DBA Purell, is represented by: Darren K. Cottriel, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 E-mail: dcottriel@jonesday.com - and - Philip M. Oliss, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-7164 E-mail: poliss@jonesday.com HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Robinson Alleges Illegal Post-Lease Buyout Terms ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA ROBINSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, INC. d/b/a GENESIS FINANCE USA, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61234 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2022) challenges the Defendant's violation of the Federal Consumer Leasing Act and its implementing regulations as well as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act through its unlawful and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, Genesis causes Plaintiff and other consumers who buy out their leases needless financial harm (in violation of the CLA and the FDUTPA) by unilaterally increasing the pre-determined, and disclosed, purchase price listed in the lease agreement when consumers seek to purchase their vehicle at the end of the lease term. Genesis engages in this unfair business practice for its own financial benefit and at the expense of consumers, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Genesis' illegal conduct in connection with its post-lease buyout terms. The Plaintiff also seeks actual and statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, as well as injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, the suit adds. Hyundai Capital America, Inc., d/b/a Genesis Finance USA, provides commercial finance services. The Company offers vehicle financing and leasing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren R. Newhart, Esq. NEWHART LEGAL, P.A. P.O. Box 1351 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Telephone: (561) 331-1806 Facsimile: (561) 473-2946 E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com IMEDIA BRANDS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Duffek Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Laura Duffek, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iMedia Brands, Inc., Defendant, File No. 21-cv-01413 (ECT/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. I. Background Plaintiff Duffek alleges that Defendant iMedia violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when it terminated her employment in March 2020. She seeks to certify a class of 15 former Minnesota-based iMedia employees (including her) whose employment iMedia terminated around that same time. iMedia "operates a cable, satellite, and broadcast home shopping television network" through a subsidiary, ShopHQ. It maintains its "principal executive office" in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Before the terminations at issue in the suit, iMedia had 493 employees at its Minnesota office. Duffek "was an on-air guest and host." Though she worked for iMedia or its predecessors in various capacities for many years, "she worked as a full-time employee" from sometime during 2019 until her termination on March 24, 2020. In all, 108 Minnesota employees were terminated on March 24. Another 34 were terminated on April 8 or 15, 2020, and another 17 on April 24, 2020, all for the reasons described in the termination letter Duffek received. In her Complaint, Duffek asserts a single claim: That these terminations violated the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101, et seq. Under the Act, "an employer will not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order" to "the affected employees" and "the State." If an employer violates Section 2102 by not providing the required notice, the employer is liable to each eligible employee for up to 60-days' worth of back pay and benefits, as well as the cost of medical expenses incurred that would have been covered by an employee benefit plan. Ms. Duffek alleges that iMedia's March and April 2020 employee terminations were a "mass layoff" triggering the WARN Act's protections but that iMedia failed to comply with these requirements. Duffek -- for herself and the would-be class -- seeks to recover "back pay and associated benefits" and attorney fees. II. Discussion A party seeking class certification 'must affirmatively demonstrate their compliance' with Rule 23. The party must show that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)'s threshold requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and that the class fits within one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). District courts must engage in a 'rigorous analysis' to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. A class cannot be certified unless it "is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." "No specific rules govern the required size of a class, and what constitutes impracticability depends upon the facts of each case." "The most obvious factor, of course, is the number of potential class members," and "other relevant factors include the nature of the action, the size of individual claims, the inconvenience of trying individual suits, and any other factor that sheds light on the practicability of joining all putative class members." Judge Tostrud will deny Duffek's class-certification motion because the class is not so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. If that weren't so, the motion would be denied because Duffek has asserted a separate, independent age-discrimination claim, and the better answer is that her assertion of this claim makes her an inadequate class representative. First, he finds that Duffek's proposed WARN Act class of 15 is not so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Though there is no bright-line rule setting a minimum for class size, certification of a class of 15 members would be an outlier. The bottom line is that the number of members in Duffek's proposed class -- the "most obvious factor" -- leans strongly against finding that Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement is met. Other factors don't change things. The record does not include particular information showing the value of each putative class member's claim. Finally, Duffek has identified no jurisdictional or like barrier to joining one or more of the potential class members. The better answer is that Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement has not been met. Second, Judge Tostrud holds that Duffek could not adequately protect the proposed class' interests in view of her separate age-discrimination claim. Duffek filed an individual age-discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As of the hearing on this motion, that charge was pending with the agencies. iMedia argues that Duffek has a conflict of interest in her simultaneous pursuit of class and individual claims, given that iMedia will not "resolve Duffek's litigation against it piecemeal -- any settlement of the age claim will come part and parcel with settlement of the WARN claim and vice versa." Duffek argues that such a conflict is