/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220823.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 23, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 162 Headlines #1 BROOKLYN FURNITURE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Hindi Says 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Easton Files Suit in E.D. New York 360 FINANCIAL GROUP: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California 3M COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content A. & M. PIZZA: Brewster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime A.B.C. CARPET CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ABC CORPS 1-3: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey AERO LTD: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ALTO PHARMACY: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Antitrust, Consumer Suits in California Court ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement in Class Suit Gets Final Nod ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Smoking Hazards in Canadian Courts ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Vaping Products AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends Must Provide Copy of Distribution Accords AMERICAN BOTANICAL: Moree Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN EXPRESS: Personal Rep Substitution in Benacquisto Affirmed ANIMATION SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: $30M Deal in Mandatory Bag Check Suit Wins Final OK ARBORWORKS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California ARIZONA: Faces Garza Suit Over Unlawful Seizure of Private Property AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 8th Cir. AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle e-Toll Fees Class Suit for $45M BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bloom et al. Claim BUILT USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pariseau Suit Under TCPA & FTSA CARVANA CO: Faces Brent Suit Over 21% Decline of Stock Price CHICAGO BRIDGE: $14.7M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN: Highpoint Sues over Rent Payments CONCENTRA HEALTH: Burgoin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California CORE HOME: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Brown Alleges DESIGN MASONRY: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Sues Over Ambiguous Electric Pricing Scheme EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Negligence Raps in California Court EQUIFAX INC: Jenkins Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Score Reporting EXXONMOBIL CORP: Misclassifies Security Advisors, Tullis Claims FASHION NOVA: Places Unwanted Telephone Calls, DeLaRosa Suit Says FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Class Cert. Case Schedule in Chapman FORD MOTOR: Hagens Berman Sues Over Defect Causing Underhood Fires GOYA FOODS: Court Junks Ortiz Class Certification Bid GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Nasseri Suit in California Court GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Suit in California Court GREETINGQUBE LLC: DeLaRosa Suit Alleges Unsolicited Telephone Calls HAND IN HAND: Colbert Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT HAWAII: E.R.K. Cross Appeals Ruling on Bid for Add'l. Prof. Fees HONEYWELL INT'L: Court OKs Settlement of Kanefsky Securities Suit HYATT CORPORATION: Ct. Vacates all Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Muhammad Suit Claims INDEPENDENT BANK: Review of Summary Judgment Denial in Grice Upheld JOHNSON CONTROLS: Markos Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Overtime JOOVY HOLDING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Middle Bucks Suit Says JUUL LABS: River Forest Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Ads KIA AMERICA: Faces Brady Suit Over Undisclosed Vehicles' Defect KIRKLAND'S STORES: Court Stays Miles Case Pending Appeal KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Karp Sues Over False Registration Statements LIFE TIME: Howard Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $875,000 LJ DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Encarnacion Claims LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination MARSH & MCLENNAN: Antoine Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties MASSACHUSETTS: Bucca Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages MCDONALD'S USA: Turner Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Antitrust Case MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Denied w/o Prejudice MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Junked MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Tossed w/o Prejudice META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Claims Deadline Set for $90M Class Deal MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 MITCHELL MANAGEMENT: Faces Fuelberth FLSA Suit in D. Nebraska MORGAN STANLEY: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Approved MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Offers $4M to Settle Data Breach Suit NABORS COMPLETION: Court Awards $263.9K in Damages in Cisneros Suit NETWORK TRAVEL: Ex-Employees Sue Pollen's US Unit for Unpaid Wages NORDSTROM INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations OREGON: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action Over Foster Care PERFORMANCE ONE: Richards et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces Cooley Suit Over Miscalculation of ACV PROVENTION BIO: D.N.J. Dismisses Securities Class Action QUALITY LIFE: Golden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers RITE AID: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Byars Suit Claims ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rocket Suit ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Garcia Claims ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Kearney Claims RVJ PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Lewis Suit Says SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Underpays Customer Service Staff, Alvaran Says SNAP INC: Collects Snapchat App Users' Biometrics, Boone Says SPECIALIZED LOAN: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Hurster Suit STRATEGIC CLEANING: Delgado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cleaners TEXAS: Class Settlement in Roppolo v. Criminal Justice Dept. Upheld THANK YOU: Catzin Cross-Appeals Attorney Fees' Ruling to 2nd Cir. THINK FINANCE: Settles Suit Over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme for $44M UNITED STATES: Angel Sues for Breach of COD Contract Provisions VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Injunction Bid Denial to 10th Cir. ZACHARY HOLDINGS: $1.88MM Class Deal in Blackmon Suit Gets Final OK ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Final Approval & Judgment Issued in Blackmon Suit ********* #1 BROOKLYN FURNITURE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against #1 Brooklyn Furniture, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. #1 Brooklyn Furniture, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04796-KAM-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. #1 Brooklyn Furniture Inc. -- https://onebrooklynfurniture.com/ -- is in the Mattresses business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com 1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Hindi Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-011416 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members are harmed including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the suit. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. is a floral and foods gift retailer and distribution company, headquartered in Carle Place, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, PA 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Easton Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1StopBedrooms, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Easton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 1StopBedrooms, Inc., Payless Furniture, Inc., Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-03763-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. 1StopBedrooms -- https://www.1stopbedrooms.com/ -- stands out for its vast variety of high-quality furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. 315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 979-3642 Fax: (856) 797-9978 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com 360 FINANCIAL GROUP: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 360 Financial Group LLC. The case is styled as Terri Lee Nichols, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 360 Financial Group LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03899-RS (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 360 Financial Group -- https://360financialgroup.com/ -- is an independently owned national financial & insurance marketing organization & brokerage agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com 3M COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02544-RMG (D.S.C., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right partial nephrectomy, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. VETERAN LEGAL GROUP 700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (888) 215-7834 E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and – S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Telephone: (978) 458-0507 E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and – Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com A. & M. PIZZA: Brewster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE BREWSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A. & M. PIZZA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-03201-MDH (W.D. Mo., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri Revised Statutes. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid delivery driver from approximately December of 2020 until October of 2021. A. & M. Pizza, Inc. is an owner and operator of Domino's franchises in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Harness, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com A.B.C. CARPET CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.B.C. Carpet Co., Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A.B.C. Carpet Co. doing business as ABC Carpet & Home, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04800 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A.B.C. Carpet Co. doing business as ABC Carpet & Home, Inc. -- https://abchome.com/ -- is a fine decor and furniture retailer known for our craftsmanship, quality and integrity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ABC CORPS 1-3: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC CORPS. 1-3, et al. The case is styled as Javier Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ABC CORPS. 1-3 doing business as: A & J BISTRO, Hsiao Wei Lin, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-04366-ES-ESK (D.N.J., June 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ABC CORPS. 1-3 doing business as A & J BISTRO offers noodle dishes, soups & other traditional Taiwanese entrees are the draw at this informal restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com AERO LTD: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero LTD. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aero LTD, Case No. 1:22-cv-04799 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aero LTD. -- https://aero.com/ -- is a semi-private jet flights to the world's most in-demand destinations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ALTO PHARMACY: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ LATOSHA CURRY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid wages owed to him and other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery worker from on or around May 2022 through and including July 2022. The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the Defendant, she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, approximately 80.5 hours during each of the weeks. However, the Defendant paid her an hourly rate of $21 per hour only for all hours worked. The Defendant did not pay her overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide her with wage statement and any notice of her rate of pay, the Plaintiff says. Alto Pharmacy, LLC operates a pharmacy. [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 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Antitrust, Consumer Suits in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, 17 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits initially named, in addition to the two companies, certain senior executives and certain members of the board of directors of both companies as defendants; however, those individuals currently or formerly affiliated with Altria were later dismissed. In November 2020 these lawsuits were consolidated into three complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative complaint and allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of our minority investment in JUUL and rescission of the transaction. We filed a motion to dismiss these lawsuits in January 2021. In August 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied our motion to dismiss except with respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and equitable relief. However, plaintiffs were granted the opportunity to re-plead such claims by the trial court, which plaintiffs did in September 2021. In January 2022, the trial court ordered that the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' claims against JUUL be sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in JUUL's online purchase agreement. The court granted plaintiffs' leave to re-plead the complaint with new direct-purchaser plaintiffs, which plaintiffs did in February 2022, substituting in four new plaintiffs. Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based in Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement in Class Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that the final approval of a settlement for a class action was granted in March 2022. In October and December 2019, two purported Altria shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A. Willard III, the company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., its former Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2019, the court consolidated the two lawsuits into a single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. In April 2020, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives were added to the lawsuit. The claims allege false and misleading statements and omissions relating to its investment in JUUL. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys' fees. In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, which the district court denied in March 2021. In the fourth quarter of 2021, plaintiffs and defendants agreed upon a class action settlement under which, among other things, (i) all claims asserted against Altria and the other named defendants are resolved without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to Altria and (ii) Altria will pay the class an aggregate amount of $90 million, which amount includes attorneys' fees. The class is defined to include persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Altria between October 25, 2018 through April 2, 2020, subject to certain exclusions. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in December 2021 and granted final approval in March 2022. Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based in Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Smoking Hazards in Canadian Courts ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, PM USA and Altria are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based in Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Vaping Products --------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, the company is a defendant in 58 class action lawsuits relating to its JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The theories of recovery include violation of the RICO Act, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales. The 58 class action lawsuits include 32 cases involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons. Three of the class action lawsuits are pending in Canada. Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based in Virginia. AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends Must Provide Copy of Distribution Accords ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BOOKENDS & BEGINNINGS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C.; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-02584 (GHW) (VF) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the Plaintiffs to provide a copy of each of the distribution agreements between the Publishers and Amazon, they reference in the amended class action complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sbvz595z from Leagle.com. AMERICAN BOTANICAL: Moree Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JACOB MOREE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BOTANICAL LLC, and AVRAHAM KALATSKY, individually, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01850 (M.D. Fla., August 12, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff alleging the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time hourly-paid Foreman from September 2019 to April 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants has a practice of changing employees' timesheets to reflect less hours than the hours they actually worked. Despite working more than 40 hours a week during the course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant did not compensate him at the rate of at least one and a half times his regular hourly rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA for all hours worked over 40 in the workweek, says the Plaintiff The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants of retaliation since he was terminated on the same day when he texted Defendant on April 28, 2022 regarding the improper deductions on his timesheet. As a result of the retaliatory actions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, emotional distress and humiliation. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff respectfully requests all legal and equitable relief allowed by law including judgment against the Defendant for back pay, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the claim and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. American Botanical LLC is a supplier of wholesale organic spices, herbs, and botanicals. Avraham Kalatsky is the director, owner and/or operator of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZA OWEN, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 220-4000 Fax: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com cgray@fgbolaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express Company. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. American Express Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-06942 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Express Company -- http://www.americanexpress.com/-- is an American multinational corporation specialized in payment card services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Personal Rep Substitution in Benacquisto Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lesa Benacquisto; Daniel Benacquisto; Richard Thoresen; Elizabeth Thoresen; Arnold Mork; Isabella Mork; Ronald Melchert; Susan Melchert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Steven A. Creaturo; Paul Russell; Tyva Russell, Plaintiffs. Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent, Plaintiff-Appellant. Richard Osborn, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent, Movant-Appellant v. American Express Financial Corporation, Sued as: American Express Financial Service Corp.; American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.; American Centurion Life Assurance Company of New York, Sued as: American Centurion Life Assurance Company; American Enterprise Life Insurance Company; American Partners Life Insurance Company; IDS Life Insurance Company; IDS Life Insurance Company of New York, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-2210 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment granting the Defendants' motion to substitute Richard Osborn as the Estate's personal representative, denying the Estate's motion to dismiss, and granting the Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Ms. Osborn-Vincent was an unnamed class member in an action settled in the District of Minnesota involving alleged misrepresentations made by the Defendants while marketing, selling, administering, and servicing various life insurance and annuity products -- Benacquisto v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., Civil No. 0:00-cv-1980-DSD/DTS (D. Minn. 2001). After Osborn-Vincent died in March 2016, her Estate commenced an action in Oregon asserting various contract, fraud, and elder abuse claims pertaining to Osborn-Vincent's 1989 purchase of a purported "single-premium universal life insurance policy." Her Estate alleges that beginning in 2010, the Defendants started charging monthly premiums and costs that eventually led to the depletion of the policy's funds, which ultimately caused it to lapse. The district court granted the Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enjoined the Estate from pursuing the Oregon claims. In a prior appeal, the Eighth Circuit found personal jurisdiction lacking because the Defendants had not served the party they sought to enjoin (the Estate's personal representative), nor had they moved to substitute the personal representative as a party. On remand, the district court addressed the Eighth Circuit's concerns and granted the Defendants' motion to substitute Richard Osborn as the Estate's personal representative, denied the Estate's motion to dismiss, and granted the Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Estate again appeals, contending the district court erred by making insufficient and erroneous findings relating to jurisdiction and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), by misapplying the facts and circumstances when it enforced the settlement agreement and enjoined the Estate from pursuing claims in Oregon, and by declining to apply the equitable doctrines of laches and unclean hands. The Estate asserts the defendants failed to properly serve the personal representative under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that substitution of the personal representative was untimely and improper under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eighth Circuit finds both arguments unavailing. "Rule 25(a) is a procedural rule setting forth the proper method for the substitution of parties, and federal courts must apply federal rules, rather than state law, in determining the proper procedure for substitution following a party's death." Because the decision to allow the substitution of a party lies within the sound discretion of the district court, the Eighth Circuit reviews the district court's determination to substitute a party for an abuse of discretion. According to the Estate, service was deficient because the Defendants served the personal representative with their motions to enforce the settlement agreement and for party substitution, but not a summons and complaint. While Rule 25(a)(1) could be clearer, a careful reading of the rule coupled with an understanding of its purposes leads to two conclusions. First, to trigger the 90-day limitation period set forth in the rule, a party must serve a statement noting death. The rule, however, was not intended to mandate a statement noting death. And, second, a motion to substitute a party and/or a suggestion of death must be served on other parties as provided in Rule 5 and on non-parties in the manner provided by Rule 4. To effectuate service under Rule 4, a party may either follow state law where service is made or fulfill one of the following: (a) deliver a copy to the individual personally; (b) leave a copy at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (c) deliver a copy to an authorized agent. The personal representative (a non-party) was served with the motion to substitute in a manner provided by Rule 4, received notice in compliance with Rule 25(a), and was properly brought within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota district court. Under these circumstances, service of a summons and complaint contemporaneously with service of the motion to substitute party was neither required by Rule 25(a) nor caused service to be deficient for purposes of substitution of a deceased party following the Eighth Circuit's remand. The Estate also contends the district court erred because the request to substitute was untimely since it was made more than 90 days after the Estate filed a formal notice of death. It argues two statements in its 15-page brief in opposition to the Defendants' first motion to enforce the settlement, which does nothing more than make a passing reference to "Decedent's death" and "records at her death," is the equivalent to a formal notice of death. The Estate's interpretation of the meaning of formal notice is inconsistent with the common understanding of the term and the Eighth Circuit's precedent. The Estate next argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction because the personal representative has no contacts to Minnesota. Despite the personal representative's purported lack of contacts with Minnesota, Osborn-Vincent did not opt out of the Benacquisto class action, and the district court explicitly retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court has explained the lesser need for external protections of class plaintiffs in certain situations. The district court approved the minimally required procedural due process safeguards in the class action, including notice of the Benacquisto class action and an opportunity for class members to participate in the litigation and be heard. Beyond the Estate's self-serving statements, the Eighth Circuit finds no evidence suggesting the Defendants did not follow the approved procedures when notifying Osborn-Vincent or that Osborn-Vincent did not receive a benefit -- free accidental death benefit insurance -- in exchange for release of the identified claims. The district court did not err in finding it had personal jurisdiction over Richard Osborn, as the personal representative of the Estate, who is bound by the terms of the Benacquisto settlement agreement. Lastly, the Estate seeks review of the district court's decision declining to apply the doctrines of laches or unclean hands. The Eighth Circuit reviews the district court's determination relating to equitable defenses for abuse of discretion. Upon careful review of the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the doctrines of laches and unclean hands were inapplicable under the facts and circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wdbxtmt from Leagle.com. ANIMATION SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Animation Shops, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Animation Shops, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06934 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AnimationShops.com -- https://www.animationshops.com/ -- has the largest collection of Movie T-Shirts, Superhero T-Shirts and Cartoon T-Shirts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com APPLE INC: $30M Deal in Mandatory Bag Check Suit Wins Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher and Jessy Edwards of topclassactions.com report that U.S. District Judge William Alsup on Aug. 13 granted final approval of a $30.4 million settlement to end claims Apple Inc. illegally forced employees to submit to off-the-clock security bag checks when they left the workplace after or during their shifts. Class members will be compensated at about $2.95 net value per shift, the settlement says. About $9 million will go to lawyers' fees. A group of employees filed the Apple class action lawsuit back in 2013, according to Bloomberg, and accused the company of violating California law by not paying them for the time spent waiting for their bags to be checked. "The court finds that the settlement offers significant monetary recovery to all participating settlement class members and finds that such recovery is fair, reasonable and adequate when balanced against the risk of further litigation related to damages issues," Judge Alsup says in his approval. The Apple security bag check lawsuit was dismissed in 2015, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case in 2020 and ruled Apple must pay employees for the time it took to complete a security bag check. Apple argued the security bag checks were to ensure workers were not stealing electronic goods by hiding them in their bags. The tech giant said that employees could simply choose not to bring bags to work if they did not like the security bag check policy. Apple reportedly stopped its bag check policy in December 2015. Class members of the proposed Apple security bag check settlement include 14,683 workers who were employed at Apple stores in California. Each class member will reportedly receive an average settlement payment of $1,286. The Apple settlement documents note class members were owed about $800 in unpaid wages on average, assuming they underwent five minutes of unpaid security search time each day they worked. The Apple security bag check class action settlement was preliminarily approved Dec. 28, 2021. Eligible class members will not be required to submit a claim form to receive their Apple settlement payment, according to the class action settlement documents. The deadline for class members to object to or exclude themselves from the Apple bag check settlement was April 26. A final approval hearing was held July 7. More information about the Apple class action settlement is available at AppleBagCheckSettlement.com. Class Members are represented by Lee Shalov, Brett Gallaway and Jason Scott Giaimo of McLaughlin & Stern LLP and Kimberly Kralowec and Kathleen Styles Rogers of Kralowec Law PC. The Apple security bag check class action lawsuit is Amanda Frlekin, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03451, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.[GN] ARBORWORKS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ramon Tovar Gonzalez, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ArborWorks, LLC, Case No. MCV087349 was removed from the Madera County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01030-DAD-SKO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. ArborWorks, LLC -- https://arborworksinc.com/ -- is a professional tree care service that specializes in Utility Line Clearance and Vegetation Management across the West Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan N. Higday, Esq. WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW 7700 Irvive Center Dr., Suite 930 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 674-4922 Email: mhigday@jnwpc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Nina Montazeri, Esq. Keahn Noble Morris, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Floor 17 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 774-3136 Fax: (415) 403-6210 Email: nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com kmorris@sheppardmullin.com - and - Greg Stephen Labate, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER, AND HAMPTON 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 424-2823 Fax: (714) 513-5130 Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com ARIZONA: Faces Garza Suit Over Unlawful Seizure of Private Property ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA GARZA and KEVIN TERRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROB WOODS, in his individual and official capacities as Director of Arizona Department of Revenue, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01310-JJT (D. Ariz., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Arizona Revised Unclaimed Property Act, the Arizona Constitution, and the United States Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's actions in taking possession of private property without adequate notice to Plaintiffs and putative Class members, and then selling property without notice to the property owners, or without their consent. The Defendant is disregarding the requirements of the UPA so he can seize private property from citizens, use it to generate interest income for the State, and then convert it for use as revenue for the State. The Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to the private property owners as custodian of their property by failing to render an accounting and otherwise mishandling the private property. The Plaintiffs seek restitution and just compensation for the property seized for public use as a result of the Defendant's actions, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William M. Fischbach, Esq. TIFFANY & BOSCO PA Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-4237 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 Facsimile: (602) 255-0103 E-mail: wmf@tblaw.com AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court ruling granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Mason's Auto Collision Center, Plaintiff, v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment premised on allegations that the Defendant overinflated Coinsurance premiums by wrongfully including the value of foundations which were otherwise excluded from insurance coverage when determining the value of a covered property. On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a multi-state class or, in the alternative, an Arkansas-only class under Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The multi-state class is proposed to include the 20 states in which Defendant does business: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On June 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On July 13, 2022, District Judge P.K. Holmes III granted in part the Plaintiff's motion, certifying an Arkansas-only class. The Court declined to certify a multi-state class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) saying that declaratory judgment on a multi-state basis is inappropriate. The appellate case is captioned as Mason's Auto Collision Center v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Case No. 22-8014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MASON'S AUTOMOTIVE COLLISION CENTER, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: William Thomas Crowder, Esq. Thomas Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 - and - Phillip J. Milligan, Esq. MILLIGAN LAW OFFICES 500 S. 16th Street P.O. Box 2347 Fort Smith, AR 72901 Defendant-Petitioner AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, is represented by: Jamie Huffman Jones, Esq. FRIDAY & ELDREDGE 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 376-2011 - and - Lori McAllister, Esq. 201 Townsend Street Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 374-9150 - and - Todd Noteboom, Esq. STINSON, LLP Suite 2600 50 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 - and - William D. Thomson, Esq. STINSON, LLP Suite 2600 50 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1605 AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle e-Toll Fees Class Suit for $45M ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of topclassactions.com reports that Avis Budget Group has agreed to pay $45 million as part of a settlement resolving class action claims it charged its rental car customers secret extra fees when using its electronic toll-payment service. Avis Budget -- which was doing business as Avis Rent A Car System LLC and Budget Rent A Car System Inc. -- along with its private contractor Highway Toll Administration LLC made the agreement with a class of customers led by Jose Mendez. The company has agreed to pay as much as $45 million to resolve the claims and cover all of the associated costs with the complaint originally filed by Mendez in November 2011. Mendez, in his class action lawsuit, argued he had not been informed that he would automatically be enrolled in an e-Toll subscription and subsequently be charged a "convenience fee" of $2.50 per day and up to $10 per week, reports Law360. The fees, Mendez claimed, were charged to him regardless of whether or not he made payments on any tolls he incurred while driving on the highway. Class certification was granted for the class action lawsuit in November 2017, while a subsequent challenge by Avis Budget was denied and then later upheld in August 2018 by the judge overseeing the complaint, reports Law360. Avis Budget had attempted to make a defense based on a statute of limitations, with the company unsuccessfully arguing more time had passed than would be allowed for certain class members claims. Multiple mediation and settlement sessions preceded the current proposed class action settlement, reports Law360. This is not the first time Avis has been the target of a class action lawsuit. In 2019, Avis rental car drivers asked for class certification for a separate class action lawsuit accusing the company of charging drivers undisclosed fines and fees for traffic violations. The plaintiff is represented by Joseph J. DePalma and Jeremy Nash of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC and Judith L. Spanier of Abbey Spanier LLP. The Avis e-Toll fees class action lawsuit is Mendez v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06537, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[GN] BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bloom et al. Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- TORI BLOOM, JUAN JOSE “CHARLIE” GERS, ADAM KING, MATTHEW KUEHLER, CONNOR MCBRIDE, WILLIAM POMROY, STEVEN SCHROEDER, AND LENELL WYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 523378/2022 (N.Y. SUP. CT., August 12, 2022) seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Business Development Executives and Account Executives, claim that while employed by the Defendant, they consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees have been victims of the Defendant's common policy and plan that have violated their rights under the FLSA by improperly classifying Sales Representatives as overtime exempt, requiring them to work over 40 hours a week, and denying them overtime compensation, the Plaintiffs assert. Blue-Grace Logistics, LLC is a transportation logistics company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com rpattiz@outtengolden.com BUILT USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pariseau Suit Under TCPA & FTSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, TARAZ PARISEAU, Plaintiff v. BUILT USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-2902-SDM-JSS (M.D Fla.). In this putative class action, Pariseau sues Built USA under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 277(c)(5), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Florida Statutes Section 501.059(10)(a). Ms. Pariseau, an Oklahoma resident, owns a cellular telephone that she uses exclusively "for residential purposes." On May 11, 2021, she registered her cellphone number in the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Built USA, a limited liability company in Palm Harbor, Florida, hosts sweepstakes that a person can enter by paying a fee. Built USA advertises by sending a person a text message and a link to enter. It delivers the text-message advertisement by using "an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers." On Nov. 16, 2021, Built USA sent a text-message advertisement to the phone number that Pariseau listed in the Do-Not-Call Registry. Pariseau never invited or consented to the text message. She quickly responded "stop" to the unsolicited text, but Built USA failed to honor the request and continued sending Pariseau unsolicited text messages advertising a Built USA sweepstakes. Although Pariseau respond "stop" to each new text message, Built USA never complied with her request. From Nov. 16, 2021, through Dec. 2, 2021, Built USA sent Pariseau six unsolicited text messages. In a four-count complaint asserting individual and putative class claims, Pariseau sues Built USA under the TCPA and under the FTSA. Built USA moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Pariseau responds in opposition. Counts I and II claim that Built USA's unsolicited and persistent text messages violate the "do-not-call" protections of the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5). In Section 227(c), the TCPA directs the FCC to implement regulations protecting a residential telephone subscriber's "right to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object." To enforce these regulations, Section 227(c)(5) confers a private right of action on a person who, within any 12 months, receives "more than one telephone call by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under Section 227(c)." Ms. Pariseau alleges that each of Built USA's text messages violates two regulations "prescribed under" Section 227(c). Moving to dismiss Counts I and II, Built USA argues that Counts I and II fail to state a claim because 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) confers a claim on a recipient of at least two "telephone calls" -- not text messages. Because Pariseau alleges the receipt of text messages only, it argues that Counts I and II warrant dismissal. Judge Merryday holds that in several rules, the FCC reiterates that the TCPA affords text messages "the same consumer protections as voice calls." To that end, the FCC interprets "call" and "telephone call" in Section 227(b) to include both a voice call and a text message. Because Pariseau in Counts I and II alleges the receipt of "more than one" text message violating 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c) and (d), Counts I and II state a claim. Counts III and IV assert a claim under the FTSA, which regulates a "telephonic sales call" either originating in Florida or directed to "consumers located in Florida." Section 501.059(10)(a) confers a private right of action on "a called party who is aggrieved by a violation of the FTSA." Pariseau alleges that Built USA's text messages violate two subsections of the FTSA. In Count III, she alleges that Built USA violated Section 501.059(8)(a) by sending each text message using "an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers." And in Count IV, she alleges that each text message violates Section 501.059(2) by failing to identify the first and last name of the person sending the text and by failing to identify the business on whose behalf a text was sent. Moving to dismiss, Built USA urges that Counts III and IV warrant dismissal because the FTSA violates the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. It argues both that the FTSA unconstitutionally restricts speech and that the phrase "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" is unconstitutionally vague. In response, however, Pariseau persuades that the FTSA satisfies the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. As Pariseau demonstrates in response, the FTSA "directly advances" Florida's interest in protecting "residential privacy and tranquility" and "leaves open alternative channels for communication." Thus, the FTSA satisfies intermediate scrutiny and Built USA's challenge fails. Moreover, Built USA's claims better support an argument for a specific interpretation of the section -- not an argument that the section so completely evades interpretation as to render the FTSA unconstitutional. Because the phrase "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" "conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to" the regulated methods of transmitting a sales call, the vagueness challenge fails. For these reasons and for other reasons asserted in Pariseau's response, Built USA fails to successfully challenge any claim in the complaint. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/p9psfaym from Leagle.com. CARVANA CO: Faces Brent Suit Over 21% Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN BRENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA CO., ERNEST GARCIA III, and MARK JENKINS, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04870 (D.N.J., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pertaining to Carvana's business, operations and prospects to trade Carvana securities at artificially inflated prices between May 6, 2020 and June 24, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Carvana faced serious, ongoing issues with documentation, registration, and title with many of its vehicles; (2) as a result, Carvana was issuing unusually frequent temporary plates; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana was violating laws and regulations in many existing markets; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana risked its ability to continue business and/or expand its business in existing markets; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana was at an increased risk of governmental investigation and action; (6) Carvana was in discussion with state and local authorities regarding the above-stated business tactics and issues; (7) Carvana was facing imminent and ongoing regulatory actions including license suspensions, business cessation, and probation in several states and counties including in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina; and (8) as a result, the Defendants' statements about Carvana's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $6.78 per share, or 21 percent, over the next two trading days, to close at $24.74 per share on June 28, 2022, damaging investors. Carvana Co. is an operator of e-commerce platform for buying and selling used cars, with its head office is located at 1930 W. Rio Salado Parkway, Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, PA One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CHICAGO BRIDGE: $14.7M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-CV-1580 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The matter came before the Court upon a Final Approval Hearing on July 25, 2022. During the Final Approval hearing, the Court considered, among other things, the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. At the Final Approval Hearing, it instructed the Plaintiffs to submit certain supplemental information regarding, inter alia, their request for attorneys' fees. The motion is unopposed by the Defendants and no objections were made to it. Having considered the motion papers, the Plaintiffs' supplemental submission, the Stipulation of Settlement which the Court preliminarily approved on Feb. 7, 2022, and has now finally approved, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Judge Schofield approves the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of $14,666,667 in attorneys' fees, plus accrued interest on that amount. Fifty percent of the awarded attorneys' fees will be payable upon entry of the Order, with the remaining 50% to be payable after substantially all of the Recognized Claims have been paid from the Settlement Fund upon application to the Court. The Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $3,462,683.78, plus accrued interest on that amount, is approved. Judge Schofield has reviewed these expenses and finds that they are reasonable and appropriate. The awarded expenses will be payable to the Plaintiffs' Counsel upon entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fh39wujp from Leagle.com. COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN: Highpoint Sues over Rent Payments -------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Rantala of abc6onyourside.com reports that after a series of ABC 6 On Your Side Problem Solvers investigations into the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, CMHA and its third-party vendor CGI are subject to a class-action lawsuit filed within Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The plaintiff, Highpoint Asset Management, claims the housing authority owes them money due to not making Section 8 rent payments for tenants. That along with delayed housing inspections now conducted by CGI are being cited as a breach of contract, breach of duties, and acting in a wanton and reckless manner. Multiple calls on CMHA issues continue to come into Problem Solvers from both tenants and landlords. In July 2022, Paulette Clark was still waiting for an inspection to move into new housing. She cannot receive federal rent assistance without it. Due to the delay, she said she's slept in both motels and her sister's car since January. After Clark's story was featured on ABC 6/FOX 28, Highpoint Asset Property Manager Amber Corbett called Problem Solvers to say she's not received rent for many of her Section 8 tenants from CMHA for months. Corbett said she needed help to expose the matter in attempts not to evict them. "We're in a housing crisis, right now," Corbett said last month. "If we're expected to take certain organizations in, somebody needs to be accountable to make sure we're getting paid." Highpoint Asset Management Attorney Alex Castle said the lack of payments is adding up as well as the stress for their Section 8 tenants worried about eviction. He is listed on the suit filed on behalf of affected tenants and landlords of 13,000 Section 8 properties in Columbus. The suit states CMHA continues to take applications for its Section 8 program while not fulfilling duties. Allegations claim, "As a direct and proximate cause of this inequity, CMHA has been unjustly enriched." Representatives for CMHA first told Problem Solvers this week that they were unaware of the lawsuit. They then responded that they do not comment on matters subject to pending litigation. Last month, CMHA administration said that they had laid off dozens of employees and hired third-party vendor CGI. They admit the transition was rocky and caused a 10-day window of no inspections and created a backlog of 1,300 cases. The next court date scheduled for the lawsuit is scheduled for October.[GN] CONCENTRA HEALTH: Burgoin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SAMANTHA BURGOIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00024622-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01152-L-MSB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, failure to pay paid sick leave and supplemental paid sick leave wages, untimely payment of wages, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, unfair competition, civil penalties for failure to pay all wages, civil penalties for failure to pay all overtime, civil penalties for meal period violations, civil penalties for rest period violations, civil penalties for untimely payment of wages, civil penalties for wage statement violations, failure to timely pay all wages upon separation, civil penalties for paid sick leave violations, and civil penalties recordkeeping violations. Concentra Health Services, Inc. is a national health care company doing business in California. Select Employment Services, Inc. is a staffing firm doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Ryan C. Finn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: jared.palmer@ogletree.com ryan.finn@ogltree.com - and – Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com CORE HOME: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Brown Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORE HOME SECURITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-81224-AMC (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Florida Do Not Call Act, and the Florida Telemarketing Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telephone calls on the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers using an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to sell home security without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover statutory damages and injunctive and equitable relief, says the suit. Core Home Security, LLC is a security system supplier, with a principal place of business at 949 A Clint Moore Road, Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: scott@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com DESIGN MASONRY: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEONEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGN MASONRY, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25106 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code including failure to keep accurate records, failure to provide rest period, failure to provide meal period, failure to provide recovery period, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, statutory wage violations, refusal to make payment, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, sick leave violations, untimely payment of final wages, unlawful inquiries into salary history, and unlawful agreements/unlawful criminal history inquiries. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee until November 2021. Design Masonry, Inc. is a masonry contractor in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Blake R. Jones, Esq. Jonathan Stilz, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com blake@crosnerlegal.com jon@crosnerlegal.com DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Sues Over Ambiguous Electric Pricing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW GANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and NRG ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04906 (D.N.J., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discretionary and deceptive pricing scheme for electricity and/or natural gas. Direct Energy failed to abide by the regulations by setting forth an ambiguous pricing mechanism. The ambiguity of the pricing term set the parameters which allowed Direct Energy unfettered discretion to charge whatever it wished. As a result of Direct Energy's unlawful and bad faith pricing scheme, New Jersey consumers are being fleeced millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity and/or natural gas, says the suit. Direct Energy Services, LLC is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., with its corporate headquarters located in Houston, Texas. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy company, with its corporate headquarters located in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and – Marc Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Negligence Raps in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that it is facing one lawsuit filed in the superior courts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties alleging, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes. Edison International is the parent holding company of Edison Energy based in California. EQUIFAX INC: Jenkins Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Score Reporting ---------------------------------------------------------------- NYDIA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03072-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, the Defendant provided inaccurate credit scores to lenders about potentially millions of individuals who applied for credit from mid-March through early April 2022 due to a glitch in its technology systems. As a result of the inaccurate reporting of their consumer credit information, the Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced damages including loss of use of and access to financial accounts and/or credit; money and time expended to avail themselves of assets and/or credit frozen or flagged due to inaccuracies; and impairment of their credit scores, ability to borrow, and/or ability to obtain credit. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for its conduct and seeks vindication and recompense on behalf of the individual consumers who were harmed by Equifax's negligent and/or willful violations of the FCRA, says the suit. Equifax, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency, with its principal place of business located at 1550 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Bosseler, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN ATLANTA, PLLC 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200, Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 496-7254 Facsimile: (404) 720-3835 E-mail: GBosseler@forthepeople.com - and – John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. Patrick Barthle, Esq. Hope V. Whalen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jeanmartin@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com hwhalen@forthepeople.com EXXONMOBIL CORP: Misclassifies Security Advisors, Tullis Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN TULLIS, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00192 (S.D. Tex., August 12, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a security advisor from approximately February 2019 until December 2020. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he and other similarly situated Security Advisors were improperly classified by the Defendant as an independent contractor exempt form overtime. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, they were paid a day-rate for each day worked, regardless of how many hours they worked in a day or week, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Security Advisors, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Exxonmobil Corporation engages in the production and provisions of energy, fuel, lubricants, and chemicals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com FASHION NOVA: Places Unwanted Telephone Calls, DeLaRosa Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER DELAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 154670953 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, the suit says. Fashion Nova, LLC is a consumer goods retailer doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, PA 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422–7782 Facsimile: (813) 422–7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Class Cert. Case Schedule in Chapman --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS CHAPMAN and JOHN CHURCHWELL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00410-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order amending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline -- Expert disclosures re class February 17, 2023 certification: -- Rebuttal Expert disclosures March 17, 2023 re class certification: -- Class Certification Discovery April 26, 2023 Completion Date: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class May 22, 2023 Certification: -- Defendant's Opposition to August 4, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: -- Plaintiffs' Reply re Class September 18, 2023 Certification: Fedex Ground provides package delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AlDrOD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel V. Santiago, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, PC 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (760) 652-9801 E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com - and - Dustin T. Lujan, Esq. LUJAN LAW OFFICE 1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310 A559 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (970) 999-4225 E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandy T. Cody, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 242-4262 Facsimile: (503) 242-4263 E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com - and - Usama Kahf, Esq. Sunny H. Huynh, Esq. E-mail: ukahf@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 FORD MOTOR: Hagens Berman Sues Over Defect Causing Underhood Fires ------------------------------------------------------------------ A new class-action lawsuit aimed at Ford accuses the automaker of knowingly mishandling a purported "fix" for a defect causing underhood fires, localized melting of components or smoke in more than 100,000 recalled hybrid Ford Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair vehicles, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. According to the lawsuit, Ford's official response for the defect -- which has led to at least 23 reported instances of smoke, ignition and fire -- has been to drill holes in the under-engine shield and to remove four blinds from the active grille shutter system. Ford's response does nothing to address the manufacturing defect -- which can cause the engine to leak flammable fluids and vapors -- the lawsuit says, and creates an environmental hazard, setting the stage for future property damage and possible injury. If you purchased or leased a 2020-2022 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick or 2021-2022 Lincoln Corsair, contact Hagens Berman to find out more about this issue and your consumer rights against Ford. "Ford admits that the Fire Defect Vehicles suffer from engine manufacturing issues that can cause engine failures involving engine block or oil pan breach. But Ford's fix is wholly silent as to this admittedly affected component," the lawsuit states. "Ford leaves the engines exactly as they are and instead drills holes into the under-engine shield and removes blinds from the active grille shutter to prevent oil and gas from pooling in the car. This 'fix' does not live up to its name because the engines in the Fire Defect Vehicles may still leak flammable fluids and vapors -- a problem Ford does not address." The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and stems from a defect affecting Ford's 2.5-liter hybrid electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle engines that can cause engine oil and fuel vapor to accumulate near ignition sources, resulting in underhood smoke and fires. Attorneys say that instead of meaningfully fixing the defect, Ford has chosen instead to drill holes into the under-engine shield, allowing any pooled fluids or vapors to leak out. Ford's meager response comes even though the affected vehicles are nearly all still covered under Ford's new vehicle and powertrain warranties. "Ford's fix is essentially rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman co-founder and managing partner. "While drivers, their families and others on the road attend to the real crisis of a potential vehicle fire due to this manufacturing defect, Ford's solution does nothing to address the issue at hand and will mean an unknowable amount of engine fluids will be spilled onto roads, leaching into groundwater and soil." What Ford Knew According to the suit, Ford puts its vehicles through a Total Durability Cycle, described by Ford as "sped-up evaluation runs around the clock, day and night, to simulate 10 years, or 240,000km, of severe customer usage in just a few weeks." National Highway Traffic Safety Administration documents reveal that an issue pertaining to underhood fires was brought to Ford's Critical Concern Review Group for review on May 4, 2022. During the Review Group's analysis from May 4 through June 8, 2022, the Group included data from 19 field reports of underhood fire or smoke pertaining to the affected hybrids. Ford's investigation continued up until the recall and uncovered four more reports of underhood smoke or fires in the affected vehicles, according to the lawsuit. Attorneys say Ford has yet to address these manufacturing issues. "We find Ford's response to this frightening issue to be both irresponsible and ineffectual," Berman said. The lawsuit says owners are left with vehicles that may still leak highly flammable oil if their engines succumb to the manufacturing issues identified. Not as Advertised The lawsuit details multiple advertisements for the affected Ford Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair hybrids in which Ford touts the family-friendly qualities of the vehicles, their reliability and the confidence owners can have in their safety and other features. The lawsuit's named plaintiff representing the class of consumers uses the vehicle to take his two children to school and to run errands, and the California father says at no point did Ford or its agents or representatives disclose the defect to him before he purchased his Ford Maverick. The lawsuit seeks damages and a repair, and brings claims of warranty violation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and violations of state consumer protection laws based on Ford's omissions regarding the defect and its failure to act quickly in disclosing and providing a remedy. Hagens Berman has brought dozens of class-action lawsuits against automakers, including an additional class action filed against Ford in July 2022 for spontaneous fires in its luxury SUVs. Hagens Berman has helped successfully secure the largest automotive settlements in history. Additional information on the class-action lawsuit is available at: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ford-escape-maverick-and-lincoln-corsair-hybrid-fires About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Media Contact: Ashley Klann pr@hbsslaw.com 206-268-9363 [GN] GOYA FOODS: Court Junks Ortiz Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTIZ and SAUL HERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GOYA FOODS, INC., and A.N.E. SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-19003-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stanley R. Chesler entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Goya Foods is an American producer of a brand of foods sold in the United States and many Spanish-speaking countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3rwCN at no extra charge.