/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 21, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 226 Headlines 1237 FULLERTON LLC: Buxton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois 21ST CENTURY SPIRITS: Blue Ice Vodka Ads Misleading, Sava Says 3M COMPANY: Delaney Suit Removed to S.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Nuoffer Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals 9W HALO: Butt PAGA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ABC LEGAL SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Hueston Has Leave to Seek Compensatory Damages ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California AMARIN CORP: Court Consolidates Dang and Dorfman Securities Suits APPLE INC: Doe BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. New York ARM & HAMMER: Misclassifies Framers & Foremen, Bloomer Suit Claims AUTOZONERS LLC: Duran Suit Remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County AVALARA INC: Parekh Balks at $8.4-Bil. Buyout of Vista Equity BAYER CORPORATION: Hitt Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BRERA HOLDINGS: Kironmic BioPharma Putative Class Suit Pending BROADWAY VIVA: Villano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages BURGER SPOT: Rivas Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA CANCOS TILE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CARDINAL HEALTH: LSP&RF Shareholder Suit Stayed Pending Mediation CARLOTZ INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Keller Suit Claims CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Sues Over Illegal Prescribing Practices CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Neal Class Action CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Cuevas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California CLEAR SKY LOCAL: Fabricant TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York COAST DENTAL: Davis TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Class Action Ongoing COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Putative Class Action Dismissed COVENANT TRANSPORT: Tabizon Putative Class Action Dismissed CRISIS COLLECTION: District of Nevada Dismisses Miller Class Suit CVS Pharmacy: Gum & Enamel Repair Can't Cure Gingivitis, Suit Says DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Sues Over Mislabeled Vanilla Almondmilk DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Lane Sues Over Defective Products DOMINION ENERGY: Court Junks Metzler Class Action EL BUKANITAS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ENVIVA INC: Fagen Sues Over Violation of Securities Laws FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Key Suit Over Alleged Data Breach FORD MOTOR: Vehicles' Mobile App Inoperable, Scriber Suit Claims GANNETT COMPANY: Faces Buechler Suit Over Data Privacy Violations GITHUB INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Rotunno's 2nd Amended Suit Affirmed H&M HENNES: Lizama Sues Over Misleading Business Practices HEIGHTS TOWER: Fails to Pay Construction Workers' OT, Moran Claims IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit JUUL LABS: Auburn Enlarged Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Consolidates Karp and Podmore Class Suits L'OREAL USA: Hair-Straighteners Contain Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says LASHIFY INC: Adams Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls LE CAT USA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vega Alleges LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez PAGA Suit Removed to E.D. California MADCADI INC: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MANAGEABILITY: Faces Campbell Suit Over Unpaid Case Managers' OT MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Suit Dismissed MATCH GROUP: Dismissal of Newman Class Suit Under Appeal MATCH GROUP: Rubin and Ochoa Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia PAGA Suit Removed to N.D. California MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan Report Excluded in 518 Restaurant Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excltuded in Spoke Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in 7-Eleven Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Aldi Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in AMUI Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Animal Land Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Avon Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BAF Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BGI Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Bishara Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BKS Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Boyd Gaming Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BWL Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Camp Grounds MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CenturyLink MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CFA Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DGC Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DOI Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Dunhill Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in E-Z Mart Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in East Goshen Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Esdacy Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Exxon Mobil Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fairmont Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fareway Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fitlife Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in G.E.S. Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Grubhub Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Halcyon Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hertz Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Home Depot Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hyman Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Intuit Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Jasperson MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in JHI Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Kroger Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lakeshore Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lanning Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Leeber Cohen Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lombardo Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Luby's Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MCI Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Meijer Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MTA Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NACS Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NGA Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Old Jericho MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Parkway Corp Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Photos Etc. Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Pizzabov Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in PLI Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Publix Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in QVC Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Raley Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Rue21 Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Seaway Gas Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in SuperValu Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Tabu Salon Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Target Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Verizon Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Wakefern Case MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Westgate Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded Walt Disney Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Bi-Lo Suit MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Contrarian Funds Suit MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 47 West MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Animal Land MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Avon MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bishara MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DGC MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Home Depot MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Walt Disney MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Westgate MDL 2913: Campbell-Savona Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth MDL 2913: Catskill Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic MDL 2913: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Charlotte Alleges MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Afton Claims MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Arkport Central Says MDL 2913: Faces Deposit Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis MDL 2913: Hancock Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth MDL 2913: Massena Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Schuyler Claims MDL 2913: Stamford Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads MDL 2913: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Edmeston Central Says MDL 2913: Waverly Central Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction MINDBODY INC: $3.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Securities Suit MINTO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Sica RICO Class Suit Over Loan Rates MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Hold Objector Helfand in Contempt Denied NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: 9th Circuit Affirms Mulquin Action Dismissal NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska NRG ENERGY: Two TCPA Cases Against Direct Energy Pending O'GARA COACH: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Towell Suit Affirmed OHIO: Court Dismisses Remaining Claim in Hairston v. Bowerman OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Interim Status Conference Set for Nov. 30 PACIFICORP: Class Action in Oregon Over 2020 Wildfires Ongoing PACIFICORP: Trial by Jury Demanded in Dietrich Suit PFIZER INC: Drug Contains Nitrosamine Impurity, Walter Alleges PFIZER INC: Faces Ellis Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Drugs SAFEBUILT FLORIDA: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT SALLY BEAUTY: Teuscher Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gutierrez Suit Stayed Pending Consolidation SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Removed to C.D. California SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Adams-Gillard's $1.6MM Settlement Has Final Nod SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Pace Suit Plaintiffs SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Walkingstick Suit Plaintiffs SOLAREDGE TECH: Faces Reford Suit Over 2.3% Drop of Stock Shares STAPLES THE OFFICE: Heightened Doc Protection in Corral Suit OK'd TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Obsolete Telematics in Motor Vehicles U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE: Cannon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Contains High Benzene, Sims Suit Says UNITED STATES: C.D. California Dismisses Dinkins Prisoner Suit UNITED STATES: Dinkins' Habeas Claim Dismissed as Duplicative UNITED STATES: Mayorkas Appeals Final Judgment in Al Otro Lado Suit UNITED STATES: North Carolina Court Dismisses Burghart Class Suit UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: Class Certification in Cross Suit Reversed WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Wilkerson's Certification Bid Denied in Part WISCONSIN: Clayborne's Bid to Certify Case as Class Action Denied WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Wins Bid to Recuse Magistrate Judge Youchah YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment in Eastwood Suit Affirmed YOUNG LIVING: Objection to Arbitration Denial in Penhall Sustained ********* 1237 FULLERTON LLC: Buxton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sloane Buxton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1237 Fullerton LLC, The Scion Group LLC, Case No. 2022CH09018, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 9, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06269 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Scion Group LLC -- https://thesciongroup.com/ -- is a real estate services partner to higher education institutions, foundations and private-sector providers of student housing.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. 21ST CENTURY SPIRITS: Blue Ice Vodka Ads Misleading, Sava Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO SAVA, ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. 21ST CENTURY SPIRITS, LLC, LEANNA BARTLETT, ALEXA COLLINS, SARAH HOUCHENS, METISHA SCHAEFER, NINA SEREBROVA, SKYLER SIMPSON, KRISTEN STROUT, KATHY PICOS f/k/a KATHY CRUZALEGUI, JAMIE VILLAMOR, ANNA KATHARINA VON STAEHLE a/k/a ANNA KATHARINA, Case No. 1:22-cv-06083 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the Defendants illegally promotes Blue Ice products on social media as "handcrafted," as well as suggesting that there are health benefits in consuming vodka. According to the complaint, the Influencers claim "Together we can stay fit", suggesting that consumption of vodka has benefits like weight loss. The Defendant Alexa Collins, for example, compares vodka with an apple, suggesting that vodka is the healthier alternative. Such claims by 21st Century and the Influencers are not only misleading, but also untrue and not supported by scientific evidence, the Plaintiffs contend. Such claims are also prohibited by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as they are purely deceptive and misleading, the suit says. 21st Century Spirits is a producer and marketer of premium alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith L. Gibson, Esq. PRACTUS LLP 490 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1 Glen Ellyn IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 E-mail: Keith.Gibson@practus.com - and – Bogdan, Enica, Esq. PRACTUS LLP 66 West Flagler St., Ste. 937 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 539-9206 E-mail: Bogdan.Enica@practus.com - and – Steven E. Young, Esq. PRACTUS LLP 16501 Ventura Blvd, Ste 304 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 641-5001 E-mail: Steven.Young@practus.com 3M COMPANY: Delaney Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kristen Delaney, Individually and as parent of A.D., minor child; Sean Delaney, Caulin Delaney, Edward Hanlon, Tracey Hanlon, individually and as parent of T.H., minor child; Stephen Murphy, Leslie Pease, Matthew Pease, Laura Pease, Meredith Pease, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Arkema Inc.; Archroma U.S. Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; Corteva, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DuPont De Nemours Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Tyco Fire Products, LP, individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; Case No. 158595/2022, was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov. 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09544 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. The 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Thomas J. Herten, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. 