hypothetical and speculative, and further highlights that there is no overlap in the damages available for her WARN Act claim and discrimination claim. Judge Tostrud concludes that iMedia has the better argument. Duffek confirmed at the hearing that, once she exhausts her administrative remedies, she intends to pursue the discrimination claim. At some point, then, she almost certainly will have to decide whether to accept a global settlement proposal. Accepting that her intentions are appropriate and genuine, it remains difficult to envision how Duffek might make that decision without compromising her duty to adequately protect the class. A larger offer on the age-discrimination claim would place Duffek in the position of perhaps accepting a smaller settlement of the WARN Act claim. An unacceptably low offer on the age-discrimination claim might prompt Duffek to reject an otherwise acceptable settlement of the WARN Act claim. Either scenario is too likely to disregard. The better answer, then, is that these conflicts are real, not hypothetical, and make Duffek an inadequate class representative. III. Order Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings, Judge Tostrud denies Duffek's Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3rnham from Leagle.com. Bert Black -- BBlack@SchaeferHalleen.com -- and Lauren A. D'Cruz -- LDCruz@SchaeferHalleen.com -- Schaefer Halleen, LLC, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiff Laura Duffek. Kristina H. Kaluza -- kkaluza@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, Minneapolis, MN; and James Hermon -- jhermon@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, in Detroit, Michigan, for Defendant iMedia Brands, Inc. KOHANA COFFEE: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ RAMON FONTANEZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KOHANA COFFEE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05584 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to -- and independently usable by -- the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software. The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or services offered on the website during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint. In May 2022, the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact business on Defendant's website, www.kohanacoffee.com. The main reason the Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers cold brew coffee drinks and coffee blends. The accessibility issues Plaintiff experienced are still found on the Defendant's website as of the date of the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiff still intends to purchase certain goods and/or services from Defendant's website in the future, but currently cannot, says the suit. The Defendant and its website violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), as the website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant seeking preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24 th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Protective Order in Thai Suit Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANH TUYET THAI, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; WILLIAM VILLASENOR; DULCE SANCHEZ; and STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS LADA DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 15cv583-WQH (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order: a. denying the Defendants' Motion to Request an Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) Compelling Plaintiffs to Submit to a Mental Examination; b. granting the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Substitute their Designated Psychological Expert due to Illness; and c. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order for all of Plaintiffs' Treating Physicians. I. Background The lawsuit is a class action lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights when Los Angeles County investigators William Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, and other unknown agents entered the Plaintiffs' homes to question them about their SSA applications for benefits. II. Discussion & Order A. Motion for Mental Examination In this motion, the Defendants seek an order from the Court to permit Rule 35 mental examinations of the named Plaintiffs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governs mental examinations and authorizes the court to "order a party whose mental or physical condition is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner." A Rule 35 examination requires a showing that the party's mental or physical condition is "in controversy" and that there is "good cause" supporting the order. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have put their mental state "in controversy" since they maintain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, have made allegations of specific mental/psychiatric injuries, and have made a claim of severe emotional distress. Specifically, they point to the inclusion of the eighth cause of action in the case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, the Defendants point out that the Plaintiffs have alleged specific ailments -- including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive order. Thus, they argue that the allegations here amount to more than garden variety claims of emotional distress. In Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995), a claim of emotional distress can place a person's mental state "in controversy" if accompanied with one or more of the following: "(1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; (3) a claim of unusually severe emotional distress; (4) plaintiff's offer of expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress; or (5) plaintiff's concession that his or her mental condition is 'in controversy.'" Judge Stormes agrees that the Plaintiffs have likely placed their mental state in "controversy" as defined under Turner. However, in additional to having to place their mental state in "controversy," the Defendants must establish good cause to permit the exam. As to these factors, first, the Plaintiffs have represented to the Court that they will not rely on expert testimony regarding their mental state. Second, in light of this, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have access to sufficient alternative means to get the needed information. On Feb. 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs supplemented their initial disclosures to include the following treatment information: (i) Dr. James Grisolia, M.D., 4033 Third Av.,#410, San Diego, CA 92103, (619)297-1155; (ii) Dr. Jon Highum, M.D., 225 W. Madison Av., St#2, El Cajon, CA 92020,(619)971-1423; (iii) Dr. Nadine Sidrick, M.D., 4440 Euclid Av., San Diego, CA 92115, (619) 582-5105; and (iv) Dr. Grisolia, Dr. Sidrick and Dr. Highum are treating physicians of Plaintiffs for their neurologic and mental problems. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants could retrieve the information they need from treatment records. In addition, they argue that much medical records have already been provided to the Defendants and the Defendants have taken hours of deposition testimony already from the Plaintiffs. Thus, Judge Stormes holds that the Plaintiffs argue that sufficient alternative means exist to get the needed information, without having to further subject them to an intrusive mental examination. She agrees with the Plaintiffs that insufficient good cause has been shown. In light of the information already provided and the alternate means to get mental treatment information, she denies the request for a mental examination of the Plaintiffs. B. Motion Amend Schedule The second motion in front of the Court is the Defendants' motion for leave to substitute their current psychological expert, Dr. Lee, due to illness and to serve an amended Rule 26 expert report. Specifically, they state that they retained Dr. Lee in February 2022, without any indication at that time that he could be incapable of performing the services he was retained for. Dr. Lee completed his expert report and served it on April 25, 2022. Shortly thereafter on May 10, 2022, Dr. Lee was seen by his own doctor, who found that his work exacerbated his physical conditions and recommended that he stop working and retire. After learning of Dr. Lee's condition, the Defendants state that they retained another expert, Dr. Lauren Mai, to substitute in. The Plaintiffs oppose the request, arguing that the Defendants should have been aware of his potential issue given Dr. Lee's advance aged when he was retained, and the Defendants should have retained two expert witnesses before the expert opening report deadline due to this risk. In light of the circumstances, Judge Stormes finds that the Defendants have established good cause for seeking a limited extension of the expert discovery deadlines in order to substitute in Dr. Mai for Dr. Lee. She notes that there is a motion in limine pending regarding Dr. Lee, but the motion deadline for filing such motions has not yet passed. Thus, Judge Stormes grants the motion and orders as follows: (1) Dr. Mai may be designated as a substitute expert for Dr. Lee; (2) Dr. Mai may submit a new expert report by July 15, 2022. However, her expert report must be: (a) limited to only review of the materials reviewed by Dr. Lee; and (b) she may not opine on any new topics that Dr. Lee did not opine on in his expert report; (3) the Plaintiffs may request to depose Dr. Mai and/or submit a rebuttal report by July 29, 2022; and (4) the current deadline to bring any pretrial motions is July 15, 2022. Judge Stormes this deadline to Aug. 15, 2022. C. Motion for Protective Order The final motion in front of the Court is a motion by the Plaintiffs for a protective order to quash the deposition subpoenas served on their treating physicians by Defendants. The motion involves five treating physicians: (1) Dr. John Highum; (2) Dr. Nadine Sidrick; (3) Dr. James Grisiola; (4) Dr. Harry Henderson; and (5) Dr. Don Miller. The Plaintiffs argue that the deposition subpoenas came too late since fact discovery closed on March 25, 2022. They that treating physicians are treated like fact witnesses rather than expert witnesses, and that they have complied with the disclosure requirements for fact witnesses. While acknowledging that there are two types of expert witnesses under Rule 26 -- those "retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony" that must provide expert reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and those that are not required to provide expert reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) -- the Plaintiffs argue that the treatment notes and evaluations have fulfilled these requirements as well. Judge Stormes holds that it is clear that the Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. If they want to want the five treating physicians to testify regarding their medical opinions that would be considered expert opinions under Rule 702, they must be disclosed as detailed in Rule 26(a)(2)(C). The way that they have been disclosed so far -- through supplemental initial disclosures and interrogatory responses -- does not meet Rule 26(a)(2)(C)'s requirements. Conversely, if the Plaintiffs do not want the treating physicians to testify regarding medical opinions that would be considered expert opinions under Rule 702, they must be prepared to limit the testimony as such or risk in limine motions that would exclude certain testimony. The Plaintiffs have made contradictory statements in their filings with regard to whether they consider these treating physicians as fact or expert witnesses. Thus, Judge Stormes will grant in part and deny in part this motion to allow the Plaintiffs to clarify their position. She orders as follows: 1) By July 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs must disclose to Defendants whether they are designating the five treating physicians as experts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). If they are so designating, they must concurrently provide disclosures as required under that rule. Providing treatment records does not suffice to satisfy this requirement. If they are not designating the physicians as such, the subpoenas will be quashed. (2) If the treating physicians are timely designated as experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), the motion to quash the subpoenas is denied and the Defendants will be permitted to take depositions if desired by July 29, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdha2a5e from Leagle.com. MCG HEALTH: Failed to Protect Patients' Private Info, Taylor Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAY TAYLOR and SHELLEY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCG HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00925 (W.D. Wash., July 1, 2022) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of those similarly situated, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party. On March 25, 2022, the Defendant discovered an unauthorized party previously obtained certain personal information of its customers' patients and members that matched data stored on Defendant's systems. Despite discovering the data breach on March 10, 2022, Defendant did not notify Plaintiffs and Class Members until June 10, 2022. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' and employees' private information, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs were patients of local hospitals networks which were affiliates of Defendant. MCG Health Inc. is a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act business associate that provides patient care guidelines to health care providers and health plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com MENDOZA AUTO: Misclassifies Non-exempt Workers, Castillo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLADIMIR CASTILLO and FRANCELYS ESPINOZA CRUZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. MENDOZA AUTO REPAIR, INC., and JOSE MENDOZA, Case No. 2:22-cv-03861 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to misclassification of non-exempt workers as exempt, unreimbursed expenses, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of all current and former non-exempt fixed-salary employees (including, but not limited to, tire repairmen, secretaries, janitors, mechanics, and counter persons, among others) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of this Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 NATIONAL FUTURES: Kumaran Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Samantha Siva Kumaran is appealing a court ruling dismissing her 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. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2020, the lawsuit arises 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 were sold and/or distributed and were fully disclosed to the owners, employees, and affiliates of the disbarred futures clearing merchant, Vision Financial Markets, LLC, without customers' knowledge, permission and consent. On March 15, 2021, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss first amended complaint which the Court granted on June 2, 2022 through a Memorandum Opinion & Order entered by Judge Gregory H. Woods. The Order says that Plaintiffs' claims against the NFA Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to replead their Defend Trade Secrets Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state law claims against Tom Kadlec, but are otherwise denied leave to amend the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Kumaran v. National Futures Association, Case No. 22-1388, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 29, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Samantha Siva Kumaran appears pro se. 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 - 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 NOMURA INT'L: Faces Securities Suit in Toronto ---------------------------------------------- Nomura Horudingusu Kabushiki Kaisha disclosed in its Form 10-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2022, that Nomura International plc (NIP) and Nomura Securities International, Inc. (NSI) are defendants in a class action filed in the Toronto Registry Office of the Federal court of Canada alleging violations of Canadian competition law relating to the alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for supranational, sub-sovereign and agency bonds. Nomura Horudingusu Kabushiki Kaisha is a financial services group based in Japan. NORTHERN SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Plaintiff v. NORTHERN SHORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DWAYNE GRIFFITH; and GE'VELLE MARIE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05754 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants as staff. NORTHERN SHORE INTERNATIONAL, INC. owns and operates a call center company known as Northern Shore, located at New York, NY 10036. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com PAUL HOTEL: Faces Thaw Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaung Thaw, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in this proposed collective action, Plaintiff v. The Paul Hotel Inc., Joginder Sharma (a/k/a John Sharma), Safraz Haniff, and Bibi Haniff, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05446 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff filed this action over the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide wage notices, and failure for furnish accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Thaw was employed as a front desk agent, night auditor and general worker at Defendants' hotels from March 2022 through June 2022. The Paul Hotel Inc. is a New York-based hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com PIZZETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PIZZETTE LLC d/b/a PIZZETTE PIZZERIA WINE BAR; and JEAN BLACHERE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22055-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as cook. PIZZETTE LLC d/b/a PIZZETTE PIZZERIA WINE BAR owns and operates a restaurant in Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com PRELUDE PAINTING: Mayen Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO MAYEN, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. PRELUDE PAINTING CORP. and CARLOS SOLANO, Case No. 7:22-cv-05572 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Mayen as a non-exempt painter from on October 9, 2020 through September 22, 2021. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff Mayen was responsible primarily for painting both residential and commercial properties. The Plaintiff regularly worked five to six days per week on Mondays through Friday, working from between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. until between 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., or sometimes even later, during which Plaintiff typically received a thirty minute meal break. He worked an additional eight hour workday on one Saturday per month. Accordingly, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did regularly work, between 45 hours and 68 hours, and sometimes even more hours, during each workweek, the lawsuit says. The Defendants provide a variety of services, including interior and exterior painting, tile removal and installation, dry wall installation, electrical services, plumbing services, and other construction and demolition services in and around New York City and other regions of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 R&S CONCRETE: San Martin Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SAN MARTIN, MIGUEL RIBEIRO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. R&S CONCRETE SOUTH, INC., a Florida Corporation, ROGER & SONS CONCRETE, INC., a New York Corporation, and ANTONIO RODRIGUES, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22017 (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants money damages for Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs San Martin and Ribeiro were employed by the Corporate Defendants as carpenters and construction workers for the Corporate Defendants' business from approximately March of 2015 to May 16, 2022 and from approximately more than 20 years until his constructive discharge on May 16, 2022, respectively. R&S Concrete South, Inc. engages in the concrete work business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tanesha W. Blye, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Files 1st Cir. Appeal in Powers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE POWERS, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-12125-TSH, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. Ms. Powers alleges that she incurred a debt, and that RPM attempted to collect the debt by calling her cellular telephone "at an excessive and harassing rate." She alleges that RPM violated Massachusetts law, which prohibits a creditor from "[i]nitiating a communication" with a debtor "in excess of two" times in a seven-day period. Powers sought to represent a class of Massachusetts consumers who, within four years prior to the filing of this action, "received in excess of two telephone