[CC] GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Nasseri Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Granite Construction Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations under the Securities Act of 1933 where a motion for class certification has been granted by the court in May 2021. On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled "Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, its former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the company's June 2018 merger with Layne Christensen Company. The complaint asserted causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleged that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on the allegations. On August 10, 2020, the court sustained our demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 9, 2021, the court entered an order overruling a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Granite Construction is into infrastructure solutions for public and private clients based in California. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Granite Construction Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the motion for class certification has been granted by the court in January 2021. On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, its former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleged claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled "Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al." The amended complaint sought damages based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the company's SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects. On May 20, 2020, the court denied, in part, the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 21, 2021, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Granite Construction is into infrastructure solutions for public and private clients based in California. GREETINGQUBE LLC: DeLaRosa Suit Alleges Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER DELAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREETINGQUBE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 154679673 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, the suit says. GreetingQUBE, LLC is a consumer goods retailer doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, PA 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422–7782 Facsimile: (813) 422–7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com HAND IN HAND: Colbert Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA COLBERT and LORI BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAND IN HAND GROUP INC. D/B/A CARING MATTERS HOME CARE; ROMAR CORPORATION D/B/A CARING MATTERS HOME CARE; and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03055 (E.D. Pa., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act. Ms. Colbert and Ms. Brown were employed by the Defendants as home health aides from about 2016 until approximately January 2022 and from approximately March 2022 through May 2022, respectively. Hand in Hand Group Inc., doing business as Caring Matters Home Care, is a home health agency, with its principal place of business at 151 Lincoln Road, Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Romar Corporation, doing business as Caring Matters Home Care, is a home health agency, with its principal place of business and headquarters at 430 Kenhorst Boulevard, Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 - and – William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Avenue 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com HAWAII: E.R.K. Cross Appeals Ruling on Bid for Add'l. Prof. Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a cross appeal from a court ruling denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for additional attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-00436-SOM-RT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for additional attorneys' fees, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Magistrate Judge Rom Trader April 28, 2022. On May 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on June 13, 2022. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish any manifest error of law or fact, and all arguments in the motion either could have been brought previously or repeat the arguments the Defendant made in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The appellate case is captioned as E. K., et al v. EDU-HI, Case No. 22-16126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants R. T. D., Hawai'i Disability Rights Center and E. R. K. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2022; -- First cross appeal brief for State of Hawaii Department of Education is due on October 10, 2022; -- Second brief on cross appeal for R. T. D., Hawai'i Disability Rights Center and E. R. K is due on November 23, 2022; -- Third brief on cross appeal for State of Hawaii Department of Education is due on December 23, 2022; -- Optional cross appeal reply brief is due within 21 days of service of third brief on cross appeal. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul D. Alston, Esq. Erika L. Amatore, Esq. Kristin Liisa Holland, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-1800 Defendant-Appellee STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, is represented by: Kevin M. Richardson, Esq. Ryan W. Roylo, Esq. Carter K. Siu, Esq. AGHI - Office of the Attorney General Hawaii 235 S. Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96813-2406 Telephone: (808) 586-1255 HONEYWELL INT'L: Court OKs Settlement of Kanefsky Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that the class action complaint was dismissed after the court entered a final judgment and order approving the settlement agreement. On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the Court) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on February 7, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 18, 2020, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss. On December 7, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement Agreement) and Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, which included payment by Honeywell of $10 million to settle the claims in dispute. On January 18, 2022, the Court approved the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. On May 3, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment and order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissed the action. Honeywell International Inc. invents and commercializes technologies based in North Carolina. HYATT CORPORATION: Ct. Vacates all Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELI BICKERTON v. HYATT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00397-RSL-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered an order vacating all pending discovery and class certification deadlines, including all deadlines associated with the Court's July 25, 2022 Order Amending Pretrial Schedule, for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to seek approval of the proposed class action settlement, consistent with CR 23. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on or before September 30, 2022. The Court will set a preliminary approval hearing after plaintiff files the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the Court says. Hyatt Corporation is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dvwEck at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, #205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com - and - India Lin Bodien, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF INDIA BODIEN, ESQ. 2522 North Proctor Street, #387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 212-7913 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Helen M. McFarland, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Ste. 3000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 946-4923 E-mail: hmcfarland@seyfarth.com - and - Noah A. Finkel, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com - and - Ryan McCoy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 E-mail: rmccoy@seyfarth.com IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Muhammad Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ YADULLAHI MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION INC. and TOMASZ KORASADOWICZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06904 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to recover unpaid overtime wages, untimely pay, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a fire guard and manual worker at the Defendants' construction company from approximately June 2020 to through and including February 2021. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendant, he and other similarly situated manual workers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant paid them less than prevailing wages on public works projects by paying them a flat rate of $20 per hour only. The Defendant willfully failed to pay them overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to timely pay wages, says the Plaintiff. Imperiex Construction Inc. is a construction company owned by Tomasz Korasadowicz. [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 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com INDEPENDENT BANK: Review of Summary Judgment Denial in Grice Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Jamila Grice, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Independent Bank, Defendant, Case Action No. 7:20-cv-01948-JD (D.S.C.), Judge Joseph Dawson, III, of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Feb. 18, 2002 Order denying its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant contends "the Court misinterprets and misapplies the Door Closing Statute by failing to recognize that each individual member of the proposed classes must satisfy the statute. It is not enough that the named Plaintiff is a resident of South Carolina or that the subject of her personal action may be situated in South Carolina." It further contends "the Court appears to determine, without any factual analysis or support, that every member of the proposed class has a contract with it that was either made or was intended to be performed in South Carolina." The Defendant relies on a South Carolina Supreme Court case for the proposition that "the class cannot include members who would not be able to bring the action in their individual capacities under the door-closing statute. And Section 15-5-150 controls the eligibility of class members in a class action where the Defendant is a foreign corporation." Furthermore, it relies on two Federal District Court opinions for the proposition that "the Door Closing Statute bars a nationwide class action," citing Hart v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 2021 WL 2418459, at *3, DE 101, p. 12, citing Tomczak v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2022 WL 1022647, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2022)). As an initial matter, Judge Dawson opines that the Defendant's strained interpretation of the Court's Order is specious at best. While it suggests "the Court appears to determine that every member of the proposed class has a contract with it that was either made or was intended to be performed in South Carolina," the Court has neither entertained nor decided the same. Rather, it has determined that "the Statute does not prevent a nationwide class under the facts and the Court's previous decisions." No finding was made that the Plaintiff was entitled to class certification. Neither party has offered any evidence to support or refute whether the Plaintiff's three separate proposed nationwide classes, whose members may include residents from other states, will satisfy Rule 23 (or the Door Closing Statute). Therefore, Judge Dawson declines to do so on the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Since the Defendant fails to demonstrate a clear error of law or manifest injustice, nor has there been a change in controlling law or new evidence to consider since the ruling, there is no basis to reconsider the Court's prior Order. For these reasons, Judge Dawson denies Defendant's Motion to Reconsider. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order & Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7mhbk3 from Leagle.com. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Markos Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MARKOS, JOEL CORTES, VINCENT FAMIGHETTI, TYLAN GREEN, and MICHAEL BYRNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06600 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as electricians in New York. Johnson Controls Inc. is a with a principal place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason J. Rozgeger, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 80 Pine Street, 33nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 Facsimile: (212) 509-8088 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com JOOVY HOLDING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joovy Holding Co. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Joovy Holding Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-06856 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Joovy -- https://joovy.com/ -- is an American company with facilities in Dallas, Texas and Orange County, California offering strollers, highchairs, playards, toys.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Middle Bucks Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MIDDLE BUCKS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04494-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Middle Bucks Institute of Technology is a school district located in Jamison, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and – Sean M. Gresh, Esq. BEGLEY CARLIN & MANDIO, LLP 680 Middletown Blvd. Langhorne, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-0110 Facsimile: (215) 750-0954 E-mail: sgresh@begleycarlin.com JUUL LABS: River Forest Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04490 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. River Forest Community School Corporation is a public school corporation with its administrative offices located in Hobart, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com KIA AMERICA: Faces Brady Suit Over Undisclosed Vehicles' Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- ANN BRADY and LEAH PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and HYUNDAI KIA AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00252-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, strict liability, and violations of the Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose a defect in their vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if they did not have the defect. The Defendants sold the defective vehicles at multiple locations throughout the state of Iowa and the United States without disclosing to consumers about the defect. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek a refund for monies paid as a result of their purchases of the defective vehicles, compensation for other losses incurred as a result of the defect, and further seek injunctive relief, enjoining the Defendants from selling the defective vehicles, and requiring the Defendants to fix the defect, says the suit. Kia America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. Hyundai Motor America is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business at 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc. is a research and development company, with its principal place of business at 6800 Geddes Road, Superior Township, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay M. Smith, Esq. SMITH AND MCELWAIN 505 - 5th Street, Suite 530 P.O. Box 1194 Sioux City, IA 51102 Telephone: (712) 255-8094 - and – Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C. 221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com KIRKLAND'S STORES: Court Stays Miles Case Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA MILES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-01559-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay case pending appeal of the order denying class certification. Kirkland's is an American retail chain that sells home decor, furniture, textiles, accessories and gifts. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C1rjUb at no extra charge.[CC] KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Karp Sues Over False Registration Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD H. KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO CHIRIVA-INTERNATI, TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI, AMERICO CICCHETTI, MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER and THINKEQUITY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06690 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities (other than Defendants) that purchased or otherwise acquired Kiromic common stock pursuant to the Offering Documents and/or Kiromic common stock between June 25, 2021 and August 13, 2021, both dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Company's public offering closed on July 2, 2021 and was conducted pursuant to a registration statement filed with the SEC on June 25, 2021 and a final prospectus dated June 29, 2021, referred here as the "Prospectus," with the Registration Statement or the "Offering Documents." The Plaintiff purchased Kiromic shares priced at $5.00 per share on the Offering. At the time of the Offering, the Company presented itself as a target discovery and gene-editing company which utilized artificial intelligence to create immunotherapy products. While the Company had no immunotherapy products on the market at the time, it had applications to begin human clinical trials for two new drug candidates, known as Investigational New Drug applications, pending with the Food and Drug Administration. The Offering Documents stated that the Company could commence clinical trials within 30 days of those IND applications unless the FDA imposed a clinical hold. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact, contained statements indicating that it had not. The Offering Documents contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained in them not misleading, and/or failed to make adequate disclosures otherwise required regarding the status of those applications, says the suit. As a result of these untrue and misleading statements and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered significant losses, the suit added. Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. is a preclinical stage biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com egleston@gme-law.com LIFE TIME: Howard Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAURA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, is taking an appeal from a court ruling dismissing her lawsuit entitled Maura Howard, Plaintiff, v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00574-WMW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for alleged unpaid wages. The Plaintiff worked as a group fitness instructor at Life Time's Bloomington (North) Minnesota location. On November 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, which Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted on June 30, 2022. The appellate case is captioned as Maura Howard v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-2581, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript was due on or before August 6, 2022; -- Appendix was due August 15, 2022; -- Appellant Maura Howard brief was due August 15, 2022; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MAURA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT & WENDORF W1050 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101-0000 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 - and – Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Christopher Paul Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 - and – Daniel R. Karon, Esq. GOLDMAN & SCARLATO Suite 1500 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113-0000 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Defendants-Appellees LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., et al., are represented by: Joel O'Malley Andersen, Esq. Courtney M. Blanchard, Esq. Joseph George Schmitt, Esq. NILAN & JOHNSON Suite 800 250 Marquette Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP says a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) ("LifeStance" or the "Company") common stock issued in connection with LifeStance Health's June 10, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). All investors who purchased the shares of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of LifeStance Health Group, Inc., you may, no later than October 11, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. Please click https://bit.ly/3QyuVl4 to join case. LifeStance is one of the nation's largest providers of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care. At the time of its IPO, the Company operated 370 centers and employed 3,300 psychiatrists, advanced practice nurses, psychologists, and therapists across 27 states. The Company provides virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care for children, adolescents, and adults experiencing a variety of mental health conditions including depression, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Due to Covid lockdowns, total patient visits increased from 1,353,285 in 2019 to 2,290,728 in 2020. Meanwhile, the Company's total revenue grew from $212.5 million in 2019 to $377.2 million in 2020 on a pro forma basis. The approval and introduction of Covid vaccines beginning in December 2021 increased demand for in-person services and fewer patients would be seeking virtual care. In-patient services are also inherently more expensive as they require office space, etc. Many physicians were also burned out at this point and were resigning, resulting in a shortage and a need for new physicians to be hired and trained, increasing costs. On February 16, 2021, LifeStance filed a Registration Statement on Form S-1, which, after several amendments made pursuant to comments from the SEC, would later be utilized for the IPO. Initially, the defendants stated they intended to sell a total of 40 million shares at a price range of between $15.00 and $17.00 per share, however, based on the defendants' strong marketing efforts to sell the IPO, they were able to price the shares sold in the IPO at $18.00 per share and to sell 46 million shares in the IPO. In the Registration Statement, the Company highlighted its aforementioned growth numbers while claiming it currently had exciting growth opportunities on its horizon. It then claimed that Covid had had no material impact on its business, instead pointing to decreased stigmatization of mental health, though it allowed that the pandemic had shown a "spotlight" on mental health that would cause its business to continue to increase. On August 11, 2021, less than two months after the IPO, LifeStance announced its second quarter 2021 ("2Q21") financial results for the period ended June 30, 2021 disclosing a net loss of $70 million, compared to net loss of just $27.6 million for the period from April 1, 2020 to May 14, 2020 (Predecessor) and $4.3 million for the period from April 13, 2020 to June 30, 2020 (Successor). The company also now disclosed a decrease in its clinician retention levels. On November 8, 2021, the Company reported its third quarter 2021 results, announcing that its clinician retention had "stabilized" at around 80%. Defendants reported LifeStance's fiscal 2021 results on March 10, 2022, and during a conference call with investors admitted that a recent Stanford study had shown that 75% of patients prefer in-person treatment. It also said that it would be reducing its number of brick and mortar facilities that it was planning on building to increase profitability. LifeStance common stock currently trades at $8.11 per share, over 50% below the IPO price of $18.00 per share. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. [GN] Contact: Patrick Donovan, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $875,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Sweeney of fiercehealthcare.com reports that the country's largest provider of home respiratory supplies has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit from former employees whose information was exposed during a 2017 data breach. The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed last fall that claimed Lincare failed to implement "the most basic security safeguards" to prevent a breach. A human resources employee fell victim to a phishing scam in February 2017 in which the sender claimed to be a Lincare executive asking for employee W-2s. The Florida-based company provides in-home respiratory therapy equipment for customers suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lincare has more than 14,000 employees across more than 1,000 locations. A Lincare spokesperson declined to comment. Although the breach did not involve patient information, it served as a reminder that healthcare organizations are also susceptible to breaches involving employees, with significant liability in some cases. Lincare offered credit monitoring to employees after the breach was discovered, but plaintiffs described that as a "minor half-measure that did not safeguard and protect the [information] already released." As part of the settlement, Lincare did not admit to any wrongdoing. The $875,000 will be divvied up into two funds, with $550,000 to compensate class members that suffered an out-of-pocket loss and $325,000 reserved for members that experienced an "eligible incident," such as a fraudulent tax return, or a fraudulent loan or credit card. The settlement comes as healthcare data breaches are drawing more scrutiny from federal and state regulators. Healthcare companies are also finding themselves in legal hot water as hacker groups continue to prey on long-standing vulnerabilities. A case brought by employees of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The state court will weigh in on whether the provider is responsible for safeguarding employee information after a 2014 breach exposed information for 62,000 employees.[GN] LJ DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Encarnacion Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LI ENCARNACION, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. LJ DELIVERY, INC. and LYDIA COSME, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06903 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver's assistant and manual worker from approximately September 2018 to, through and including, March 2022. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant paid him a flat $650 per week despite working approximately 77.5 hours during each of the weeks. The Defendant did not pay him any overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendant allegedly did not keep track of the Plaintiff's time that accurately reflected his actual hours worked. The Defendant also failed to provide him with any notice of his rate of pay and with any wage statement, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, for himself and all other similarly situated delivery drivers' assistant and manual workers, seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. LJ Delivery, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Hartsdale, New York. [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 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTY DERINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00968-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its supplements, additives, and drinks. The Defendant failed to disclose the possible exposure of its products to the bacteria Cronobacter Sakazakii. On August 1, 2022, the Defendant recalled 53 products due to potential bacterial contamination. Despite the known risks of Cronobacter Sakazakii, the Defendant has recklessly and/or knowingly sold its products without disclosing the possible contamination. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that they have purchased products that are worth less than the price they paid and that they would not have purchased at all had they known of the presence or risk of Cronobacter Sakazakii and/or other ingredients, says the suit. Lyons Magnus, Inc. is a manufacturer of supplements, additives, and drinks, with its headquarters in Fresno, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com MARSH & MCLENNAN: Antoine Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRETTA ANTOINE, SHANNON CAVE, CHRISTINA FORNEY and JUDY GALLEGOS, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES 401(K) SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC.; THE MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; THE MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-30, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06637 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches, and liability for knowing breach of trust. The case arises from the Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties to the Marsh & McLennan Companies 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan. The Defendants selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified poorly-performing investments instead of offering more prudent alternative investments that were readily available at the time they selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class Period. Moreover, Marsh & McLennan failed to perform its fiduciary responsibility to monitor the performance of the committees and their members, which would have alerted a prudent fiduciary to the breaches of fiduciary duties, says the suit. As a direct result of the Defendants' breaches of duties, the Plan has suffered losses and damages. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. is a financial services firm, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com - and – James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com - and – James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com - and – Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 19712 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: kctang@millershah.com MASSACHUSETTS: Bucca Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- DONNA BUCCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS including the Department of Health and Human Services and all subdivisions, Defendants, Case No. 2277CV00743-B (Mass. Commw. Ct., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay all of earned wages and other benefits until after the next regular pay date in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. Ms. Bucca was employed by the Commonwealth in its Executive Office of Health and Human Services for over twenty-two years at its Boston, Massachusetts office until she retired from employment on July 8, 2022. She last worked as an Assisted Living Ombudsman. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony S. Augeri, Esq. THE AUGERI LAW GROUP, LLC 7 Twin Oaks Drive Atkinson, NH 03811 Telephone: (603) 401-7528 E-mail: tony@augerilaw.com MCDONALD'S USA: Turner Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Antitrust Case -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is taking an appeal from a court judgment in her the lawsuit entitled Stephanie Turner, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05524, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Stephanie Turner brought this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 2017, Leinani Deslandes also filed a three-count amended complaint under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the lawsuit styled Leinani Deslandes, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04857. Plaintiffs alleged that the franchise agreement, from at least 1973 to 2017, had contained a no-poach provision that violated the Sherman Act and suppressed their wages. Former workers Leinani Deslandes and Stephanie Turner sought to represent a nationwide class of former McDonald's employees during a five-year period. In March 2017-just months before the private Deslandes class action was filed-McDonald's announced it would discontinue enforcing the same no-poach provision at issue and, in July 2018, entered an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General that the provision would no longer be included in future agreements or enforced in existing agreements. The Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs, too, have filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 28, 2022, the Court stated that both Deslandes and Turner failed to include facts necessary to render plausible a claim that a restraint is unlawful under rule-of-reason analysis. Neither Plaintiff alleged, in her respective complaint, a relevant market or that the Defendants had market power in that relevant market. Due to this, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Count I of both Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Defendants' motions to exclude experts and the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment were also denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Turner v. McDonald's USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-2334, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript information sheet was due on August 10, 2022; -- Appellant's brief is due on September 6, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHANIE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Derek Yeats Brandt, Esq. Connor Patrick Lemire, Esq. Leigh Michele Perica, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 North Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com CPL@mccunewright.com Lmp@mccunewright.com - and - Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Dean Michael Harvey, Esq. Jalle Habte Dafa, Esq. Lin Yee Chan, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 29th floor 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com lchan@lchb.com - and - Michelle E. Conston, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 E-mail: mconston@scott-scott.com - and - Walter W. Noss, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com Defendants-Appellees MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, et al., are represented by: Caeli A. Higney, Esq. Rachel Susan Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8248 E-mail: chigney@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - David Jarrett Arp, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8678 E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com - and - Kristin T. Opal, Esq. Robert M. Andalman, Esq. A & G LAW LLC 542 S. Dearborn St., 10th Floor Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 348-7627 E-mail: kopal@AandGlaw.com randalman@aandglaw.com - and - Matthew Cameron Parrott, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Suite 1200 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 E-mail: mparrott@gibsondunn.com - and - Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn, Esq. A & G Law LLC 542 S. Dearborn St., 10th Floor Chicago, IL 60605-1508 Telephone: (312) 341-1356 E-mail: rblackburn@aandglaw.com MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HENSLEY, as legal guardian of R.H., Case No. 2:22-cv-00978-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice, Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3r9YK at no extra charge.[CC] MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO THORBECKE and MARJORITA DEAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00870-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Saiki's Bid to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above-captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dwBZQr at no extra charge.[CC] MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA BOOTH, MARY NAPIER, and CANDACE DAUGHERTY, v. MCG HEALTH LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00879-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PmiirV at no extra charge.[CC] MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Junked ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE MACK, JOANNE MULLINS, and INGRID COX, Case No. 2:22-cv-00935-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3r0Vc at no extra charge.[CC] MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA CRAWFORD and MICHAEL PRICE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00894-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the the Court's Order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JTtrzm at no extra charge.[CC] MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY TAYLOR and SHELLEY TAYLOR, Case No. 2:22-cv-00925-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice.Saiki's motion to consolidate cases. The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v. MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June 16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore, Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair and just resolution of these disputes. Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response in each of the cases. At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says. MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pgg6Ym at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Claims Deadline Set for $90M Class Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Avery of cnet.com reports that Facebook users, who had a profile on the social media site in 2010 or 2011, may be eligible for part of a $90 million payout from a lawsuit accusing Facebook of illicitly tracking users across other websites. The deadline for filing a claim is Sept. 22, 2022. The plaintiffs in the case, Davis v. Facebook, allege the company was aware it violated privacy, communications and wiretap laws -- and its own contract -- by tracking logged-out users to sites that had a Facebook "Like" button on them. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined in 2020 that Facebook profiting from the sale of users' data constituted a breach of privacy causing economic harm. When the US Supreme Court declined to review the case in March 2021, settlement negotiations began. In June, a district court in California gave preliminary approval for a class-action settlement that includes the $90 million payout and a promise by Facebook that it would delete any improperly collected data. What is Facebook accused of in the data-tracking lawsuit? The plaintiffs allege that Facebook tracked people's activities on external websites, even when they were signed out of their Facebook accounts, by installing cookies on users' computers. In a 2011 suit filed in US District Court in San Jose, California, they claimed such monitoring violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Electronic Communications Act and the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, among other statutes. That year, Facebook disclosed that it personalized content by placing cookies onto users' computers that remained active even when they were logged out. The company told CNET at the time that it quickly removed uniquely identifying data from post-logout cookies and that it didn't store or use data from cookies for tracking. But according to the lawsuit, "This admission came only after an Australian technology blogger exposed Facebook's practice of monitoring members who have logged out, although he brought the problems to the defendant's attention a year ago." Facebook parent Meta Platforms didn't respond to a request for comment though, according to the settlement, it "expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever." Who is eligible to receive money in the Facebook settlement? US Facebook users who, between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 25, 2011, visited websites that displayed the Facebook "Like" button are eligible to be recipients, or "class members," in the case. When is the deadline to file a claim in the Facebook settlement? The claims administrator, Angeion, has already emailed eligible class members. If you received a personalized notice in the mail or via email, go to the claims site and enter the Notice ID and Confirmation Code you were provided with. If you believe you're eligible but weren't contacted, you can also file a claim on your own -- but the deadline is Sept. 22, 2022. Individuals who want to reserve the right to file their own lawsuit have until Sept. 12 to opt out of the settlement. If you do nothing, you won't get a payment and you'll give up the right to sue or be part of another lawsuit relating to the case. How much money could you receive? The court has scheduled a final approval hearing on Oct. 27, 2022, in San Jose, California, where it will consider whether the $90 million settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." It isn't yet clear how many class members there will be or how much each individual will receive. In 2021, Facebook agreed to a $650 million settlement to a suit that alleged it broke Illinois' biometric laws by collecting and storing users' physical characteristics without their consent. Nearly 1.6 million Facebook users in the state each received $397 payouts. When will Facebook settlement checks go out? Checks will go out at some point after the court makes a final decision about the settlement in the final hearing on Oct. 27. But there may be appeals that delay the process. "It is always uncertain whether appeals will be filed and, if so, how long it will take to resolve them," according to the settlement site. "Settlement payments will be distributed as soon as possible."[GN] MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP says a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise, acquired MINISO pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Investors are notified that they have until October 17, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser: https://bit.ly/3K5QwPr According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously stated; (2) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (3) the Company did not represent its true business model; (4) defendants, including the Company and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions; (5) as a result of at least one of these transactions, the Company is at risk of breaching contracts with Chinese authorities; (6) the Company would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees; and (7) as a result, Defendant's statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the MINISO class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the MINISO class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 Investor Relations jimb@johnsonfistel.com Robbins Geller Announcement Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO) publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with MINISO's October 15, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO") have until October 17, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action lawsuit. Captioned Ashraf v. MINISO Group Holding Limited, No. 22-cv-05815 (C.D. Cal.), the MINISO class action lawsuit charges MINISO, certain of its top executives and directors, its representative in the United States, as well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-miniso-group-holding-limited-class-action-lawsuit-mnso.