21 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 342-6000 Fax: (201) 342-6611 Email: therten@archerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Nuoffer Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Nuoffer, and other similarly situated 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; Case No. 2:22-cv-03255-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 23, 2022), is brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for decades. This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as "PFC" are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA). The Plaintiff joined the US Army and was subsequently assigned to Fort Polk, LA (2001-2003 and 2005-2007). At all times relevant, Plaintiff lived/worked on Post at Fort Polk using and drinking the water. On information and belief, Fort Polk is believed to be contaminated. In 2014, Nuoffer was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a orchiectomy. As known by Defendants, testicular cancer is a disease linked to PFAS contamination. Nuoffer did not discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until approximately Fall 2020, when he saw internet information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Army, who during his service was stationed at, inter alia, Fort Polk, a military installation identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. VETERAN LEGAL GROUP 700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 215-7834 Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and - S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Phone: (978) 458-0507 Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and - Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (800) 934-2921 Email: kon@kyroslaw.com 9W HALO: Butt PAGA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WAQAS N. BUTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO, L.P., doing business as ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00324599, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 7, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02012-AC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to accurately calculate and pay all wages owed including minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages owed during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to keep accurate records, and failure to pay sick leave at the proper rate. 9W Halo Western Opco, LP, doing business as Angelica Textile Services, is a linen supplier headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. William T. Okamoto, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com calvarez@fisherphillips.com wokamoto@fisherphillips.com ABC LEGAL SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35360 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee during the applicable statutory period. The Defendants provide legal process serving and document delivery services for their customers and clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com nolan@setarehlaw.com ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Hueston Has Leave to Seek Compensatory Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed against the Sheriff in an official capacity for compensatory damages in the lawsuit captioned DAVID E. HUESTON, Plaintiff v. SHERIFF OF ALLEN COUNTY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-173-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.). The case stems from the class action Morris v. Sheriff of Allen County, No. 1:20-CV-34-DRL, 2022 WL 971098 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2022), regarding the conditions of confinement at the Allen County Jail. In that case, the Court certified a class of "all persons currently confined, or who would in the future be confined, in the Allen County Jail" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court found at summary judgment that certain conditions of confinement at the jail violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution: "The overcrowding problem at the jail--which in turn has spawned an increased risk of violence, unsanitary and dangerous conditions in cells, insufficient recreation, and classification difficulties--has deprived this class of inmates 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" It also entered a permanent injunction to address the overcrowding, lack of sufficient staffing and recreation, and inadequate supervision of prisoners and continues to monitor the remediation of the unconstitutional conditions. Mr. Hueston filed a complaint seeking damages for being detained starting April 27, 2021, in the unconstitutional conditions of confinement identified in Morris. However, he did not allege how the conditions affected him personally; without an injury, he did not have a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint to identify any potential injury he may have suffered from the jail's conditions. He has done so, Judge Brady notes. Mr. Hueston's amended complaint identifies three types of injuries he says he suffered at the Allen County Jail: (1) the overcrowding and understaffing led to physical assaults; (2) the lack of recreation and exercise caused his health to deteriorate; and (3) the jail's response to COVID-19 was deficient. Judge Brady finds that Hueston plausibly alleges that the overcrowding and understaffing problems at the jail were widespread and well known. Although there is no indication that this specific threat to Hueston from his cellmate was known to the Sheriff, it is reasonable to infer that this type of violence is an obvious consequence of these crowded and understaffed conditions. Judge Brady notes that it remains to be seen whether the Sheriff or other policymakers took reasonable measures to abate the overcrowding and understaffing issues. But at this point, Hueston has plausibly alleged that the conflict he experienced with his cellmate was an obvious consequence of the overcrowding and understaffing and therefore may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to protect. Mr. Hueston plausibly alleges the overcrowded conditions at the jail resulted in a lack of recreation, which in turn caused the alleged deterioration of his health, Judge Brady finds. Thus, Hueston may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a denial of reasonable exercise opportunities. Finally, Hueston includes allegations relating to his contracting COVID-19, but these allegations do not state a claim, Judge Brady notes. Hueston alleges that he did not receive any treatment in those 14 days or for weeks afterwards, despite having a severe case of COVID-19. Judge Brady opines that Sheriff David Gladieux cannot be held responsible in his individual capacity for the independent actions of his subordinates, who allegedly did not respond appropriately to Hueston's medical need. Judge Brady also holds, among other things, that singling out one aspect of the jail's COVID-19 response does not plausibly allege the jail's overall response to COVID-19 was objectively unreasonable. As a final matter, the Court notes that Hueston names as a defendant both the Sheriff of Allen County, Indiana, and David Gladieux. It is unclear whether he intended to sue them as two separate defendants, but for clarity the Court will dismiss David Gladiuex as a Defendant but keep the Sheriff of Allen County in an official capacity. This case does not state any individual capacity claims against David Gladieux. A claim against David Gladieux in his official capacity is the same as a suit against the Sheriff's Office, Judge Brady explains. Therefore, this case will proceed against the Sheriff of Allen County only. However, a municipality is immune from punitive damages, so Hueston is limited to recovering compensatory damages. For these reasons, the Court: (1) grants David E. Hueston leave to proceed against the Sheriff of Allen County in an official capacity for compensatory damages for unconstitutionally crowded and understaffed conditions at the Allen County Jail from April 27, 2021, through June 2022, resulting in violence against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) grants David E. Hueston leave to proceed against the Sheriff of Allen County in an official capacity for compensatory damages for unconstitutionally crowded and understaffed conditions at the Allen County Jail from April 27, 2021, through June 2022, resulting in a lack of recreation that harmed his health in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) dismisses all other claims; (4) dismisses David Gladiuex; (5) directs the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) the Sheriff of Allen County at the Allen County Jail, with a copy of this order and the complaint; (6) orders the Allen County Jail to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and (7) orders, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g)(2), the Sheriff of Allen County to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ewutcy6a from Leagle.com. ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled In Re: Subpoena to Alliance Healthcare Partners, LLC, Case No. MC-22-00033-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.), Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: (1) grants in part Intuitive Surgical, Inc.'s motion to compel a non-party, Alliance Healthcare Partners, LLC, to comply with a subpoena or, in the alternative, to transfer the enforcement dispute to the Northern District of California; and (2) directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The matter arises out of a proposed class action lawsuit that Plaintiff Larkin Community Hospital filed against Intuitive in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Intuitive is surgical robotics company that manufactures and markets technology for minimally invasive surgeries, including the "EndoWrist." Currently, it sets "use limits" for the EndoWrist of about ten uses. According to Intuitive, modifying the EndoWrist to extend its use limits requires Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") clearance pursuant to Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("510(k) clearance"). To enforce the use limits, Intuitive includes a memory chip (i.e., a "use counter") in the EndoWrists to disable the instruments when they reach their validated number of uses and enters into service agreements with purchasers and lessees that prohibit the customers from allowing unauthorized third parties to service EndoWrists. In other words, the service agreements prevent "independent robot repair companies" ("IRRCs") from extending the life of an EndoWrist by disabling its use counter. On May 20, 2021, Larkin filed a complaint against Intuitive in the Northern District of California, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, alleging various antitrust claims (Larkin Cmty. Hosp. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 21-CV-03825-VC (N.D. Cal.). In broad strokes, Larkin alleges that the EndoWrist use limits and the contractual provisions that prevent service by IRRCs violate federal antitrust laws. Larkin's lawsuit is one of several actions related to the EndoWrist use limits. Two other antitrust class actions on behalf of Intuitive customers are pending in the Northern District of California: Franciscan All. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 21-cv-05198-VC (N.D. Cal.), and Kaleida Health v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 21-cv-05266-VC (N.D. Cal.). On Aug. 25, 2021, the litigation underlying the pending motion (No. 21-cv-03825-VC) was consolidated with Franciscan Alliance and Kaleida Health. There is also a pending antitrust action brought by one of Intuitive's purported competitors in the Northern District of California, Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-03496 (N.D. Cal.), which is related to the underlying litigation. Two other antitrust actions related to the EndoWrist use limits are pending in district courts in Florida: Restore Robotics LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-55-TKW-MJF, in the Northern District of Florida, and Rebotix Repair LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-02274-VMC-TGW, in the Middle District of Florida. The Restore litigation, No. 5:19-cv-55-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla. 2022), is particularly relevant to the parties' arguments here. In that case, Restore, which is an IRRC that offers contract services in the surgical robotics aftermarket, alleges Intuitive's service agreements prevent Restore from repairing EndoWrists. According to Intuitive, Restore originally contended that it does not need FDA clearance to extend EndoWrist use limits. However, Intuitive learned that FDA representatives informed Restore that they believe that 510(k) clearance is required. Afterward, Restore retained Alliance to assist it in obtaining 510(k) clearance from the FDA. In February 2021, Alliance (acting on Restore's behalf) filed an application with the FDA for 510(k) clearance of Restore's technology used to extend use limits for a particular EndoWrist by an additional ten uses. Based on these facts, as part of discovery in the Restore litigation, Intuitive served a third-party subpoena on Alliance seeking documents and information related to Alliance's efforts before the FDA on behalf of Restore. In response, Alliance produced about 1,700 documents dated between 2019 and April 1, 2021. The documents were covered by a protective order that, among other things, required they be used solely in the Restore litigation (and not for any other purpose). Restore is not a party to the underlying litigation here. However, according to Intuitive, Larkin supports its claims, in part, by alleging that EndoWrists could be used for dozens--and in some cases over 100--procedures, if inspected and repaired as needed between surgeries. Intuitive also asserts that Restore is one of two IRRCs that purport to have developed technology to circumvent EndoWrist use limits and is the only IRRC seeking 510(k) clearance and Alliance is prosecuting that application before the FDA on Restore's behalf. Thus, although neither Alliance nor Restore is a party to this litigation, Intuitive contends that documents from Alliance related to Alliance's continued efforts (on behalf of Restore) to obtain 510(k) clearance from the FDA for more uses per EndoWrist are relevant to (1) whether 510(k) clearance is in fact required to extend the use limits, and (2) whether extending the use limits is safe (both at all and by what number of uses). On June 3, 2022, Intuitive served a subpoena on Alliance seeking documents similar to those Intuitive sought from Alliance in relation to the Restore litigation, but this time from 2019 to present. In other words, Intuitive seeks the responsive documents from the Restore litigation (which, under the relevant protective order, could not be used for this action) and similar documents created after the responsive documents from the Restore litigation (i.e., between April 1, 2021, and July 5, 2022). On June 16, 2022, Alliance objected to the subpoena on a number of grounds, including undue burden and confidentiality. After the parties met and conferred, Alliance agreed to allow Intuitive to use the documents from the Restore litigation in this case. It also produced an email chain, dating from Oct. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, with correspondence between itself and FDA representatives. However, Intuitive contends this chain is incomplete because it omits certain attachments and does not include emails between April 1, 2021, and Oct. 1, 2021. In its present motion, Intuitive asks the Court either to compel Alliance to fully comply with the subpoena or to transfer the enforcement dispute to the issuing court in the Northern District of California. Intuitive contends transfer to the issuing court in the Northern District of California is warranted under the factors that courts typically consider when deciding whether to order transfer of an application to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena, such as judicial efficiency and the risk of inconsistent rulings. In response, Alliance contends transfer would "impose significant burdens" on it and other third parties based in the Phoenix area with similar issues in this case. Because Alliance does not consent to Intuitive's transfer request, Intuitive bears the burden of showing that exceptional circumstances are present, Judge Lanza notes, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Judge Lanza finds that exceptional circumstances warranting transfer exist here for several reasons. The underlying case has been pending since May 20, 2021 (No. 21-CV-03825) and the deadline for fact discovery was on Nov. 10, 2022. Given this timeline, ruling on the motion to compel could disrupt the issuing court's case management. The Court agrees with Intuitive that the issuing court is better situated to "take account of Alliance's interest in confidentiality." The Court acknowledges that transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Here, Judge Lanza holds that several factors suggest that transfer would not be unduly burdensome to Alliance. First, Intuitive indicates that hearings in the underlying litigation are generally held remotely. Second, Alliance does not provide much evidence that transfer would subject it to significant burdens. Other than the potential cost of retaining counsel in the Northern District of California, Judge Lanza says it is not clear that transfer would subject Alliance to any burden. On balance, the relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer. Given the looming discovery deadline, the complexity of the underlying litigation, and the fact that Alliance's confidentiality concerns may rise or fall with the scope of the issuing court's protective order, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist warranting transfer of Intuitive's motion to the Northern District of California. Further, the Court finds that any costs to Alliance imposed by a transfer are outweighed by the importance of consistent management of the underlying litigation and judicial economy. Because the Court grants Intuitive's request to transfer its motion to compel to the Northern District of California, it does not rule on the merits of that motion. Judge Lanza, accordingly, rules that Intuitive's motion to compel is granted in part. The Court directs the Clerk to transfer this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yck2brfe from Leagle.com. AMARIN CORP: Court Consolidates Dang and Dorfman Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled VINCENT DANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, et al., Defendants. TODD DORFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 21-19212 (GC) (TJB), 21-19911 (GC) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: (1) denies the Motions to Consolidate Related Actions, for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, filed in Vincent Dang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Amarin Corporation PLC, et al. (Civ. No. 21-19212) (the "Dang Action") by 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund (the "Pension Fund"); Dennis and Kimberly Franks, Raymond J. Kosmider, Igor Privet, and Karen Avanesov (collectively, the "Amarin Group"); Pawel Terlecki; and Vincent Dang; and (2) grants the Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, filed in Todd Dorfman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Amarin Corporation PLC, et al. (Civ. No. 21-19911) (the "Dorfman Action") by the Pension Fund, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The matter involves two putative class actions consisting of individuals and entities, who acquired securities from Defendant Amarin Corporation PLC between Dec. 5, 2018, and June 21, 2021. Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is Vascepa(R) (AMR-101), a prescription grade ultra-pure omega-3 fatty acid derived from fish oil. John F. Thero was Amarin's President and CEO during the Class Period. Michael W. Kalb was Amarin's Senior Vice President ("SVP") and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"). Both Complaints allege that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on Amarin's dissemination of material misstatements or omissions about the status of ongoing Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") litigation challenging the validity of Vascepa's patents. The Complaints allege that, during the Class Period and despite negative outcomes for Amarin in the ANDA litigation, the Defendants continued to assure investors of Vascepa's viability. These assurances caused Amarin's share prices to remain artificially high until the investors learned the truth about the ANDA litigation, causing share prices to decline and the Class members to suffer significant losses. Plaintiffs Dang and Dorfman filed the Class Action Complaints on Oct. 21 and Nov. 10, 2021, respectively. On Dec. 23, 2021, the Pension Fund, the Amarin Group, Terlecki, and Dang filed the instant Motions. The Pension Fund is an institutional investor. The Amarin Group is a group of five individuals, who invested in Amarin stock during the Class Period and suffered losses. Dang and Terlecki are both individual investors. On Jan. 4, 2022, Terlecki filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, stating that he does not have the largest financial interest in the Class and does not oppose the competing motions. On Jan. 4, 2022, Dang filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Pension Fund's Motion, stating that the Pension Fund appears to have the largest financial interest. Dang also requested that the Court appoint him as lead or co-lead plaintiff if the Court has concerns about the Pension Fund's adequacy to serve as lead plaintiff, e.g., if the Court has concerns about standing because the Pension Fund sold the last of its Amarin shares in the middle of the Class Period, on Oct. 20, 2020. On Jan. 4, 2022, both the Amarin Group and the Pension Fund filed oppositions to the competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On Jan. 11, both the Amarin Group and the Pension Fund filed replies. Motions to Consolidate Cases Judge Castner finds that the Complaints in the Dang and Dorfman Actions involve the same Defendants, Amarin, Thero, and Kalb. Both Complaints allege violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the Defendants' statements and omissions regarding the ANDA litigation related to Vascepa. Both Complaints were brought by Amarin investors alleging injuries based on their purchasing Amarin securities at "artificially inflated prices" during the same Class Period, causing them to suffer significant losses when prices declined. Further, all of the Movants requested consolidation and there is no opposition. The Defendants have not indicated that consolidation would prejudice them. Thus, to promote "efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs or delay," the Court grants the Motions to consolidate the Dang and Dorfman Actions. Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff The parties do not dispute that the Amarin Group has the largest financial interest of the Movants when aggregating the losses of its individual members, and that the Pension Fund has the second highest financial interest. Thus, the Amarin Group has the largest financial interest of the Movants, followed by the Pension Fund. The parties also do not dispute that the Amarin Group's claims are typical of the rest of the class. Thus, the Court agrees that the Amarin Group has met the prima facie showing for typicality. There is no dispute that the Amarin Group selected competent and well-qualified counsel. The principal dispute of the Amarin Group's adequacy comes from the second factor, where the Court considers whether the formation or makeup of a group of individuals would preclude it from serving as lead plaintiff. The Court finds that the Amarin Group has not established a prima facie case of its adequacy. Judge Castner notes that (i) the Amarin Group is comprised of five individuals who live in different places around the United States and who do not have a relationship outside of this litigation; (ii) the fact that the individual financial losses of the Amarin Group's members are significantly lower than those of the other individual Movants suggests that the group was formed to aggregate individual financial losses; (iii) with respect to the Amarin Group's ability to operate effectively as a single unit, the Amarin Group submitted a joint declaration, signed by the members on Dec. 21 and 22, 2022; and (iv) the Amarin Group's size of five individuals is on the upper-limit of what the Third Circuit has deemed presumptively acceptable for a lead plaintiff group. However, Judge Castner holds, when considering its size in relation to the factors for adequacy, the Amarin Group has not demonstrated its ability to "operate effectively as a single unit." Considering the factors as a whole, the Court finds the Amarin Group has not made a prima facie showing of its adequacy to represent the Class. The Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff The Pension Fund timely filed its lead plaintiff motion. It has asserted that its claims are "typical" of the rest of the class because it purchased securities during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated by Defendants' materially false statements or omissions. It also has set forth a prima facie case for its adequacy. Its large individual financial loss will ensure its incentive to represent the claims vigorously. Accordingly, the Pension Fund has set forth a prima facie case that it is the presumptive lead plaintiff. The Amarin Group and Dang challenge the Pension Fund's adequacy to serve as lead plaintiff because it sold more shares than it purchased during the Class Period and thus, is a "net seller." While the Pension Fund did indeed sell its shares before the end of the Class Period, Judge Castner notes the Pension Fund still suffered net losses. Thus, the Pension Fund is unlike the lead plaintiff movant in In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation, which was a "net gainer" and "profited, rather than suffered, as a result of the inflated stock prices," Judge Castner points out. Additionally, Judge Castner finds the Pension Fund's sale of its shares before the Class Period ended does not render it incapable of adequately protecting the interests of the Class or subject it to unique defenses because it sold its shares after two of the four alleged disclosures during the Class Period. To the extent the Amarin Group argues that the Pension Fund does not have standing to serve as lead plaintiff because the Pension Fund has not traded in both options and common stock, this argument is unsupported by case law, Judge Castner holds. The fact that another movant (the Amarin Group) has traded in both options and common stock does not demonstrate that the Pension Fund will not represent the class fairly and adequately. Accordingly, Judge Castner finds no party has rebutted the Pension Fund's presumptive lead plaintiff status. Motion to Approve the Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel The Pension Fund is a sophisticated institutional investor, who has served as lead plaintiff and selected Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in other matters. Robbins Geller currently serves or has served as lead counsel in several securities actions in this district, including In re Valeant Pharm. Int'l, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civ. No. 15-7658, (D.N.J. May 31, 2016). Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Pension Fund carefully selected Robbins Geller, and that Robbins Geller has the qualifications and experience to serve as lead counsel. Moreover, no party has objected to the approval of Robbins Geller as counsel. Accordingly, the Court approves the Pension Fund's selection of counsel. For these reasons, the Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel filed by the Pension Fund is granted, and the competing motions, filed by the Amarin Group, Dang, and Terlecki are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2px3nafa from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Doe BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, and YOLANDA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 20 L 206, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02575 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Russell K. Scott, Esq. GREENSFELDER HEMKER & GALE PC 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 239-3612 E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com - and - Raj N. Shah, Esq. Eric M. Roberts, Esq. Matthew J. Freilich, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 368-4000 E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com eric.roberts@dlapiper.com matt.freilich@dlapiper.com - and - Isabelle L. Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Arc Automotive, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Earl Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arc Automotive, Inc., General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09432 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators for automotive airbag applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 Email: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com ARM & HAMMER: Misclassifies Framers & Foremen, Bloomer Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, JUSTIN BLOOMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARM & HAMMER CONSTRUCTION LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and TIMOTHY YNIGUEZ and JANE DOE YNIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01896-MTM (D. Ariz., November 4, 2022) challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Statute. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a framer and foreman from July 22, 2021 until he was terminated on July 25, 2022. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation 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 did not pay the Plaintiff for his work performed from July 15, 2022 to July 25, 2022. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid wages, for himself and all other similarly situated workers, against the Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees along with costs, and other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Arm & Hammer Construction LLC is a construction company that provides framing services. Timothy Yniguez is the owner and operator of the Corporate Defendant. Jane Doe Yniquez is the spouse of Timothy Yniguez. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Brown, Esq. ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC 3303 E. Baseline Road, Suite 101A Gilbert, AZ 85234 Tel: (602) 324-9644 E-mail: tbrown@ebdlawyers.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Duran Suit Remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York remands to state court the lawsuit titled JOFENY DURAN, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 7817 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.). On Sept. 13, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of removal from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Court was alleged to have diversity jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), known as the Class Action Fairness Act. As stated in a letter filed Sept. 19, 2022, the parties agreed to the Plaintiff's counsel amending the Complaint to take out the class claims, among other changes. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022, and a Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC") on Oct. 26, 2022. The SAC no longer includes the class claims and fails to provide "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." As the SAC no longer alleges the class claims, this subsection of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 cannot serve as the basis for the Court's jurisdiction, Judge Schofield notes. He finds the SAC fails to allege any amount in controversy, let alone that it exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. The Court, therefore, lacks diversity jurisdiction. The SAC does not allege a federal claim. Thus, the Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction. For these reasons, the matter is remanded to state court. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Pursuant to section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nye977c from Leagle.com. AVALARA INC: Parekh Balks at $8.4-Bil. Buyout of Vista Equity ------------------------------------------------------------- VINEET PAREKH, Individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AVALARA, INC., SCOTT MCFARLANE, BRUCE CRAWFORD, MARION FOOTE, EDWARD GILHULY, WILLIAM INGRAM, MARCELA MARTIN, TAMI RELLER, BRIAN SHARPLES, RAJEEV SINGH, SRINIVAS TALLAPRAGADA, and KATHY ZWICKERT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01580 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants violates the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9, in connection with the acquisition of Avalara by Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC for $93.50 per share in cash and $8.4 billion in cash in total. On September 12, 2022, to convince Avalara shareholders to vote in favor of the acquisition, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A (the Proxy) with SEC. The Defendants allegedly misled shareholders into approving the acquisition by creating unreasonably low financial projections to achieve support for the desired fairness opinion, says the suit. Avalara's shareholder vote regarding the acquisition was held on October 14, 2022 and resulted in the Company's misled shareholders approving the June 21, 2021 merger agreement in reliance on the foregoing misrepresentations. In total, 33.8% of Avalara's shares voted against approving the deal, abstained from voting, or were not represented at the Shareholder Vote. The acquisition closed on October 19, 2022, causing Avalara's shares to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and thereby denying Avalara's public owners the ability to profit from the Company’s future growth. As a result of the dissemination of the materially false, misleading, and incomplete Proxy that Defendants used to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages and actual economic losses, the suit claims. Avalara is a Washington corporation with principal executive offices in Seattle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com jlerner@monteverdelaw.com - and – Roger M. Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com BAYER CORPORATION: Hitt Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Heather Hitt, Alison Dirk,, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Corporation, Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-01657, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06018 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Williams, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE - KANSAS CITY 2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 460-5562 Fax: (816) 292-2001 Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com - and - Rachel L. Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN One Pennsylvania Plaza 48th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 BRERA HOLDINGS: Kironmic BioPharma Putative Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Brera Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Kironmic BioPharma putative class action is pending in court as of September 2, 2022. On August 5, 2022, the plaintiff, Ronald Karp commenced a putative class action against Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. (Kiromic) and its current or former officers and directors, among other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The allegations in the complaint, which the plaintiff filed on the same day, center on alleged violations of federal securities laws in relation to Kiromic's public stock offering that opened on or about June 29, 2021 and closed on or about July 2, 2021 (the June 2021 Offering). The complaint alleges that the June 2021 Offering documents contained untrue or material misleading misrepresentations or omission due to the failure of those documents to disclose that the FDA had placed a clinical hold on Kiromic's two Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. Pietro Bersani, who has been nominated to serve as a member of our board of directors, is individually named as a defendant in the complaint due to his position as a member of Kiromic's board of directors and chairman of the audit committee during the time relevant to the allegations in the complaint. Mr. Bersani is also currently Kiromic's chief executive officer. The complaint prays for certification of the case as a class action and judgment in favor of the named plaintiff and members of the putative plaintiff class for an award against the defendants, jointly and severally, for recission (as appropriate) of amounts paid for shares purchased in the June 2021 Offering or all damages sustained in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief. As of September 2, 2022, this case was pending. Brera Holdings PLC is an Irish holding company focused on expanding social impact football by developing a global portfolio of emerging football clubs BROADWAY VIVA: Villano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN VILLANO, VICTOR MORALES, MARCOS DIEGO TAPIA, and JORGE LUIS GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BROADWAY VIVA, INC. d/b/a CAFE VIVA GOURMET PIZZA, VIVA NATURAL PIZZA INC. d/b/a VIVA CUCINA, ANTHONY IRACANI, JUSTIN IRACANI, and LENNY IRACAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-09417 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022) seek to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premiums pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The named Plaintiffs were hired in different dates during the period 1999-2021. There employment came to an end upon the closing of Cafe Viva on September 9, 2022. Broadway Viva is a domestic business corporation with a principal place of business at 2578 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com BURGER SPOT: Rivas Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO RIVAS, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. BURGER SPOT, LLC, a New York limited liability company, and JOHN DOE, and individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-06757 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Rivas worked for the Defendants from May 2021 through April 2022. From Saturday night through Thursday, Mr. Rivas was employed as a grill man, and his duties included cooking menu items for customers, on Friday, the Burger Spot was closed, and Mr. Rivas cleaned the restaurant from 11 a.m. until 4 p.m. He worked anywhere from 80-90 hours per week or more, the Plaintiff claims. Burger spot is a fast-food restaurant at 64-29 108th St, Forest Hills, 11375.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com CANCOS TILE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cancos Tile Corporation. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cancos Tile Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-06691-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cancos Tile Corp. -- https://cancostileandstone.com/ -- is a family owned and operated business and has been a ceramic tile, marble and granite agent, importer, distributor and retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com CARDINAL HEALTH: LSP&RF Shareholder Suit Stayed Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court stayed the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund shareholder securities suit while the parties participate in mediation. In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2020. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of Cardinal Health stock during the time period. In September 2021, the court denied our motion to dismiss. In September 2022, the court entered an order staying the case while the parties participate in mediation. The Company continues to vigorously defend against these claims. Cardinal Health, Inc. is a company that provides healthcare services and products in Ohio. CARLOTZ INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Keller Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- SHOLOM D. KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARLOTZ, INC., LEV PEKER, LINDA B. ABRAHAM, STEVEN G. CARREL, NANXI LIU, DAVID R. MITCHELL, KIMBERLY H. SHEEHY, JAMES E. SKINNER, and LUIS IGNACIO SOLORZANO, Case No. 2022-1006 (Del. Ch., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants breach fiduciary duty in connection with their solicitation of the approval of CarLotz stockholders of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 9, 2022. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of CarLotz common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.692158 shares of Shift common stock, subject to an adjustment based on Shift's issued and outstanding shares prior to the effective time of the Merger, relative to the fully diluted CarLotz shares prior to the effective time of the Merger. The Proxy was signed on behalf of CarLotz by the Defendants Solorzano and Peker. The Proxy, among other things, includes the recommendation of the CarLotz Board that CarLotz stockholders vote to approve the Merger (Stockholder Vote) at a special meeting (Special Meeting) yet to be scheduled. The Proxy, however, omits certain material facts that must be disclosed to CarLotz stockholders before the Stockholder Vote to enable them to cast fully informed votes with respect to the Merger. Carlotz, Inc. operates as a used vehicle consignment and retail remarketing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 803-4600 E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com - and – Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISS LAW 476 Hardendorf Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 692-7910 E-mail: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com - and – Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Sues Over Illegal Prescribing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- STACIA CULLORS, an individual; ERIC EBERLE, an individual; MAGGIE HARRISON, an individual; NICOLE SCURLOCK DEWEY, an individual; MERCEDES SCHROEDER, an individual; PATRICIA ANNE CRAWFORD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated CRAWFORD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35155 (Cal. Super., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Cerebral fails to provide access to adequate prescribers and counselors who have the knowledge and experience needed to treat patients with mental health conditions. Cerebral has come under scrutiny for its prescribing practices, including but not limited to: -- failing to provide therapy appointments for weeks on end and in a timely manner, sometimes providing its vulnerable customers who need consistent therapy, dates that are months out; -- overprescribing medication, including controlled substances; -- failing to timely provide access to medication, resulting in its customers suffering physical and mental health consequences, including but not limited to withdrawal from lack of timely prescription refills; -- failing to provide Care Counselors who are available to help navigate scheduling or respond to inquiries about various issues in a timely manner; and -- making it virtually impossible to cancel a membership. Plaintiff Cullors signed-up for a Cerebral membership in April 2022. On May 2, 2022, after only one zoom meeting with a prescriber/counselor, she was prescribed Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant medication despite not having any symptoms for depression, the Plaintiff says. Since taking Wellbutrin, Plaintiff Cullors has become progressively less motivated, less energetic, and has noticed that she is not interested in her usual hobbies that she partakes in on her days off from work as a nurse, the Plaintiff added. Cerebral is a mental health telemedicine company that is subscription-based and provides its customers with access to therapy, counseling, and medication for ADHD, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Azar Mouzari, Esq. Nilofar Nouri, Esq. BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 858-5567 Facsimile: (424) 286-0963 E-mail: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chantecaille Beaute Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Chantecaille Beaute Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09425-PGG-SN (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chantecaille -- https://chantecaille.com/ -- offers a full collection of luxury botanical skincare, makeup, fragrance & baby products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Neal Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that Cinemark Holdings Inc. continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Lakeenya Neal. Lakeenya Neal, et al v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. This class action lawsuit was filed against the Company on December 10, 2021, in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California alleging certain violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The Company firmly maintain that the allegations are without merit and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. It cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Cuevas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DANIEL CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216488, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01953 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wage, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to pay timely wages during employment, failure to provide reporting time pay, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Claire's Boutiques, Inc. is an American retailer of accessories, jewelry, and toys, headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 630-8592 Facsimile: (213) 689-0404 E-mail: Adam.siegel@jackson.lewis.com - and - Kien C. Tiet, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 3390 University Ave., Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 848-7952 E-mail: kien.tiet@jacksonlewis.com - and - Mossamat N. Karim, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 796-5421 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Mossamat.Karim@jacksonlewis.com CLEAR SKY LOCAL: Fabricant TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Terry Fabricant, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Clear Sky Local, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00843 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06700-AMD-LGD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Clear Sky Local -- https://clearskylocal.com/ -- is a digital marketing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul B Sweeney, Esq. CERTILMAN BALIN LLP 90 Merrick Avenue East Meadow, NY 11554 Phone: (516) 296-7000 Fax: (516) 296-7111 Email: psweeney@certilmanbalin.com COAST DENTAL: Davis TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMANDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COAST DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 22-CA-008303, was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02520-MSS-AAS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by transmitting telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers without their consent. Coast Dental Services, LLC is a provider of dental care services, headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: yaniv@markmigdal.com josh@markmigdal.com COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that Covenant Transport, Inc. continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Wesley Maas. On February 11, 2021, a lawsuit was filed against Covenant Transport on behalf of Wesley Maas (a California resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay all lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to indemnify for expenditures, and violations of California Labor Code and unfair competition laws. Based on the Company's present knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes that the recent resolution and dismissal of a prior class action lawsuit alleging similar claims, taking into account existing reserves, is not likely to have a materially adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial statements, however, any future liability claims could impact this analysis. Covenant Transport intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Putative Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court dismissed the putative class action initiated by Curtis Markson, et al on August 10, 2022. On August 2, 2018, Curtis Markson, et al. filed a putative class action case in United States District Court, Central District of California generically claiming that five specified trucking companies (including our subsidiary Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were "under contract" with a fellow defendant. The allegations center around new drivers in California who received their commercial driver's license through driving schools associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months). Over the ensuing 18 – 24 months, the Plaintiffs added more trucking companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including our subsidiary, Covenant Transport, Inc., on April 23, 2020. The lawsuit claims that the named co-defendants sent letters to one another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to the driver completing their contractual obligations. Plaintiffs contend that these notifications evidence a collusive agreement by the named defendants to restrain competition among trucking companies in California and suppress wages. This lawsuit was settled following mediation on August 20, 2021, for an immaterial amount pending court approval. The Court dismissed this lawsuit on August 10, 2022. Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. COVENANT TRANSPORT: Tabizon Putative Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court dismissed the Richard Tabizon putative class action against the company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. on June 20, 2022. Covenant Transport is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of business related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code. Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and subsequently the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee where the case is now pending. This lawsuit was settled at mediation on April 29, 2021, for an immaterial amount, pending court approval. The Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Class Settlement on December 31, 2021. The Court dismissed this lawsuit on June 20, 2022. Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CRISIS COLLECTION: District of Nevada Dismisses Miller Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismisses with prejudice the lawsuit styled WILLIAM R. MILLER, Plaintiff v. CRISIS COLLECTION MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-CV-262 JCM (BNW) (D. Nev.). Defendants Crisis Collection Management, LLC, and Robert Broili moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. On July 16, 1997, a Nevada district court entered default judgment in favor of Ford Motor Company for $13,660.16 against the plaintiff in a car repossession matter. On April 23, 2003, Ford Motor renewed that judgment pursuant to Nevada law, which requires renewal during a certain ninety-day period and for the judgment creditor to mail a copy of the renewal affidavit to the debtor "within 3 days after filing the affidavit." Six years later, Ford, through the Defendants, renewed the judgment a second time on March 16, 2009. According to the Plaintiff, this renewal was defective, however, both because the affidavit of renewal was mailed on March 11, 2009 (five days before the renewal was filed rather than within the three days after) and because March 16 is more than ninety days before July 16 (the anniversary of the docketing of the original judgment). The Defendants would go on to renew the judgment two more times despite this allegedly "improper" first renewal: March 5, 2015, and March 1, 2021. The Plaintiff contends these renewals were invalid for the same reasons as the 2009 renewal in addition to the fact that are invalid because of the "flawed" 2009 renewal. The Plaintiff now brings this putative class action under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. He claims that the Defendants' improper renewals constitute false representations and unfair practices under the FDCPA and asks for a declaration that the judgments are invalid against him. The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiff's complaint is premised on two assumptions of law: (1) Nevada Revised Statute 17.214(3) is satisfied only when a judgment creditor sends a copy of the affidavit within three days after (not on, or before) the day the judgment is renewed, and (2) judgments may only be renewed every six years in the ninety days immediately preceding the anniversary of the original judgment pursuant to NRS 17.214(1)(a). Both premises are incorrect, Judge Mahan holds. The Defendants complied with the renewal procedures for its judgment, and the Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff asserts that because the Defendants mailed the affidavit too early, they forfeit their right to renew the judgment. Judge Mahan holds that this interpretation strains credibility. Judge Mahan holds the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. All three of the Plaintiff's claims are predicated on the assertion that the Defendants' renewals were invalid. Since the Court has determined that these renewals were valid as a matter of law, the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Determining that the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law, the Court finds that granting him leave to amend would be futile. Interpreting the plain language of the statutes, the Court finds that the judgments were properly renewed and the notice was valid. Given that, the Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief. The Court, thus, dismisses the complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment, accordingly, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4uzp4tdu from Leagle.com. CVS Pharmacy: Gum & Enamel Repair Can't Cure Gingivitis, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gustavo Teran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09486-VM (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2022), contends that the Defendant's "Gum & Enamel Repair" is false, deceptive and misleading because it can only help "control, reduce or prevent gingivitis, an early form of gum disease." The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells toothpaste represented as for "Gum & Enamel Repair" allegedly and containing "a Clinically proven ingredient to help reverse gingivitis" under the CVS Health brand. Reasonable consumers will expect the Product will repair structural damage such as gum recession, bone loss, or periodontal pocketing, in addition to the promise of "revers[ing] gingivitis," says the suit. The Product's active ingredient -- Stannous Fluoride -- which is common to most toothpastes, provides no unique gum "repair" benefits nor is authorized to claim it can reverse gingivitis. Stannous fluoride only "helps interfere with harmful effects of plaque associated with gingivitis." As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.79 for 4.1 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit further asserts. CVS Pharmacy is a Rhode Island corporation with a principal place of business in Woonsocket, Providence County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Sues Over Mislabeled Vanilla Almondmilk -------------------------------------------------------------- IRENE CAPPALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION d/b/a DANONE NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00716-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2022) alleges violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant labels, markets, and sells a food product, known as a "Vanilla" almondmilk, under the brand name of "Silk" (the "Product"). The Product's front label prominently and conspicuously displays the word "VANILLA." Despite the Defendant's characterization of the Product as a "vanilla" almondmilk, the Product does not contain vanilla as an ingredient that independently creates the Product's vanilla taste. Instead, the Product derives its Characterizing Flavor from an ingredient known as "Natural Flavor," as identified in small print on the Product's ingredient list, located on the label on the backside of the Product, says the suit. Th Defendant's actions lead reasonable consumers to expect that the Product would contain vanilla in the form of a non-exclusive ingredient, responsible for creating the Product's Characterizing Vanilla Flavor, not as a "natural flavor" ingredient. The Defendant's failure to identify on the Product's front label, by including the words "natural flavor," that the Product does not contain vanilla as one of its characterizing, but not exclusive, ingredients is deceptive, the suit added. DANONE NORTH AMERICA INC. operates as a food and beverage company. The Company specializes in fresh and organic dairy, plant-based, fresh foods, and coffee creamers products, as well as beverages. Danone North America serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 1614 N. 19th St. Tampa, FL 33605 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 Email: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com TBonan@SeraphLegal.com DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Lane Sues Over Defective Products ---------------------------------------------------- David Lane and Lorraine Anda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEWALT INDUSTRIAL TOOL CO., and STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01949 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against Defendants DeWALT Industrial Tool Co. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for the manufacture and sale of its 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter Saws (collectively, the "Products"), all of which suffer from an identical defect in design. Specifically, the rear safety guards can break or detach, posing a significant safety hazard for consumers. Such a design defect is extraordinarily dangerous and has rendered the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. Due to the dangerous nature of the defect, the Defendants initiated a recall (the "Recall") of its 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter Saws. However, the Recall is grossly inadequate, as it does not provide consumers, like the Plaintiffs, with any monetary relief, and it fails to provide direct notice to consumers. The Plaintiffs bring their claims against the Defendants individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Products for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, fraud; unjust enrichment; breach of implied warranties; and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a DeWALT 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter Saw from a Home Depot store. The Defendants are manufacturers of power and hand tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com DOMINION ENERGY: Court Junks Metzler Class Action -------------------------------------------------- PPL Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court dismissed the Metzler Lawsuit in June 2022. In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Metzler Lawsuit with another lawsuit regarding the SCANA Merger Agreement to which DESC is not a party. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the initial lawsuits as well as an inseparable fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this case, along with a related case to which DESC was not a party, subject to court approval, with no financial impact to DESC. In June 2022, this case was dismissed in connection with court approval of the related case to which DESC was not a party. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (formerly known as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation which, effective January 2019, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy, Inc. EL BUKANITAS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTA ELIZA SANCHEZ FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. EL BUKANITAS INC. D/B/A "BUKANITAS BAR" and VICTOR MANUEL GONZALES, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-06751 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and OT overtime premium pay, failed to reimburse costs of uniforms and pay the additional required weekly amount for uniform laundering and maintenance, and failed to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked as a server for the Defendants at their bar located in Brooklyn, New York, from September 2015 to mid-March 2020 and from July 4, 2020 to March 22, 2022. Bukanitas Bar is a late-night place for dancing and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com ENVIVA INC: Fagen Sues Over Violation of Securities Laws -------------------------------------------------------- David Fagen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENVIVA INC., JOHN K. KEPPLER, SHAI S. EVEN, Case No. 8:22-cv-02844-DKC (D. Md., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Enviva securities between February 21, 2019 and October 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials resulting in the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The Company's products are used as a substitute for coal in power generation, and combined heat and power plants. Significantly, Enviva touts itself as a "growth-oriented" environmental, social, and governance ("ESG") company with a "platform to generate stable and growing cash flows." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Enviva had misrepresented the environmental sustainability of its wood pellet production and procurement; Enviva had similarly overstated the true measure of cash flow generated by the Company's platform; (iii) accordingly, Enviva had misrepresented its business model and the Company's ability to achieve the level of growth that Defendants had represented to investors; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 12, 2022, during pre-market hours, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") published a report on Enviva (the "Blue Orca Report"). Among other allegations, the Blue Orca Report stated that "new discovered data suggests the company is flagrantly greenwashing its wood procurement" and characterized Enviva's claim to be a "pure play ESG Company with a healthy, self-funded dividend and cash flows to provide a platform for future growth" as "nonsense on all counts." Moreover, the Blue Orca Report alleged that "Enviva is a dangerously levered serial capital raiser whose deteriorating cash conversion and unprofitability will drain it of cash next year" and is "a product of deranged European climate subsidies which incentivize the destruction of American forests so that European power companies can check a bureaucratic box." On this news, Enviva's stock price fell $7.74 per share, or 13.13%, to close at $51.23 per share on October 12, 2022. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Enviva securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Enviva, formerly known as Enviva Partners, LP, develops, constructs, acquires, and owns and operates, fully contracted wood pellet production plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. William Wilder, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com wwilder@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Phone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Key Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS KEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-12689-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class whose sensitive personal identifying information was compromised in a cybersecurity breach of Flagstar, which was announced on or about June 17, 2022 (the "Flagstar Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Flagstar failed to adequately protect consumers' sensitive PII, providing a means for unauthorized intruders to access Flagstar's computer network and steal sensitive PII. With access to someone's PII, it is possible to misuse that person's name to do some or all of the following: take out loans; open new financial accounts; obtain government benefits; file a fraudulent tax return and obtain a tax refund; obtain a driver's license or identification card; or give false information to police during an arrest. As a result of the Flagstar Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. FLAGSTAR BANK FSB operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public, which includes personal banking, online transaction, and debit, and credit card services. Flagstar Bank serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq. Sydney Read, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com sread@kellerrohrback.com - and- E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, P.C. Miller Building 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and- Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com FORD MOTOR: Vehicles' Mobile App Inoperable, Scriber Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SCRIBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01716-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the Class Vehicles' internet enabled features, such as roadside emergency safety features and other features available through the MyFord or MyLincoln Mobile App, were rendered inoperable after AT&T's 3G phase out in 2022 due to