calls regarding a debt from RPM within a seven-day period." In October 2018, RPM removed the case to federal court, invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Concluding that Powers' individual claim did not exceed $75,000, the Court granted Powers' motion to remand. In December 2021, RPM again removed the case to federal court, this time invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On February 18, 2022, Powers again moved to remand, contending that RPM has failed to show by a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. On March 4, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended notice of removal. On May 3, 2022, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and denying the Defendant's motion. The case in Massachusetts District Court was, therefore, terminated that day. On May 25, 2022, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an Order and Memorandum granting Defendant's May 5, 2022 motion for reconsideration regarding the Court's remand order and denying Plaintiff's February 18, 2022 motion to remand. Accordingly, the case in Massachusetts District Court was reopened on June 17, 2022. On June 21, 2022, a notice of reassignment was filed in the docket disclosing that District Judge Timothy S. Hillman is no longer assigned to case, and that the case has been reassigned to Judge William G. Young. The Defendant filed an appeal thereafter. The appellate case is captioned as Receivable Performance Management, LLC v. Powers, Case No. 22-1500, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 27, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC is represented by: Thomas C. Blatchley, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Ste 206 Glastonbury, CT 06033 Telephone: (860) 278-7448 - and - Shaun Loughlin, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 21 Custom House St., 5th Flr Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 504-2017 Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE POWERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Rd Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 SERVICE CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, McWhorter Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEISA MCWHORTER; ANITZA HARTSHORN; PICHARD ALFORD; and LAKESHIER CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCI SHARED RESOURCES, LLC; and SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-02256 (S.D. Tex., July 7, 2022) alleges Defendants' violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are each Plan participants. As of December 31, 2020, the Plan had $1,296,650,113 in assets and 25,351 participants, qualifying it as a "mega plan". Instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, the Defendants caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative services, says the suit. The Defendants did not adhere to fiduciary best practices to control Plan fees and expenses. To the extent that the Defendants made any prudent attempt to control the Plan's expenses and to ensure the expenses were not excessive, the Defendants employed flawed and ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the fees and expenses charged to Plan participants were reasonable, and (b) that the compensation third-party service providers received from the plan for services provided were reasonable, the suit alleges. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL provides death care services worldwide. The Company operates funeral service locations, cemeteries, and crematoria. Service also sells prearranged funeral services in most of its service markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Miltenberger, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amandae. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Email: mckay@mckay.law - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER,PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Dorton Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- HOPE DORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 152592410 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., July 1, 2022) is a class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act arising from the Defendant's engagement in telephonic sales calls to consumers, including Plaintiff, without having secured prior express written consent to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. The Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and a "called party" as defined by Fla. Stat. Section 501.059(1)(a) who received Defendant's telephonic sales calls. SmileDirectClub, LLC designs and manufactures dental equipment. It serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com SOLANA LABS: Faces Young Suit Over Unregistered Solana Tokens ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLANA LABS, INC.; THE SOLANA FOUNDATION; ANATOLY YAKOVENKO; MULTICOIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; KYLE SAMANI; and FALCONX LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03912 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2022) seeks to recover damages and to obtain other relief from harm that Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained due to Defendants' unregistered and unqualified offers and sales of securities in violation of Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 77e, 77l, and 77o of Title 15 of the United States Code, and Sections 25110 and 25503 of the California Corporations Code. The suit is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased Solana tokens ("SOL securities"), which are unregistered securities, issued and sold by Defendants beginning on March 24, 2020, through the present. The Defendants allegedly made enormous profits through the sale of SOL securities to retail investors in the United States, says the suit. Additionally, the Defendants have made deliberately misleading statements concerning the total circulating supply of SOL securities. Multicoin Capital Management LLC and Kyle Samani relentlessly promoted SOL securities, after purchasing them for $0.40 in 2019 when Multicoin led Solana's "Series A" offering. Samani and Multicoin continuously flogged SOL securities, inflating its market price from below a dollar to hundreds of dollars, persisting in their promotional efforts even after it was clear that Solana had serious outages and technical issues, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff, who purchased SOL securities in August and September 2021 from California, seeks rescissionary damages with respect to their purchases of SOL tokens. Solana Labs, Inc. provides software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Roche, Esq. Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq. Edward Normand, Esq. Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. Stephen Lagos, Esq. ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 350-0527 E-mail: kyle@rochefreedman.com tnormand@rochefreedman.com ingo@rochefreedman.com slagos@rochefreedman.