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Headquartered in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer which serves consumers primarily through its large network of MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 30.4 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") to the investing public at $20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement. The MINISO class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously stated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv) defendants, including MINISO and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions; (v) as a result of at least one of these transactions, MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts with PRC authorities; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees. On July 26, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital published a report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO, including that "contrary to [MINISO]'s claims, many MINISO stores are secretly owned by [MINISO] executives or insiders closely connected to the chairman" and "[u]ltimately, we believe that there is overwhelming evidence that MINISO misleads the market about its core business." As Blue Orca explained, "[o]ur suspicion is that MINISO realized early in the pre-IPO process that a brick-and-mortar retailer would be far less attractive to investors than an asset-light franchise business, so we think that [MINISO] simply lied about these stores." Blue Orca added that "Chinese corporate filings also indicate, in our view, that the chairman siphoned hundreds of millions from the public company through opaque Caribbean jurisdictions as the middleman in a crooked headquarters deal." Blue Orca further concluded that "[i]ndependent evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO's Chinese website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former employees, indicate that MINISO is a brand in serious peril," noting that "MINISO lowered its franchising fee by 63% over the past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees." On this news, MINISO's ADS price fell nearly 15%. As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS, representing more than a 70% decline from the $20.00 IPO price. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser or acquirer of MINISO publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the MINISO class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the MINISO class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the MINISO class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9 billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com Rosen Law Announcement Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MINISO investors under the federal securities laws. To join the MINISO class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7814 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously stated; (2) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (3) the Company did not represent its true business model; (4) defendants, including the Company and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions; (5) as a result of at least one of these transactions, the Company is at risk of breaching contracts with Chinese authorities; (6) the Company would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7814 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MITCHELL MANAGEMENT: Faces Fuelberth FLSA Suit in D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM FUELBERTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITCHELL MANAGEMENT CO., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00281-SMB (D. Neb., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid delivery driver from approximately April of 2020 until June of 2021. Mitchell Management Co. is an owner and operator of Jimmy John’s franchises in Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MORGAN STANLEY: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ. 5914 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves: (1) the proposed class action settlement; and (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The Court has issued separate orders as to these subjects. The Clerk of the Court is therefore respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 92, 100, 123, 127, 130 and 133, and to close the case. The Court also directed, as a condition of settlement approval, that the parties jointly submit a quarterly status update letter reporting the work by and progress of Kroll Inc., which Morgan Stanley, pursuant to the parties' Settlement Agreement, has retained to retrieve the decommissioned devices at issue. The first such letter is due Nov. 1, 2022. Subsequent letters are due every three months thereafter, with the last due on Nov. 1, 2023. The Court retains jurisdiction to assure that vigorous and good faith efforts are made toward this end, and will reopen the case if the need to enforce this provision of the settlement agreement arises. The counsel is authorized to file the status update letters under seal, subject to the Court's review of whether such is justified. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8k3628 from Leagle.com. MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Offers $4M to Settle Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- HIPAA Journal reports that Florida Orthopaedic Institute has proposed a $4 million settlement to resolve claims from patients affected by a 2020 data breach. In April 2020, Musculoskeletal Institute, dba Florida Orthopaedic Institute, discovered an unauthorized third party had gained access to a server that contained patients' protected health information (PHI) and used ransomware to encrypt files. The forensic investigation determined the PHI of 640,000 individuals had been exposed and potentially stolen in the attack, including names, contact information, birth dates, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical information, and other types of data. Notifications were sent to affected individuals in July 2020 and a 12-month membership to a credit monitoring service was offered to affected individuals. Shortly after sending notifications, a lawsuit -- Stoll et al. v. Musculoskeletal Institute -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida that alleged Florida Orthopaedic Institute was "lackadaisical, cavalier, reckless, or in the very least, negligent" with respect to maintaining the privacy of its patients and had not followed basic cybersecurity best practices. The lawsuit also alleged invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit alleged the sensitive protected health information of patients was now in the hands of cybercriminals and patients now faced a substantial risk of identity theft and fraud. Florida Orthopaedic Institute has admitted no wrongdoing but decided to settle the lawsuit to avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, current and former patients who were notified about the data breach are entitled to submit a claim for a cash payment of up to $15,000 to cover out-of-pocket expenses and up to 5 hours of time that was lost remedying the data breach at $25 per hour. Attorneys argued that a 12-month membership to credit monitoring services was insufficient. All individuals affected by the data breach will now be eligible to receive 3 years of identity theft protection, credit monitoring, and identity restoration services, regardless of whether a claim is submitted. Parents or guardians of minors that have been affected by the data breach are entitled to enroll the affected children in these services for 3 years if their children are minors at the time of the settlement. These services include a $1,000,000 identity theft insurance policy. The services retail for around $196 per individual. All claims must be submitted no later than September 16, 2022. The final approval hearing for the settlement is September 29, 2022.[GN] NABORS COMPLETION: Court Awards $263.9K in Damages in Cisneros Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN CISNEROS, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-01871-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a judgment on the amounts Cisneros can recover against NABORS, including $263,873 in damages. On April 2, 2015, two former employees of NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action"). On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section 2, the Federal Arbitration Act, and a written arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Cisneros, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. His individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Richard D. Aldrich (Ret.) resulting in a Phase I Final Award issued Jan. 5, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Feb. 28, 2022, in favor of him. On March 22, 2022, Cisneros filed the instant Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On Aug. 4, 2022, the Court granted Cisneros' motion and confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration Award, and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. Therefore, Cisneros will recover against NABORS in the following amounts: in the amount of $263,873.95 in damages, including statutory interest thru Dec. 24, 2021, and continuing at $33.25 per day on the unpaid wages and interest at the rate of 10% per annum until all wages and interest thereon are paid in full, $281,235 in attorneys' fees and $4,983.63 in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator. Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,861.10 and for costs in the amount of $402 will be recovered. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8yrwsw from Leagle.com. Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas -- skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, Tustin, CA. NETWORK TRAVEL: Ex-Employees Sue Pollen's US Unit for Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Destination events company Pollen is entering administration in the UK. Now its US subsidiaries face a class action lawsuit from former employees, Ashley King reports for Digital Music News. Sergio Giancaspro is suing Network Travel Experiences, Inc., and StreetTeam Software LLC., which are the US subsidiaries of Pollen. The lawsuit filing, shared with Digital Music News, alleges Pollen's wealthy founding brothers mismanaged the company to ruin. "It touts itself as 'pair[ing] world-class entertainment with exciting destinations,' and offers employees a chance to 'live a bigger life.' Pollen proclaims that it is backed by prominent investors and has raised over $200 million in VC funding," the lawsuit reads. "The party ended in August 2022. Pollen's executives severely mismanaged the hundreds of millions with which they were entrusted. Shortly after completing a massive funding round, Pollen cancelled a series of widely-publicized festivals. It announced in mid-August that it was entering administration, the UK equivalent of bankruptcy." "This left Pollen's US subsidiaries and their employees adrift. After a series of late payroll payments, the subsidiaries stopped paying employees altogether as of July 1, 2022. They then laid off all employees -- without notice or warning -- on August 10, 2022 effective immediately. Employees were left with millions of dollars in unpaid wages and expense reimbursements." "Giancaspro brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated former employees for failure to pay earned wages and reimburse expenses, and for failure to provide mandatory advanced notice of the layoffs under federal and state labor laws." The lawsuit continues alleging that Pollen was aware in early 2022 that it was facing financial difficulties. The company 'repeatedly' missed payroll to its US workforce, which executives blamed on their payroll processor and 'human error.' Employees' pay reimbursements for most of 2022 were late until they weren't paid at all, starting July 1. In April and May 2022, NTE began laying off employees without advanced notice. The plaintiff of the lawsuit alleges that around 200 employees were laid off during this period. When NTE missed payroll again on June 30, Pollen's Co-Founder and CEO Callum Negus-Fancey said the issue was due to "closing a transaction with a large, well-known entertainment company" and the difficulty was an "isolated, one-off event." When asked directly if Pollen could continue to meet its payroll obligations going forward, Negus-Fancey replied, "Yes, we absolutely can." On August 10, 2022 NTE notified its employees they were terminated effective immediately. They did not receive the 60 days' notice required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). Nor did NTE or Pollen pay the employees their final wages due upon termination, including vacation and other time compensated. Jason Heffler, writing for EDM.com, reports the company also drew the ire of a number of its partners, like Drumcode Malta, whose organizers said Pollen's highly publicized struggles forced them to pull the plug on the festival. As the news circulated, Pollen released a statement attributing its pitfalls to a number of factors, including COVID-19 restrictions and a global economic downtick. The statement arrived days after Live Nation released its Q2 financials, reporting $4.43 billion in revenue, up from $575.9 million last year. "Despite strong growth since Streetteam Software Ltd.'s inception eight years ago, the knock-on effects of COVID-19 over the last two years, which decimated much of the travel sector, together with the tech stock crash and current consumer uncertainty in light of global economic conditions, put too much pressure on the business whilst at a critical stage of a scale-up's maturity," reads Pollen's statement. The suit is the latest development in the saga of Pollen, which had raised $150 million to curate destination travel experiences. Founded in 2014, the company reportedly laid off over 150 members of its staff in May, just one month after the funding round.[GN] NORDSTROM INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- IVANIE MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV25014 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failure to include nondiscretionary bonuses in regular rate of pay to calculate overtime and penalty pay; failure to properly calculate and pay sick leave wages; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks and second meal breaks; failure to provide suitable seating and; failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed as a nonexempt employee of the Defendants until April of 2022. Nordstrom, Inc. is an American luxury department store chain, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and – Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com OREGON: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action Over Foster Care ------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Borrud of The Oregonian's OregonLive reports that a lawsuit filed on behalf of children in Oregon's foster system will proceed as a class action on behalf of all the state's foster children, after a federal judge expanded it beyond its 10 specific plaintiffs on August 17. The lawsuit is an effort by Oregon advocates for people with disabilities and a national group that has filed similar legal actions in other states to force systemic improvements in the state's foster care system. In 2019, Disability Rights Oregon, the New York City-based nonprofit A Better Childhood and lawyers from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine filed a lawsuit outlining horrific examples of how 10 children, ranging in age from 18 months to 17 years old, experienced harm while in state care. The plaintiffs included a 17-year-old Native American boy who had lived in at least 50 different foster placements, none with tribal members, and was about to age out of the system without a stable living arrangement; 15-year-old transgender boy for whom the state had failed to find a supportive home and at one point, sent to an all-girls program; and a 9-year-old girl who was sent to a program in Montana where she was drugged to "induce calming effects" and physically restrained by up to four staff at a time. The class action that U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken approved on Wednesday includes "all children for whom the Oregon Department of Human Services ("DHS") has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal or physical custody of DHS." Aiken also approved subclasses for groups of children whose attorneys alleged they experienced specific harms: children with physical, intellectual, cognitive or mental health disabilities; children who are sexual or gender minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, intersex, gender non-conforming and non-binary children; and children ages 14 and up, plus young adults in the foster system, who are eligible for transition services and lack an appropriate reunification or permanency plan. In order to qualify for class action status, lawyers for the young plaintiffs had to demonstrate to Aiken that the number of children potentially wronged by Oregon's foster care system was large enough, that the state's alleged mishandling of the specific plaintiff's care was common and the harm they were at risk of suffering was typical, and that the lawyers for the children are equipped to adequately represent them in a class action case. Lawyers for the state argued against the class action certification, citing the fact that multiple child plaintiffs had aged out of foster care or otherwise exited the system in the more than three years since the lawsuit was filed. However, Aiken ruled against the state because she said the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the harms they allegedly experienced in Oregon's foster care system "are certain to recur" for other children in state care, regardless of the fact that none of the young plaintiffs will remain in state care indefinitely. "On an even more fundamental level . . . children grow up," Aiken wrote. "At a certain point, they will age out of the care of foster system. These changes in circumstances may happen before the court has an opportunity to rule on the motion to certify the class. The injuries claimed by the challenged plaintiffs are repeatable to the class, if not necessarily to the named plaintiffs themselves, and the court concludes that plaintiff has shown that the injuries claimed by the named plaintiffs are certain to recur on other similarly situated individuals." The number of children in Oregon foster care has fluctuated over the years, from nearly 10,000 in 2006 to 5,500 last fall. "We know that every child needs a stable home environment where their potential can be nurtured," said Tom Stenson, deputy legal director of Disability Rights Oregon, in a statement. "For at least half of the thousands of children in Oregon's foster care system who experience a disability, the current system does not meet their needs, so they're being bounced around from institution to institution and home to home. Children with disabilities deserve real homes where their needs are met, not refurbished jail cells, hotel rooms, and homeless shelters." Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of A Better Childhood, said in a statement that Oregon "has simply failed to address the overwhelming needs of its most vulnerable children . . . Foster care is supposed to help kids, not make them worse, but that is exactly what foster care in Oregon is doing." A spokesperson for Gov. Kate Brown, who has identified improving Oregon's foster care system as a priority since she took office in 2015, declined to comment. "Our office generally does not comment on matters of pending litigation," Liz Merah wrote in an email. Jake Sunderland, press secretary for the Oregon Department of Human Services, also declined to comment.[GN] PERFORMANCE ONE: Richards et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- IRA RICHARDS and SPENCER WHITE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERFORMANCE ONE SECURITY, LLC, a limited liability company, HENSON SECURITY SERVICES LLC, a limited liability company, and ROBERT HENSON JR., an individual, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00701-Y (N.D. Tex., August 12, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-aid and non-exempt security officers - Plaintiff Richards was from approximately October 2001 through the present, and Plaintiff White was from approximately September 2019 through June 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek throughout his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants regularly failed to pay them premium overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiffs seek to recover the full amount of damages and liquidated damages, for themselves and for other similarly situated security officers. The Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by them filing this complaint, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Performance One Security, LLC and Henson Security Services LLC provide security services. Accordingly, Defendant Henson Security Services LLC acquired the business operations and employees of Performance One Security, LLC. Robert Henson Jr. is the managing member of Defendant Henson Security Services LLC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Buchholz, Esq. ROBERT W. BUCHHOLZ, P.C. 5220 Spring Valley Rd., Ste. 618 Dallas, TX 75254-2431 Tel: 214-754-5500 E-mail: bob@attorneybob.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: 248-355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces Cooley Suit Over Miscalculation of ACV ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES COOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00651-SLP (W.D. Okla., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, the Defendant systemically employs a routine total loss settlement process in calculating its valuations and claims payments for first-party property damage under its collision and/or comprehensive coverage. The Defendant relied on a Vehicle Valuation Report provided by Mitchell to calculate the actual cash value (ACV) amount owed under its insurance policy. However, the valuation reports used by the Defendant make a further adjustment to each loss vehicle called a Projected Sold Adjustment, which does not reflect market realities and run contrary to customary automobile dealer practices and inventory management. The Plaintiff and Class members were damaged by the Defendant's application of these Projected Sold Adjustments because they were not paid the ACV they would have received had the Defendant applied proper methodologies and appraisal standards, says the suit. Progressive Direct Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its principal place of business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and – Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com PROVENTION BIO: D.N.J. Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives. Paxton v. Provention Bio, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-11613, slip op. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 57. Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations in connection with the company's candidate drug intended to delay or prevent the progression of Type One Diabetes. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations, scienter, or loss causation. Plaintiffs' allegations concerned the company's efforts to obtain FDA approval of the drug after the company acquired the drug from another company that had manufactured the drug in Ireland and had positive initial results in a clinical trial. Because the company wanted to manufacture the drug in Seattle, it conducted a "bridging study" in an attempt to demonstrate that the formulation manufactured in Seattle would be "biocomparable" -- i.e., that it would have "a similar lasting impact on a patient's body in both time and effect." Id. at 4-5. Ultimately, the FDA concluded that the new formulation was not biocomparable and observed "deficiencies" in the company's manufacturing facility. Id. at 17 18. Plaintiffs alleged that the company made statements that were misleading because they omitted information regarding (1) the comparability results of the bridging study; (2) the enrollment size of the Stage 2 clinical trial; (3) ongoing safety data from the Stage 2 clinical trial; and (4) manufacturing progress. With respect to the comparability study, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that omitting the risk that the study might produce negative results made the company's statements misleading. Id. at 22. The Court explained that, while speaking on an issue can give rise to a duty to disclose additional material facts, the company "did not speak on the issue" of the comparability results in the statements challenged in this regard, and in fact, made clear that the FDA was the ultimate decision-maker. Id. at 22-23. The Court further concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the company was aware of the comparability results or believed that there was a significant risk that FDA approval would be negatively impacted by those results. Id. at 23. Moreover, the Court determined that the company's statements regarding "its alternative view of the results" -- after it chose to speak on the issue -- were not actionable because "[i]nterpretations of clinical trial data" were nonactionable opinions, and plaintiffs did not allege that the company did not honestly believe its interpretation. Id. at 24-27. The Court also explained that the company had no duty to provide updates regarding interim discussions with the FDA about the comparability study because the FDA's feedback did not express a binding decision and was subject to change. Id. at 28. With respect to the enrollment size of the clinical trial, the Court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the company failed to disclose that the trial "did not meet the enrollment specified in the original protocol." Id. at 31. To the contrary, the Court observed that both the company and the entity conducting the clinical trial had disclosed the enrollment size. Id. The Court further rejected the allegation that the safety data from the trial was insufficient due to a design flaw, noting that these allegations were based solely on comments from FDA Advisory Committee members -- who ultimately voted in favor of the drug -- and that there was no allegation that plaintiffs did not honestly believe that the drug was safe. Id. at 32. And with respect to plaintiffs' allegations regarding the company's manufacturing facilities, the Court observed that the company had disclosed "the FDA's perceived manufacturing deficiency" within days and that plaintiffs failed to allege any facts indicating that the company learned of such deficiencies previously, the severity of those deficiencies, or whether these deficiencies caused a delay in FDA approval. Id. at 33. The Court then assessed plaintiffs' allegations regarding scienter and concluded that they did not give rise to a strong inference of scienter as to any defendant. Id. at 35. Plaintiffs asserted that the drug was "centrally important" to the company, that the CEO and CFO held themselves out as knowledgeable about the FDA, that the CEO and CFO had extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry, that the company had a common stock offering while these events unfolded, and that the CEO and CFO are senior executives who signed the company's annual reports. Id. But the Court explained that none of these allegations were sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter in the absence of other particularized allegations. Id. at 36–38. The Court further rejected that scienter should be imputed from the allegation that the FDA had previously communicated that it had found "certain deficiencies" at a company facility, as plaintiffs failed to allege facts linking any such deficiencies to the challenged statements. Id. at 39-40. Moreover, while plaintiffs argued that scienter was supported by the fact that the company spoke about the bridging study, the Court concluded that "the content and context cut the other way" because the company also "discussed purported issues" with the study that plaintiffs alleged were concealed. Id. at 39-40. The Court also considered motive and opportunity as "relevant to a court's holistic analysis," but held that plaintiffs' allegations regarding defendants' supposed desire to raise capital and ensure the survival of the company was too generic to be actionable and is shared by all executives. Id. at 42. The Court further emphasized that the company had, in fact, disclosed "a crucial fact that [p]laintiffs allege [d]efendants were concealing" regarding a potential negative interpretation of the comparability data and that "[t]he FDA could disagree with [the company's] analysis and interpretation." Id. at 43. Thus, the Court concluded that the opposing inference was more compelling -- that the company "thought and hoped" it would obtain FDA approval, disclosed obstacles when they arose, and disclosed that the company's initial views on the timeline and the comparability data were ultimately incorrect. Id. at 43-44. Finally, the Court concluded that, because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations, plaintiffs also failed to allege that defendants caused plaintiffs' alleged losses. Id. at 45.[GN] QUALITY LIFE: Golden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY LIFE SERVICES, LLC, APRIL LINCON, and SALLY CHAVEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00579 (D.N.M., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated caregivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver from approximately May 1, 2019 through July 5, 2022. Quality Life Services, LLC is a post-acute healthcare services provider doing business in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 North Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 RITE AID: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Byars Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORP. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01377-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose to the users of its website, www.riteaid.com, that it deployed a keystroke monitoring software to intercept, monitor, and record the communications of all visitors to its website. The Plaintiff and Class members did not consent to any of the Defendant's actions in implementing wiretaps on its website, nor did they consent to the Defendant's intentional access, interception, recording, monitoring, reading, learning and collection of their electronic communications with the website, says the suit. Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rocket Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.C. SNYDER v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03840-MCS-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: July 7, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 7, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): May 5, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: August 11, 2023 -- Deadline to File a Motion for Nov. 21, 2022 Class Certification: -- Deadline to File an Opposition Dec. 12, 2022 to the Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File a Reply in Jan. 3, 2023 Support of the Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing Date on Motion for Jan. 23, 2023 Class Certification: A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SKuqWN at no extra charge.[CC] ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Garcia Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DOLORES GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, D/B/A MARIANO'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Ms. Garcia has worked for the Defendant as a Process Safety Management (PSM) staff from approximately September 2014 until the present. Roundy's Illinois, LLC, doing business as Mariano's, is an operator of a chain of grocery stores within Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Kearney Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELINDA KEARNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, D/B/A MARIANO'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04051 (N.D. Ill., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Ms. Kearney worked for the Defendant as a Process Safety Management (PSM) staff from approximately July 2017 to December 2019. Roundy's Illinois, LLC, doing business as Mariano's, is an operator of a chain of grocery stores within Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 RVJ PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Lewis Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JORDON LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RVJ PIZZA, INC. and ROBERT W. JONES, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00650-D (W.D. Okla., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Seminole, Oklahoma from approximately August 2021 to May 2022. RVJ Pizza, Inc. is an owner and operator of numerous Domino's franchise stores in Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St Paul, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Underpays Customer Service Staff, Alvaran Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE ALVARAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06897 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendant as a customer service associate at one of its retail stores in October 2013 until October 2021. He was transferred to work as a Warehouse Manager at one of the Defendant's warehouse in October 2021 until the end of his employment on July 25, 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was underpaid throughout his employment as a Customer Service Associate. While working as a Warehouse Manager, the Defendant paid him $21.73 per hour on a bi-weekly basis. Despite regularly working 12 hours shifts, the Plaintiff was never paid the required spread of hours pay for days when he worked more than 10 hours at a time. The Defendant also failed to pay him any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Defendant allegedly deducted the Plaintiff's uniform from his wages. Moreover, the Defendant willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage notices and wage statements, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for compensatory damages for himself and all other similarly situated Customer Service Associate, as well as unpaid spread of hours pay, unpaid uniform maintenance pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties for failure to provide wages notices and wage statements, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. Sherwin-Williams International Company sells volumes of paint to commercial clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 Tel: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com SNAP INC: Collects Snapchat App Users' Biometrics, Boone Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA BOONE, ASHLEY MCCLINTON, and K.F.C., a minor by and through her guardian, ERIN RENTFRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNAP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000708 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial., Dupage Cty., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to disclose to the users of its camera application, Snapchat, including the Plaintiffs, that it collects their biometric identifiers without their informed, written consent. Snap, Inc. is a mobile application developer, with its principal place of business located at 2772 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa Monica, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and – Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 3833 Central Ave. St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Hurster Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES HURSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-00318 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants SLS' Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Hurster brings the putative class action against SLS for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 227 and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. He alleges SLS made numerous unsolicited, pre-recorded debt collection calls to his cellular telephone, all of which failed to disclose that the communication was from a debt collector in an attempt to collect a debt. U.S. Bank N.A. was the original lender and servicer of the Plaintiff's home mortgage loan. In 2019, U.S. Bank transferred his mortgage and deed of trust to Selene Finance, LP. The Plaintiff subsequently defaulted on his mortgage debt. Effective Aug. 1, 2020, Selene Finance, LP transferred the Plaintiff's defaulted mortgage debt to SLS while he was in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Beginning in August 2020, the Plaintiff received the following voicemail message from SLS: "This message is from Specialized Loan Servicing. During this time of the recently announced national emergency relating to COVID-19, we are contacting you to remind you of alternative methods to receive information about your account, or to make payments. You may make payments via our website at www.sls.net or calling our Payment IVR service at (800) 981-9963. You can receive account information via our website at www.sls.net or through our automated phone system at (800) 315-4757. Thank you." The Court notes that it is undisputed that the voicemail message does not mention the character, amount, or status of the Plaintiff's debt. SLS' records document 10 attempts to contact the Plaintiff between Aug. 11, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2021. The Plaintiff now moves to dismiss his TCPA claim without prejudice. His stated reason for dismissal is that recent discovery indicates he expressly consented to be contacted on his cell phone through SLS' website. Because this is fatal to the Plaintiff's TCPA claim, Judge Ross grants the Plaintiff's motion, but dismisses the claim with prejudice. The matter is now before the Court on SLS' Motion for Summary Judgment; the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's claim arises under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. He asserts that SLS violated this provision by failing to disclose in its pre-recorded voice messages to Plaintiff that it was a debt collector attempting to collect a debt, in violation of Section 1692e(11), which requires that in any communication, the debt collector must disclose that the communication is from a debt collector. SLS argues it is not liable under the FDCPA because informational communications like its voicemail messages, that do not demand payment or discuss the specifics of an underlying debt, are not communications "in connection with the collection" of a debt. It argues that its voicemail message was intended to convey general information about alternative methods of contacting SLS instead of calling its Customer Service Center. It was directed to all of its customers during the COVID-19 pandemic and was not restricted to customers who were in default on their mortgage loans. It did not ask for, or demand payment from Plaintiff or discuss the specifics of his debt or any collection efforts. In response to SLS' motion (and as the basis for his own motion for summary judgment), the Plaintiff argues that he understood the purpose of the voicemail was to induce him to pay his mortgage debt. Specifically, he asserts that when the voicemail referred to "your account," SLS was referring to his mortgage debt and telling him where to make payment in an attempt to collect a debt. It was his testimony that he assumed SLS was referencing his mortgage debt because they were calling him on the phone number they had on file associated with his particular debt. The Plaintiff further argues that SLS admitted it expected customers to make payments from the voicemail it sent. He cites several cases in support of his contention that SLS' voicemail message violates the FDCPA. Based on the record before the Court, Judge Ross holds that no reasonable jury could find that an animating purpose of SLS' voicemail message was to induce payment. Nothing in SLS' informational message is specific to the Plaintiff's debt; in fact, there is no mention of his debt. No part of the message requests or demands payment from him. It does not threaten consequences for nonpayment. Thus, SLS' voicemail message was not a "communication in connection with the collection of a debt" as required to establish liability under the FDCPA. For this reason, its motion for summary judgment will be granted; the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied; and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/35eskx94 from Leagle.com. STRATEGIC CLEANING: Delgado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cleaners ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VIVAS DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC CLEANING CORP. and EDGAR STEFFENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04560 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide proper wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements. Mr. Delgado was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker, demolition worker and cleaner from June 2019 until in or around August 2019. Strategic Cleaning Corp. is a provider of cleaning services, with a principal executive office located in Flushing, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 TEXAS: Class Settlement in Roppolo v. Criminal Justice Dept. Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Matthew Roppolo, et al., Plaintiffs v. Medical Director Lannette Linthicum; Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Ben Raimer; Cynthia Jumper; Rodney Burrow; F. Parker Hudson III; Erin Wyrick; John Burruss; Preston Johnson, Jr.; Kelly Garcia; Owen Murray; University of Texas Medical Branch Correctional Managed Care; Dee Budgewater; Philip Keiser, Defendants-Appellees v. Julian Dominguez, Appellant, Case No. 21-40414 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's approval of the class-action settlement. Mr. Dominguez, former Texas prisoner No. 497927, is a class member in a class action alleging that inmates received inadequate medical treatment while in state custody. He now appeals the district court's approval of the class-action settlement. He has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal, or, in the alternative, for a stay of the appeal until he is able to hire an attorney. Because Dominguez has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel, the Fifth Circuit denies his request. It also denies his alternative motion to stay the appeal. The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's approval of a class-action settlement for abuse of discretion. It finds that Dominguez has not presented any argument that the district court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. He has therefore abandoned, by failure to brief, any challenge to the approval of the settlement. Hence, the district court's judgment is affirmed, and Dominguez's motions are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysypkaus from Leagle.com. THANK YOU: Catzin Cross-Appeals Attorney Fees' Ruling to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUCIA LOPEZ CATZIN, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, have filed a cross-appeal from a judgment entered in the lawsuit entitled Lucia Lopez Catzin, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07109, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants -- a group of laundromats and their owners -- for violations of the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours payments, and failure to provide wage notices and wage statements. On November 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed motions for attorney's fees and to set aside the jury's finding and enter judgment against Defendant Dimitri Berezovsky. On January 10, 2022, the Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition of the Plaintiffs' motions for attorney's fees and judgment. District Judge Andrew L. Carter granted the Plaintiffs' motions on June 13, 2022. The Court ruled that as an employer, Defendant Berezovsky is jointly and severally liable for any recovery awarded to the Plaintiffs. The Court ordered to award a total of $140,250.36 in attorneys' fees and $4,064.86 in costs. The appellate case is captioned as Lopez Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., Case No. 22-1655, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 26, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCIA LOPEZ CATZIN, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Alan Gerald Serrins, Esq. SERRINS & ASSOCIATES LLC The Woolworth Building 233 Broadway New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 384-0202 - and - Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Defendants-Appellees THANK YOU & GOOD LUCK CORP., et al., are represented by: Mark Kook, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK R. KOOK 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 766-4100 THINK FINANCE: Settles Suit Over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme for $44M ------------------------------------------------------------- Jakob Cordes of wric.com reports that a loan company in Virginia accused of lending at illegally high interest rates reached a $44 million settlement Aug. 16 in a scheme that used affiliation with two Native American Tribes to evade state laws. "The litigation stopped most of the illegal internet lenders, and legislation kicked out the payday and car title lenders," said Jay Speer, Executive Director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, which represented some of the plaintiffs, in a press release. "But a few illegal internet predators continue to target Virginians over the internet." In an initial complaint dated to 2018, which set off the four-year legal battle, plaintiffs alleged that a Texas-based company called "Think Finance," operating through the shell companies Plain Green LLC and Great Plains Lending LLC, used a spurious affiliation with two Native American tribes to circumvent Virginia laws limiting the amount of interest that could be charged on loans. According to the complaint, the company paid the Chippewa Cree and Otoe-Missouria tribes a flat fee to use their names -- and tribal sovereignty -- to claim exemption from Virginia's laws, when in fact the tribes had no involvement in the operations of the company and had no stake in the loan companies themselves. The plaintiffs say they were charged annual interest rates as high as 400%. In Virginia, lenders are barred from charging an APR of more than 12%. Now, the companies have reached a class-action settlement with the plaintiffs, which means anyone who fell victim to the illegal lending practices can be eligible for a cash payment. "Payouts benefit consumers with loans from companies identified as Great Plains Lending at any time, loans with Plain Green before June 1, 2016, or cash advances or lines of credit from MobiLoans before May 6, 2017," the Judge's order reads. The companies will now be required to pay $44,530,000 into an escrow account, from which it will be distributed to those who qualify for the settlement.[GN] UNITED STATES: Angel Sues for Breach of COD Contract Provisions --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua J. Angel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00867-MMS (Fed. Cl., Aug. 8, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated owners of non-cumulative preferred shares of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and/or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac, and collectively with Fannie Mae, the "GSEs" and/or the "Companies") against the United States due to the United States Department of Treasury's alleged misconduct. According to the complaint, the Department of Treasury (a) breaches the contract obligations created by the Certificates of Designation (CODs) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (b) breaches the federal government's guaranty of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac non-cumulative preferred quarterly dividend rights; and (c) breaches Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 "Federal Agency" authorization in directing quarterly sweep of approximately $500 million (i.e. $2 billion annual) of GSE's funds which by contract should have remained with the GSEs for post-conservatorship dividend payment to Junior Preferred shareholders, in major question doctrine violative payments to Senior Preferred shares payments from January 1, 2013 to date. The complaint is anchored in Treasury's alleged wrongful actions, each and every quarter beginning first quarter of 2013, of preventing the Companies' boards of directors from declaring Junior Preferred share dividends. Those quarterly wrongful actions were in breach of CODs contract provisions regarding Junior Preferred dividends, and the Implicit Guaranty of Junior Preferred share dividend rights in their quarterly sweeping GSE's funds which by contract should have remained with the Companies for post-conservatorship allocation to Junior Preferred, notes the complaint. Those quarterly wrongful actions resulted in approximately $20 billion of GSEs Junior Preferred share dividend entitlement to Defendant, it adds. Plaintiff Angel is a resident of New York, and owns Junior Preferred Shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in excess of $1 million face amount. United States Department of Treasury is an agency or instrumentality of the United States, having its headquarters in Washington, DC. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Injunction Bid Denial to 10th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are taking an appeal from a court ruling denying their motion for permanent injunction in the lawsuit entitled Randy Dean Quint, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-03569-DDD-GPG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for alleged unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On November 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction under the All Writs Act. On March 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion for an injunction be denied. On March 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an objection/appeal to the District Court of the Magistrate Judge's decision denying their motion for an injunction. On June 27, 2022, Judge Daniel D. Domenico overruled the Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Judge Domenico accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation, and accordingly, denied the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Permanent Injunction under the All Writs Act. The appellate case is captioned as Quint, et al. v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Case No. 22-1226, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and notice of appearance were due August 10, 2022 for John Linn, Mark Molina and Randy Dean Quint; -- Notice of appearance was due on August 10, 2022 for Vail Resorts, Inc. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edward P. Dietrich, Esq. EDWARD DIETRICH, APC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 300-8450 - and - Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130-3582 Telephone: (858) 793-0070 Defendant-Appellee VAIL RESORTS, INC., is represented by: Michael H. Bell, Esq. Steven R. Reid, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower 3, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 764-6800 ZACHARY HOLDINGS: $1.88MM Class Deal in Blackmon Suit Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES R. BLACKMON, JUSTIN M. ROZELLE, ERIC A. MYERS, JARED MUNSON, Plaintiffs v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-00988-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, recommends that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted. The case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. The Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, and all other former and present participants in the Plan. They allege that the Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by: (1) selecting and retaining imprudent investments in the Plan; (2) causing the Plan to pay unreasonable investment management fees; and (3) causing the Plan to pay unreasonable recordkeeping and administrative fees. Their Second Amended Complaint, the live pleading, seeks a declaratory judgment that the acts of Defendants violate ERISA, a permanent injunction against Defendants, and compensatory damages. After the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties commenced discovery, including the exchange of discovery requests and production of more than 13,000 pages of documents related to Plan administration, relationships between and among fiduciaries, and the Defendants' investment and service provider monitoring processes. Prior to the filing of any motion to certify the class action or additional dispositive motions practice, the parties reached a settlement. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on behalf of Plan participants and the Plan, and the Court granted the motion on Feb. 18, 2022, after holding a hearing. The Order preliminarily approving of the settlement conditionally certified the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final review of the settlement; approved the appointment of Strategic Claims Services as settlement administrator; provided a deadline of May 30, 2022, for any motion for attorneys' fees and briefs in support of final approval of settlement; and set a deadline of June 14, 2022, for objections to the settlement by the class members. SCS thereafter disseminated the settlement notice via electronic and first-class mail to 33,690 class members and former plan participants in March 2022, established a website and other contact information for the settlement, and followed other notice procedures mandated by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1711-1715, Rule 23, and the Court's Order. Of the 33,690 class members, 19,031 were identified as non-active Plan participants and were mailed the Court-approved Settlement Notice along with a Former Participant Claim Form. The remaining 14,659 active Plan participants received the Court-approved Settlement Notice. The Plaintiffs now request final approval of the settlement, as well as approval of the requested attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards, and the entry of final judgment. The Court held a fairness hearing on the motion on July 14, 2022, at which the parties appeared through counsel and reviewed the key components of the parties' agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will make payment in an aggregate amount of $1,875,000 into a Qualified Settlement Fund, and will take certain actions in connection with monitoring the Plan's investments and fees, in exchange for the Settlement Class' release of its claims described in the Agreement. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay the following amounts associated with the Settlement: (1) compensation to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation; (2) any Case Contribution Award approved by the Court; (3) all Attorneys' Fees and Expenses approved by the Court; (4) Independent Fiduciary Fees and Costs; (5) Administration Costs; and (6) Taxes and Tax-Related Costs. The amount to be paid to each Class Member will be determined by the Plan of Allocation, which provides for pro rata allocation of settlement proceeds based on the average size of each Class Member's account during the Class Period. The 14,659 Class Members who are active participants in the Plan will automatically receive the benefit of the Settlement, and SCS has received 3,418 Former Participant Claim Forms for participation by former Plan participants. After payments have been issued to the Class members, any amount remaining in the Settlement Fund from uncashed checks after 180 days will be distributed back to the Settlement Fund to be utilized as set forth in the Plan of Allocation. There will be no reversion to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of attorneys' fees for Class Counsel in the amount of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund ($625,000), reimbursement of expenses actually incurred in the prosecution of this case in the amount of $43,372.06, and Case Contribution Awards for each Class Representative (each of the four Plaintiffs) in the amount of $12,500. SCS has not received any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, any terms therein, or to the proposed Administrative Expenses, Attorneys' Fees, or the Plaintiffs' Case Contribution Awards. To further ensure that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as compliance with ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions, the Parties retained the independent fiduciary, Fiduciary Counselors, to approve and authorize the Settlement on behalf of the Plan and Class Members. The independent fiduciary filed a report with the Court authorizing the proposed settlement on behalf of the Plan and asserting no objections to the terms of the parties' agreement. The Court has already preliminarily approved the Settlement Class and appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel, Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C., as the Class Counsel. None of the circumstances warranting certification at the preliminary approval level have changed. For the reasons stated in the previous order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, Judge Chestney again finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) and that the Class Counsel satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(g). Additionally, Judge Chestney finds that the settlement warrants final approval, concluding that the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) have been satisfied. She also finds that the requested fees, expenses, and case contribution awards are reasonable. Having considered the Plaintiffs' motion, the proposed settlement agreement, the parties' related filings, and the presentation of counsel at the live hearing, Judge Chestney grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. She enters the Plaintiffs' Proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment by separate Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yznejyv3 from Leagle.com. ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Final Approval & Judgment Issued in Blackmon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES R. BLACKMON, JUSTIN M. ROZELLE, ERIC A. MYERS, JARED MUNSON, Plaintiffs v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-00988-ESC (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, grants the Motion for Final Settlement Approval. The Class Action came before the Court for hearing on July 14, 2022, to determine the fairness of the proposed settlement. For the sole purpose of settling and resolving the Class Action, Judge Chestney certifies the Class Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period (August 21, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Judge Chestney appoints James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers, and Jered Munson as the Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and Capozzi Adler, P.C. and Miller Shah LLP as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Judge Chestney approves the Settlement and orders that the Settlement will be consummated and implemented in accordance with its terms and conditions. The Plan of Allocation is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Plan of Allocation and the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Administrator will have final authority to determine the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each Class Member in accordance with the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court. The Releases are effective as of the Settlement Effective Date. Accordingly, Judge Chestney orders that, as of the Settlement Effective Date, the Plan, the Class Representatives, and the Class Members (and their respective heirs, beneficiaries, executors, administrators, fiduciaries, estates, past and present partners, officers, directors, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, and attorneys) fully, finally, and forever settle, release, relinquish, waive, and discharge all Released Parties (including Defendants) from all Released Claims, regardless of whether or not such Class Member may discover facts in addition to or different from those which the Class Members or the Class Counsel now know or believe to be true with respect to the Class Action and the Released Claims and regardless of whether such Class Member receives a monetary benefit from the Settlement, actually received the Settlement Notice, filed an objection to the Settlement or to any application by the Class Counsel for an award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and whether or not the objections or claims for distribution of such Class Member have been approved or allowed. The Class Representatives, the Class Members, and the Plan, acting individually or together, or in combination with others, are permanently and finally barred and enjoined from suing the Released Parties in any action or proceeding alleging any of the Released Claims. The operative complaint and all claims asserted therein in the Class Action are dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of the Settling Parties and Released Parties other than as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any disputes or challenges that may arise as to the performance of the Settlement Agreement or any challenges as to the performance, validity, interpretation, administration, enforcement, or enforceability of the Settlement Notice, Plan of Allocation, the Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement or the termination of the Settlement Agreement. It will also retain exclusive jurisdiction and will rule by separate Order with respect to all applications for awards of attorneys' fees and Case Contribution Awards to the Class Representatives, and reimbursements of litigation costs, submitted pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, in accordance with its terms, the Final Approval Order will be rendered null and void, ab initio, and will be vacated nunc pro tunc, and the Class Action will for all purposes with respect to the Parties revert to its status as of the day immediately before the day the Settlement was reached. The Parties will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to negotiate a new case management schedule. With respect to any matters that arise concerning the implementation of distributions to Class Members who have an Active Account (after allocation decisions have been made by the Settlement Administrator in its sole discretion), all questions not resolved by the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the Plan administrator or other fiduciaries of the Plan, in accordance with applicable law and the governing terms of the Plan. Within 21 calendar days following the issuance of all settlement payments to the Class Members as provided by the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court, the Settlement Administrator will prepare and provide to the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel a list of each person who received a settlement payment or contribution from the Qualified Settlement Fund and the amount of such payment or contribution. Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, all Settling Parties, the Settlement Class, and the Plan will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order. Judge Chestney enters judgment on all claims, counts and causes of action alleged in the Class Action. Notwithstanding the reservation of jurisdiction, it is a final and appealable judgment that ends the litigation of the Class Action. The Clerk is directed to enter the judgment in the civil docket forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Final Approval Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/nc569bxj from Leagle.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 ***