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Mark F. Ram, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: Tschneider@schneiderwallace.com Jkim@schneiderwallace.com MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com MRam@schneiderwallace.com - and - Jason H. Kim, Esq. 300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that in September 2021, an antitrust class action was filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in the U.S. District court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, a putative class of wholesalers, allege that the settlements that Takeda entered into in 2015 and 2016 to resolve patent litigation claims against several generic drug manufacturers related to generic formulations of gout medicine "COLCRYS" were anticompetitive. Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha is a global, values-based, R&D-driven biopharmaceutical company based in Japan. UNITED STATES: Afghan and Iraqi Allies Appeal Ruling to D.C. Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Afghan and Iraqi Allies, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Antony Blinken, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Antony Blinken is sued in his official capacity as the U.S. Secretary of State. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2020, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs--five anonymous Afghan or Iraqi nationals represent a class of individuals who, despite significant personal risk, aided the United States in its time of need and now look to the United States for refuge for themselves and their immediate family members. They allege that they provided faithful and valuable service to the US government or its allied forces in their capacities as employees of, or on behalf of, the United States government over the past several years, and that because of their service, they face an ongoing serious threat to their lives in their home countries. In response to these threats, the Plaintiffs submitted Special Immigrant Visa ("SIV") applications to the U.S. Department of State, seeking lawful admission into the United States. Two Plaintiffs submitted their applications in 2013, one in 2015, and the other two in 2016. At the time they filed this action on June 12, 2018, none of their SIV applications had received a final decision. They claim that the Defendants have failed to process and adjudicate their SIV applications within a reasonable time. There are five class representatives: John Doe-Alpha, Jane Doe-Bravo, John Doe-Charlie, Jane Doe-Delta, and John Doe-Echo. All are SIV applicants who resided in Iraq or Afghanistan and allege that they lived "in fear of reprisal for their service to the US government" while they awaited "final decisions from the Defendants on their applications." For each of them, the Defendants took far longer than the statutorily-allowed nine months to complete all government-controlled processing steps. Their application processes are now complete, as the Defendants adjudicated each of their cases after the Plaintiffs' filed their Complaint. The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification. After three rounds of briefing, the Defendants have shown that implementing the Court's remedy -- a plan for prompt adjudication -- does present certain administrative challenges. However, the Court finds that despite these challenges, the requirements for class certification are satisfied. Moreover, the administrative challenges pale in comparison to the inefficiency, cost, and waste of resources that would result if each applicant (there are hundreds), were to bring individual claims. The burden of such inefficient and needlessly duplicative litigation would be borne by the Court, the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs, whose lives, and whose families' lives, are at risk every day their applications are pending. Judge Chutkan concluded that while the SIV process is complex and resource-intensive, the Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to fully adjudicate applications without unreasonable delay. The Plaintiffs filed the suit as a class to efficiently and effectively bring the Defendants into compliance with that statutory duty. Because the Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the motion to certify the class was granted. On May 27, 2021, having considered the Defendants' joint status report, and in light of the actions mandated by Executive Order 14012 and Executive Order 14013, the Court entered a Minute Order that the parties shall meet, confer, and file a joint status report by November 22, 2021 advising the court of: (1) any relevant developments affecting this litigation; (2) any portion or portions of this case which the parties believe to have been mooted by Defendants' actions in response to the aforementioned Executive Orders; and (3) any portion or portions of this case which the parties wish to stay for any reason, including to await further action stemming from the aforementioned Executive Orders. On March 15, 2022, the Court responded on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time and ruled that the Stay in this action is hereby extended, nunc pro tunc, until further order of the court. On March 16, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a response to May 27, 2021 Order. On March 30, 2022, Afghan and Iraqi Allies also filed a cross motion to lift stay nunc pro tunc and opposition to Defendants' motion for leave to file response to the May 27, 2021 Order. On April 28, 2022, the Court entered anew a Minute Order wherein Defendants' motion for leave to file response to May 27, 2021 Order was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff's cross motion to lift stay was also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The stay contemplated by the court's March 15, 2022 Minute Order was extended until further order of the court. Plaintiffs Afghan and Iraqi Allies, et al., are now appealing this order. The appellate case is captioned as Afghan and Iraqi Allies, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., Case No. 22-5183, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on June 28, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Afghan and Iraqi Allies, UNDER SERIOUS THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES, ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., are represented by: Olivia Greene, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-4000 - and - Mariko Hirose, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC. One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (516) 701-4620 Defendants-Appellees Antony J. Blinken, et al., are represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Appeal on Dist. Court Orders in Miller Suit Ends --------------------------------------------------------------- Intervenor Defendant THE FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES/LAND ASSISTANCE FUND filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the district court to vacate its orders in the lawsuit entitled Sid Miller, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tom Vilsack, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00595, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Sid Miller brought this action, on behalf of himself and all farmers and ranchers in the United States who are excluded from the benefits of programs for "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers" because of their race or ethnicity. According to the complaint, the Department of Agriculture has adopted a general definition of "socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher" as follows--A socially disadvantaged group is defined as: A farmer or rancher who is a member of one or more of the following groups whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities: African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders. Setting aside the propriety of the use of these classifications for benefits, this definition of "socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher" departs from the plain statutory text by failing to include white ethnic groups that have unquestionably suffered ethnic prejudice, the complaint asserts. On June 2, 2021, an amended complaint was filed in the court to add Greg Macha, James Meek, Lorinda O'Shaughnessy, and Jeff Peters as Plaintiffs. On April 5, 2022, Judge Reed C. O'Connor declined the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund's request to reopen fact discovery in issuing the new scheduling order. The court argued that the parties, including the Federation, have long represented that this case can and should be resolved through expert testimony and briefing. On April 13, 2022, the Federation filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court's order to deny request to reopen fact discovery. The court denied the motion on April 22, 2022. On May 13, 2022, the Federation filed a motion to compel production of complete loan data and for extension of deadlines and request for expedited briefing and decision. The Federation requested that the government disclose additional records containing Department of Agriculture loan application data beyond that contained in the government's expert disclosure. The government declined to produce anything beyond what its expert relied on. The Federation moved to compel production of additional loan data. The court denied the motion to compel on May 20, 2022. The Federation requests a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to (1) to vacate its orders prohibiting the Federation from taking fact discovery and denying the Federation's expert the data necessary to prepare a reliable report and (2) to enter a revised scheduling order allowing the Federation to conduct the targeted, time-limited fact discovery identified in its portion of the joint status report submitted following the appellate court's decision directing that the Federation be allowed to intervene as a matter of right. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, Case No. 22-10600, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2022. However, this appellate case was terminated on June 23, 2022. [BN] Intervenor-Petitioner Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund is represented by: Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 1901 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-3506 Telephone: (202) 282-5288 Plaintiffs-Respondents Sid Miller, et al., are represented by: Charles William Fillmore, Esq. Hartson Dustin Fillmore, III, Esq. FILLMORE LAW FIRM, LLP 201 Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-2351 E-mail: chad@fillmorefirm.com dusty@fillmorefirm.com - and - Gene Patrick Hamilton, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 300 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org - and - Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. 111 Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701-0000 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law Defendants-Respondents Tom Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, et al., are represented by: Jack Starcher, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-8877 - and - Scott Martin Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW FIRM 1300 Alta Vista Avenue Building 1 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 - and - David Samuel Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 1620 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 - and - Rebecca Ruth Webber, Esq. WEBBER LAW 4228 Threadgill Street Austin, TX 78723 Telephone: (512) 669-9506 UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued Over Alleged Violation of ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; and UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00850 (D. Conn., July 7, 2022) alleges Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in the midst of this dramatic rise in telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, to deviate from the reimbursement rates for such services prescribed by the terms of its healthcare plans, the Defendants underpay benefits due to its members for covered telehealth services, and pad its own profits with the difference. As of March 31, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") increased the amount it pays for most telehealth services. The Defendants, however, ignored this change and continued to calculate and pay benefits for telehealth services from out-of-network providers using the lower rates indicated by the superseded CMS policy—including when it paid benefits under the Plaintiff's plan for the Plaintiffs covered telehealth psychotherapy appointments. As a result, the Defendant underpaid the benefits due to the Plaintiff under her plan, leaving her responsible to pay her provider the difference. Meanwhile, The Defendants pocketed the benefits it did not pay to the Plaintiff, adding them to its exorbitant profits, says the suit. In so doing, the Defendants unreasonably interpreted the written terms of the Plaintiff's plan, violated ERISA, and breached the fiduciary duties of care, prudence, and loyalty it owes to Plaintiff when carrying out its responsibilities for administering Plaintiff's plan, the suit alleges. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY provides insurance services. The Company offers vision, critical illness, short term health, dental, medicaid, and term life insurance, as well as business plans and group retiree benefits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2650 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 Email: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 Email: dbhufford@zuckennan.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. Andrew Goldfarb, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 Email: creynolds@zuckerman.com agoldfarb@zuckerman.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Omits Products' Caloric Info, Collins Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL COLLINS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNIVERSAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS CORPORATION d/b/a UNIVERSAL NUTRITION, Case No. 2:22-cv-961 (June 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment on behalf of all others similarly situated. This action arises from the alleged deceptive trade practices of Defendant, acting under the brand names "Universal Nutrition" and "Universal Protein Supplements Corporation," in its manufacture and sale of nutritional powders containing branched-chain amino acids labeled: "Animal Juiced Aminos" (the "Product"), the packaging and advertisements for this product omits all caloric information and any mention of Calories, says the suit. The "Animal Juiced Aminos" line of products is available for purchase in four flavor variations: Grape, Orange, Peach Mango, and Strawberry Limeade. The Product is marketed to "halt muscle breakdown and induce recovery." The Product is one sub-brand of the Universal Nutrition portfolio, which contains other similar products (e.g., "BCAA Stack") all of which have similarly, purposely misbranded calorie content of "0 Calories," and omit caloric information entirely from the nutrition label. Despite Universal Nutrition's omission of Calories on its "Animal Juiced Amino's" supplement, independent laboratory testing has revealed that the product contains a range of 45-90 calories depending on formulation and use guidance, which can include multiple servings per day, the suit asserts. The Defendant's omissions regarding the number of Calories in the Product, including on its labels, webpages, and other marketing and advertising media and materials is purposely deceptive to create a competitive advantage against compliant competitors. However, it is the consumers that ultimately suffer by this deviant and non-compliant behavior because Defendants knowingly provide non-factual information and omit relevant information in an attempt to deceive and entice sales to these consumers who are seeking to purchase "0 Calorie" products conducive to weight loss and control alongside muscle development, alleges the suit. Universal Protein Supplements Corp designs, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells sports nutrition supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone. (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. 412 H Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY P.O. Box 279 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Verus International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21, 2022, that on April 23, 2021, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed which names its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, and Verus, as defendants. On November 9, 2021, this complaint was dismissed. This class action complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Verus between June 17, 2019 and October 8, 2020. Verus International, Inc. is into consumer packaged goods, foodstuff distribution and wholesale trade based in Texas. VISTA YACHTS: Faces Pertusiello FTSA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA PERTUSIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VISTA YACHTS FL LLC, Case No. CACE-22-009585 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 30, 2022) asserts class action claim for monetary and treble damages pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff registered her cell phone number on the Do Not Call ("DNC") list on or about March 10, 2021. The Plaintiff uses her cell phone for personal use only. It is not used as a business number. Beginning on June, 2022, the Defendant began spamming the Plaintiff with unsolicited texts to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number, says the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendant was not required to and did not need to utilize the Platform to send messages to the Plaintiff and the Class members. Instead, Defendant opted to use the Platform to maximize the reach of its text message advertisements at a nominal cost to Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.220(b)(2) and (b)(3). The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: -- No Prior Consent Class: "All persons in Florida who, without prior express invitation/ consent: 1. were sent a telephonic sales call and/ or text(s) regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, and 2. using the same equipment or the same type of equipment utilized to call and/ or text Plaintiff." -- Secret Caller Class: All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, received a telemarketing call and/ or one or more text(s) from the Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf that did not disclose: 1. the name of the individual caller; and/or 2. the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made; and/or 3. a valid, transparent telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. -- Do Not Call ("DNC"): "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, receiv d a telemark ting call and/or one or more text(s) from Defendant, or anyone on Defi ndant's behalf: 1. whose telephone numbers appear on the then-current "no sales solicitation calls" list; 2. who received unwanted telephonic sales calls from the Defendant or their agent(s); 3. for whom the Defendant claims to have obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as they obtained Plaintiffs consent to call her cell phone. The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several thousands, if not more. Vista Yachts specializes in boat and yacht charter rental in Miami Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 E-mail: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com WALGREEN CO: Antiseptic Product Sold at Higher Prices, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Novotney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-03439 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2022) alleges the Defendant's misleading statement of its product identified as a "First Aid Antiseptic" and "Oral Debriding Agent" in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, the value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than $3.99 for 32 OZ, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the suit. Walgreen manufactures, markets, labels and sells 3% hydrogen peroxide solution to be used "For treatment of minor cuts and abrasions," under the Walgreens brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ZAXBY'S COMPANY: Faces Dorton Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- HOPE DORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAXBY'S COMPANY RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 152593552 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., July 1, 2022) is a class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act arising from the Defendant's engagement in telephonic sales calls to consumers, including Plaintiff, without having secured prior express written consent to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. The Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and a "called party" as defined by Fla. Stat. Section 501.059(1)(a) who received Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Zaxby's Company Restaurants LLC owns and operates restaurants based in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***