Ford's installation of obsolete telematics equipment in the Class Vehicles. On August 30, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Ford Fusion Energi, a plug-in hybrid, from El Cajon Ford. The Plaintiff's vehicle is covered by a 3 year/36,000 mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty. In June 2022, Plaintiff noticed that his MyFord Mobile App was not working. He was unable to remote start his vehicle, check whether his vehicle was charging, or schedule when his plugged-in vehicle charged. Ford informed him that his vehicle's modem was no longer functional and that the anti-theft system installed in his vehicle that allowed him to identify his vehicle's location in case of theft would no longer function. On July 11, 2022, the Plaintiff brought his vehicle to the Service Center at El Cajon Ford. His car had 12,009 miles on it. After many weeks and several dozen phone calls, El Cajon Ford's Service Center determined that Plaintiff's vehicle had a 3G rather than a 4G modem installed. They further informed him that Ford offered a 4G modem upgrade kit, however Ford did not consider it a repair covered by the warranty. They estimated that the upgrade kit costs $458.69 and labor involved would cost $558.48. On October 14, 2022, the Plaintiff sent a letter to Ford demanding that they honor the replacement of his non-functional 3G modem with a functional 4G modem as an authorized repair under the New Vehicle Warranty. Ford did not offer to repair or replace his modem, or otherwise resolve the problems with the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant breached the terms of the express warranties by not providing the Class Vehicles with properly functioning modems. Ford sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. Christopher Stiner, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com GANNETT COMPANY: Faces Buechler Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BUECHLER; and GRETA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GANNETT COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01464-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 7, 2022) arises from Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not adequately disclose on the Gannett Sites, that subscribers' personal identifying information are captured by tracking methods utilized by the Defendant (referred to as the "Tracking Methods"), and then transferred to Facebook. The Defendant shared personally identifiable information ("PII") tied to the title, description, or subject matter of prerecorded audio video material (the "Video Watching Data") without valid consent, says the suit. Subscribers of the Gannett Sites have been harmed as a result of the Defendant's violations of the VPPA. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to immediately (i) remove the Tracking Methods from the Gannett Sites or (ii) add, and obtain, the appropriate consent from subscribers. GANNETT CO., INC. operates as a local newspaper company. The Company publishes news through storytelling and events that connect readers and communities, as well as focuses on business practices for sourcing, consumption, and waste. Gannett serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 Facsimile: (302) 351-6905 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com GITHUB INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------- J. DOE 1 and J. DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GITHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; OPENAI, INC., a Delaware nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-06823-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against Defendants for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"); violation of the Lanham Act; violation of Unfair Competition law; violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (the "CCPA"); and Breach of Contract regarding the Suggested Licenses, GitHub's Privacy Statement, and GitHub's Terms of Service, and the for their Tortious Interference in Plaintiffs' Contractual Relationships; Fraud, and Negligence regarding handling of sensitive data. The Plaintiffs and the Class are owners of copyright interests in materials made available publicly on GitHub that are subject to various licenses containing conditions for use of those works (the "Licensed Materials."). All the licenses at issue here (the "Licenses") contain certain common terms (the "License Terms"). In June 2021, GitHub and OpenAI launched Copilot, an AI-based product that promises to assist software coders by providing or filling in blocks of code using AI. GitHub charges Copilot users $10 per month or $100 per year for this service. Copilot ignores, violates, and removes the Licenses offered by thousands—possibly millions—of software developers, thereby accomplishing software piracy on an unprecedented scale. Copilot outputs text derived from Plaintiffs' and the Class's Licensed Materials without adhering to the applicable License Terms and applicable laws. Copilot's output is referred herein as "Output." On August 10, 2021, OpenAI debuted its Codex product, which converts natural language into code and is integrated into Copilot. (Copilot and Codex can be called either AIs or MLs. Herein they will be referred to as AIs unless a distinction is required.) Though the Defendants have been cagey about what data was used to train the AI, they have conceded that the training data includes data in vast numbers of publicly accessible repositories on GitHub,3 which include and are limited by Licenses. Among other things, Defendants stripped Plaintiffs' and the Class's attribution, copyright notice, and license terms from their code in violation of the Licenses and Plaintiffs' and the Class's rights. Defendants used Copilot to distribute the now-anonymized code to Copilot users as if it were created by Copilot. Copilot is run entirely on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform. Copilot often simply reproduces code that can be traced back to open-source repositories or open-source licensees. Contrary to and in violation of the Licenses, code reproduced by Copilot never includes attributions to the underlying authors. GitHub and OpenAI have offered shifting accounts of the source and amount of the code or other data used to train and operate Copilot. They have also offered shifting justifications for why a commercial AI product like Copilot should be exempt from these license requirements, often citing "fair use." It is not fair, permitted, or justified. On the contrary, Copilot's goal is to replace a huge swath of open source by taking it and keeping it inside a GitHub-controlled paywall. It violates the licenses that open-source programmers chose and monetizes their code despite GitHub's pledge never to do so, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. GitHub sells, markets, and distributes Copilot throughout the internet and other sales channels throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Travis Manfredi, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Phone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: mb@buttericklaw.com GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Rotunno's 2nd Amended Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH A. ROTUNNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, ROBERT F. WOODLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID M. WOOD, KERI CROWELL, QUENTIN R. HICKS, Defendants-Appellees, GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 22-502 (2d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the dismissal of Rotunno's second amended complaint. Mr. Rotunno appeals from the Jan. 11, 2022 opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ramos, J.), dismissing his second amended complaint (the "complaint") for failure to state a claim, and the district court's Feb. 14, 2022 judgment. Mr. Rotunno is the lead plaintiff for a putative class action on behalf of investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities in Gulfport Energy Corporation between May 3, 2019, and Feb. 27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The district court dismissed the complaint primarily on the basis that it failed adequately to allege scienter. The Court of Appeals agrees with the district court that the complaint has not alleged facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter and, thus, affirms the court's dismissal of the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims. According to the Court of Appeals, the complaint's motive and opportunity allegations are insufficient to support scienter. Further, the complaint concedes that the Defendants owned only a small amount of Gulfport stock and does not allege that they sold it during the Class Period. Consequently, they did not possess the kind of personal financial motive that the Court of Appeals has found sufficient, typically evidenced by insider trading for significant financial gain. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals holds that the district court did not err in concluding that the complaint fails plausibly to allege motive and opportunity to commit fraud. The Court of Appeals also finds that Rotunno's allegations do not satisfy the recklessness standard, which in the securities fraud context requires conduct that is highly unreasonable, representing an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care. It is a more compelling inference that Gulfport and its executives negligently made an accounting error and subsequently corrected their disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") when they became aware of the error. The complaint's references to an unrelated SEC investigation and the resignations of executives do not add to the plausibility of the scienter allegations, the Court of Appeals notes. While an SEC investigation may provide relevant evidence, the investigation identified in the complaint concerns unrelated conduct that occurred prior to the Class Period. Regarding the resignations, the complaint alleges that Crowell's resignation was suspicious because it occurred in August 2019, shortly before she would have been required to sign the third quarter report containing financial results for the period ended September 2019 that understated the impairment of Gulfport's assets. The complaint describes other executives' resignations as a response to shareholder pressure to change the composition of the board. Rather than supporting an inference of fraudulent intent, however, the Court of Appeals holds it is more persuasive to conclude that these executives, including Crowell, resigned to respond to the wishes of the shareholders, or for any number of other reasons that executives change positions. The Court of Appeals considers collectively the allegations that Defendants were aware of contradictory underlying accounting data and changes in commodities prices, failed to maintain adequate internal controls, submitted false Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, and committed a significant accounting error that violated GAAP. But the most compelling inference from these allegations is negligence, and the Court of Appeals cannot find scienter without additional, concrete allegations of fraudulent intent. Because such allegations are lacking, the Court of Appeals holds the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. The Panel has considered Rotunno's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjjbam5f from Leagle.com. JEFFREY P. CAMPISI -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, in New York City, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. ANTHONY J. LUCISANO -- anthony.lucisano@bakerbotts.com -- Brian C. Kerr -- brian.kerr@bakerbotts.com -- David D. Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Amy Pharr Hefley -- amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- C. Frank Mace -- frank.mace@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, in Houston, Texas, for the Defendants-Appellees. H&M HENNES: Lizama Sues Over Misleading Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP, Case No. 4:22-cv-01170 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought seeking to remedy the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices of H&M with respect to the marketing and sale the Products, which are sold throughout the State of Missouri, the State of California, and the United States on behalf of persons similarly situated who purchased H&M's "Conscious Choice" Collection Products for personal, family, or household purposes. In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware of and sensitive to the impact of clothing and household products on the environment. Consumers seek, and will pay a premium for, products that are responsibly made, including products that will not negatively affect the environment. As a result, demand has increased for "green" products that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. In an effort to increase profits and to gain an advantage over its lawfully acting competitors, H&M falsely and misleadingly markets and labels the Products "Conscious Choice" with a green hangtag that claims that the Products are a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable" and environmentally friendly. Contrary to these representations, the Products are plainly not a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable" and environmentally friendly because the Products are not made from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials. This marketing and labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving "conscious," more sustainable, and environmentally friendly Products, but H&M's Products do not live up to these claims. Conscious of consumers' increased interest in more "green" products that are more sustainable and environmentally friendly and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this preference, H&M misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks to capitalize on these consumer "green" trends. The Plaintiffs purchased the Products in reliance on H&M's representations that these Products are a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable," and environmentally friendly. They would not have purchased the Products if they had known that they were not made from sustainable and/or environment friendly materials. Consumers expect products that are marketed as a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable," and environmentally friendly to be made from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials that are less harmful and more beneficial to the environment. The Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably believed H&M's false and misleading representations. H&M knew or reasonably should have known that its representations regarding the Products were false, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful under Missouri law, California law, and common law. H&M misrepresented, and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts in connection with the sale, distribution, and/or advertisement of the Products. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members paid a premium for the Products over comparable products that did not purport to be a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable," and environmentally friendly. Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on H&M's representations that they are a "Conscious Choice," more sustainable, and environmentally friendly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the purchase price and/or the premium paid, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant's representations. H&M is a multinational clothing company built on direct-to-consumer sales.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq. ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-5151 Fax: (314) 455-7375 Email: dan@orlowskylaw.com Adam M. Goffstein, Esq. GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-5151 Fax: (314) 455-7278 Email: adam@goffsteinlaw.com HEIGHTS TOWER: Fails to Pay Construction Workers' OT, Moran Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAKOTA MORAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEIGHTS TOWER SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03905-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, November 4, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking unpaid wages, overtime wages, and all other available relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid and non-exempt employees to perform the manual tasks associated with the construction and maintenance of cell towers. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant deprived him and other similarly situated workers of hundreds of hours of overtime premium payments every year due to the Defendant's illegal pay practices. Accordingly, the Defendant required them to travel to remote jobsites that were located away from their home during their normal work hours to work on the Defendant's cell tower construction and maintenance projects; to stay overnight at hotels when performing work at these remote jobsites; and to report to a shop prior to traveling to the remote job locations. Although the Defendant would pay them for travel time at their straight-time hourly rate, but would not count travel time as hours worked for the purposes of computing overtime premiums owed to them. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers were not paid 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, says the suit. Heights Tower Service, Inc. provides cell tower construction and maintenance services in multiple states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St. NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Immunovant Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself in a putative securities class action filed by those who acquired the Company's securities between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021. In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company’s securities between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the safety of batoclimab and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On December 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding RSL and the Company's directors and underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's follow-on public offering on or about September 2, 2020. On March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. The Company and other defendants served motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 27, 2022. The fully briefed motion to dismiss, including defendants' opening briefs, lead plaintiff’s opposition, and defendants' replies were filed with the court on September 9, 2022. No hearing date has been set. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote. Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company based in New York. JUUL LABS: Auburn Enlarged Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUBURN ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06961 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Auburn Enlarged City School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Auburn Enlarged City School District is a school district with its offices located at 78 Thornton Avenue in Auburn, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Consolidates Karp and Podmore Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidates the lawsuits titled RONALD H. KARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO CHIRIVA-INERNATI, TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI, AMERICO CICCHETTI, MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER, and THINKEQUITY LLC, Defendant; and JOSEPH PODMORE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO CHIRIVA-INERNATI, TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI, AMERICO CICCHETTI, MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER, and THINKEQUITY LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 22 Civ. 6690 (VM), 22 Civ. 8433 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.). On Aug. 5, 2022, Karp filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class against the Defendants alleging violations of the securities laws. On Oct. 3, 2022, Podmore also filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class against the Defendants alleging substantially similar violations of the securities laws as Karp. Then, on Oct. 4, 2022, both Karp and Podmore filed competing motions to consolidate the cases and each sought appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for approval of their selection of Lead Counsel. ThinkEquity filed a declaration opposing both Karp and Podmore's motions and arguing that, instead, both e actions should be consolidated with another case pending before Judge Analisa Torres, captioned Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 1927 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). On Oct. 18, 2022, Karp filed a Response to Podmore's motion, and Podmore filed a notice of non-opposition to Karp's. Upon review of the complaints and other papers filed with the Court in connection with the Karp and Podmore cases, the Court noted that in all material respects the complaints describe the same or substantially similar underlying events arising out of the same or substantially similar operative facts, and assert the same or substantially similar claims against the same or substantially similar defendants. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 42, Judge Marrero rules that the actions are consolidated for all purposed into one action. The Court also determines that consolidation with Sabby Volatility would be inappropriate and denies the request. ThinkEquity has been dismissed from Sabby Volatility, which has already proceeded to the motion to dismiss stage. Further, Sabby Volatility is neither a putative class action nor does it involve allegations of Exchange Act violations, making it sufficiently different from the Karp and Podmore actions such that consolidation would not promote judicial economy The consolidated Karp and Podmore actions will be referred to herein as the "Consolidated Action." This Order will apply to the Consolidated Action and to each case that is subsequently filed in this Court that relates to the same subject matter as in the Consolidated Action. Every pleading in the Consolidated Action shall bear the following Caption: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, No. 1:22-cv-6690 INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: [TITLE OF DOCUMENT] The Court requests assistance of counsel in calling to the attention of the Clerk of this Court the filing or transfer of any case which might not properly be consolidated as part of this Consolidated Action. A Master Docket and Master File will be established for the Consolidated Action. The Master File will be No. 1:22-cv-6690. When a case that arises out of the subject matter of this Consolidated Action is filed in the Court or transferred to this Court from another court, the Clerk of this Court will, among other things, file a copy of this Order in the separate file for such action, and notify all counsel of record of the filing or transfer of such action. Each new case arising out of the subject matter of this Consolidated Action that is filed in this Court or transferred to this Court will be consolidated with the Action. The Court appoints Ronald H. Karp, Ari Karp, and Ethan Karp (together, the "Karp Family") as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The Court finds that the Karp Family satisfies the requisite factors under the PSLRA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and notes that Podmore agrees that the Karp Family has the greatest financial interest in the matter, having suffered the greatest financial loss of the moving parties. The Lead Plaintiff, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA, has selected and retained Gainey McKenna & Egleston, who is approved as Lead Counsel for the Class in the Consolidated Action. The Movant, through Lead Counsel, will file a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "CAC") within 60 days of entry of this order. The Defendants will Answer or otherwise respond to the CAC within 45 days after its service. If the Defendants file an Answer to the CAC, the Court directs the parties to submit a joint letter, within thirty (30) days of the date of the service of the Answer, addressing the following in separate paragraphs: (1) a brief description of the case, including the factual and legal bases for the claim(s) and defense(s); (2) any contemplated motions; (3) the prospect for settlement; and (4) whether the parties consent to proceed for all purposes before the Magistrate Judge designated for this action. The parties are also directed to submit a completed Case Management Plan that provides that discovery is to be completed within four months unless otherwise permitted by the Court. A model Case Management Plan is available on the Court's website: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-victor-marrero. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yck3epvw from Leagle.com. L'OREAL USA: Hair-Straighteners Contain Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVELYN WILLIAMS; TABATHA TAGGART; TAMEKA M. MEADOWS; DEBORAH TAYLOR; and DAPHNE VALENTINE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFTSHEENCARSON, INC.; and SOFTSHEEN CARSON (W.I.), INC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06110 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straighteners and/or Relaxers are adulterated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC). Accordingly, the presence of EDCs in the Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straightener was not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of state and federal law. EDCs, including Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEP), are known to increase a woman's risk of: endometriosis, abnormalities in reproductive organs, various cancers, altered nervous system and immune function, respiratory problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular problems, growth, neurological and learning disabilities. The Toxic Hair-Straightener and/or Relaxers were not adequately labeled and did not disclose that they contain EDCs, says the suit. L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Samuel Geisler, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: sgeisler@awkolaw.com LASHIFY INC: Adams Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASHIFY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 160594950 (Fla. Cir., 9th Jud., November 3, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made similar telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and thousands of other individuals in Florida in an attempt to promote its goods and services. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls allegedly involved an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed. The Defendant also failed to obtain the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals prior express written consent to receive such telephonic sales calls, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls, the Plaintiff and Class members were aggrieved. Thus, on behalf of herself and Class members, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees from the Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction against future calls. Lashify, Inc. offers innovative Lash System that make complex beauty applications simple. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Tel: (813) 422-7782 Fax: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com LE CAT USA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vega Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SILVIO QUEZADA VEGA, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. LE CAT USA, INC. f/k/a LECHA T USA, INC., d/b/a RUMBAS EVENT RENTALS, a Florida corporation, GIMI GAS SAN KASSIS, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-23626 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mr. Vega was employed by the Defendant from March 2022 through October 2022 to undertake a variety of tasks including driving trucks, making deliveries and pick-ups, and installing tents for events. He worked 50-60 hours per week, on average, and often much more and was paid "time and a half" only for work later than 9 p.m. on days when work until that hour was necessary, the Plaintiff claims. Le Cat is a party rental service located at 10505 NW 29th Terr., in Doral, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez PAGA Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22C-0317, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01431-SKO to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to incorporate all non-discretionary incentive wages in the regular rate of pay used to calculate and pay sick pay wages and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. Leprino Foods Company is a manufacturer of dairy products, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sandra L. Rappaport, Esq. Lisa M. Pooley, Esq. Rachel J. Vinson, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: srappaport@hansonbridgett.com lpooley@hansonbridgett.com rvinson@hansonbridgett.com MADCADI INC: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Madcadi, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06695-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Madcadi provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.jacadi.us (hereinafter "Jacadi.us" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of perfume on Jacadi.us. Additionally, the Plaintiff intended to visit one of the Defendant`s physical locations. However, unless the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on Jacadi.us. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant controls and operates Jacadi.us in New York State and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor A. Saab, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB, ESQ. 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: 718-740-5060 Fax: 718-709-5912 Email: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com MANAGEABILITY: Faces Campbell Suit Over Unpaid Case Managers' OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MANAGEABILITY INCORPORATED and FDI GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12679-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 4, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Registered Nurse Case Manager from about September 12, 2019 to January 18, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants classified her and other similarly situated RN Case Managers as exempt from the requirements of the FLSA. Although they worked more than 40 hours a week for the Defendants, they were not paid proper overtime premium 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 Defendants did not provide them a guaranteed minimum salary, says the suit. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated RN Case Managers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all damages to which they may be entitled, as well as liquidated and multiple damages as allowed by law, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief to which they are entitled. Manageability Incorporated and FDI Group provide case management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angela L. Walker, Esq. Frances J. Hollander, Esq. 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: walker@bwlawonline.com hollander@bwlawonline.com MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the trial court still stayed the Candelore class suit on June 27, 2022. On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint seeks certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. In a related development, on June 21, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims and pending in federal district court in California, the court entered judgment granting final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. See Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of California). Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. On March 4, 2022, the trial court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. On March 31, 2022, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 27, 2022, the trial court issued an order staying the class claims in Candelore pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim appeal. The Company believes that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the plaintiff withdrew its class certification motion on August 12, 2022, and dismissed the Crutchfield securities class action with prejudice. On October 3, 2019, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal district court in Texas against Former Match Group, its then Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of a class of acquirers of Former Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019. See Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas). Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit described above, the complaint alleges (i) that defendants failed to disclose to investors that Former Match Group induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that Former Match Group made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, Former Match Group was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that Former Match Group lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Former Match Group's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 12, 2022, plaintiff filed a stipulation withdrawing the motion for class certification and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Dismissal of Newman Class Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the plaintiff filed an amended appeal notice with the Delaware Supreme Court after the Delaware Court of Chancery after the court granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the Newman derivative and stockholder class action with prejudice. On June 24, 2020, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Former Match Group and its board of directors, as well as Match Group, IAC Holdings, Inc., and Barry Diller seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company and directly as a result of his ownership of Former Match Group stock in relation to the separation of Former Match Group from its former majority shareholder, Match Group. The complaint alleges that the special committee established by Former Match Group's board of directors to negotiate with Match Group regarding the separation transaction was not sufficiently independent of control from Match Group and Mr. Diller and that Former Match Group board members failed to adequately protect Former Match Group's interest in negotiating the separation transaction, which resulted in a transaction that was unfair to Former Match Group and its shareholders. On January 21, 2021, the case was consolidated with other shareholder actions, and an amended complaint was filed on April 14, 2021. See In Re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery). On September 1, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. On October 3, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against it. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Rubin and Ochoa Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court has stayed both the Rubin and Ochoa cases on May 16, 2022. On February 25, 2021, another Match Group shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of nominal defendant Match Group, Inc. against its board of directors seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages. See Daniel Ochoa v. Match Group, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2021-0158-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery). The complaint alleges federal securities laws violations and that Match Group's directors breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly exercising inadequate oversight to prevent the alleged issues giving rise to the FTC complaint and by purportedly transacting in Match Group stock while possessing knowledge of these issues. On May 16, 2022, both the Rubin and Ochoa cases were stayed until the motion for class certification is decided in the Crutchfield litigation. The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia PAGA Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CARMEN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403324, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-06875-NC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. Mattress Firm, Inc. is an American mattress store chain, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Annie Lau, Esq. Brandon K. Kahoush, Esq. Jenna M. Rogenski, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com bkahoush@fisherphillips.com jrogenski@fisherphillips.com MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan Report Excluded in 518 Restaurant Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 518 Restaurant Corp. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05884 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The 518 Restaurant case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. American Express provides travels and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EslaRLat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excltuded in Spoke Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spoke v. Visa USA, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05881 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Spoke case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hEdYcxat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in 7-Eleven Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 7-Eleven, Inc. et al v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05746 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 21, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The 7-Eleven case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3X0kOcjat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Aldi Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aldi Inc. v. Visa Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04568 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 14, 2018), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Aldi case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hEabfiat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in AMUI Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Accor Management US Inc. et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04616 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 12, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Accor case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2tuLlat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Animal Land Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Animal Land, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05074 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Animal Land case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Animal Land was established in 1998 and has been transporting pets ever since. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fVDeupat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Avon Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avon Products, Inc. et al. v. Visa, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02166 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Avon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3X9jHHFat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BAF Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baltimore Avenue Foods, LLC v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05080 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Baltimore case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ttYHxzat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BGI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broken Ground, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05082 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Broken case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tvld93at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Bishara Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishara v. Visa USA, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Bishara case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UV0Yh4at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BKS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BKS, Inc. et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-02264 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 1, 2009), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The BKS case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GgveP8at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Boyd Gaming Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd Gaming Corporation et al v. VISA INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Boyd case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TpM2Gsat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BWL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bonte Wafflerie, LLC v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05083 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Bonte case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WX6q4Dat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Camp Grounds -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camp Grounds Coffee, LLC, et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03401 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Camp Grounds case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ggw2n8at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CenturyLink ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CenturyLink Communications, LLC, et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06318 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 7, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The CenturyLink case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. CenturyLink provides telecommunication services. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3toTzumat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CFA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connecticut Food Association, Inc. (CFA) v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05880 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The CFA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. CFA is a non-profit, state-wide trade association representing Connecticut's grocery community. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WSUp0hat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DGC Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dollar General Corporation, et al., v. VISA U.S.A. INC., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-05988 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Dollar General case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Dollar General is an American chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DWwaoYat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DOI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Discount Optics, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.., Case No. 1:05-cv-05870 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Discount case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GtGhVxat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Dunhill Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunhill Asset Services V LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03791 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 19, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Dunhill case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UDuHv1at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in E-Z Mart Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 30, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The E-Z Mart case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. E-Z Mart owns and operates gasoline filling stations. The Company retails gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum products. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UDuhVtat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in East Goshen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as East Goshen Pharmacy, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05073 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The East Goshen case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UvSH3dat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Esdacy Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esdacy, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-05583 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 17, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Esdacy case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UL2sugat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Exxon Mobil Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02495 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The ExxonMobil case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWHESfat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fairmont Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fairmont Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, PA v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05076 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Fairmont case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tpQOJCat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fareway Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fareway Stores, Inc. et al v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01483 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Fareway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tnnKSGat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fitlife Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fitlife Health Systems of Arcadia, Inc. v. Mastercard International Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05153 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov .03, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Fitlife case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TtUkgpat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in G.E.S. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.E.S. Bakery, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc, Case No. 1:05-cv-05879 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The G.E.S. case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E7gaAyat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Grubhub Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GrubHub Holdings Inc., et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06555 (E.D.N.Y., Filed), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Grubhub case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TCBZhgat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Halcyon Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Halcyon Loan Trading Fund LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06708 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Halcyon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Halcyon is a hedge fund manager. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3trbwIXat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hertz Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hertz Corporation, et al., v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03531 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Hertz Corporation is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWVDHGat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Home Depot Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Home Depot, Inc. et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05507 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 6, 2016), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Home Depot case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E16pnzat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hyman Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hyman v. VISA International Service Association, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05866 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Hyman case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GefTigat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Intuit Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Intuit Inc., et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01175 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Intuit case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Intuit is an American business software company that specializes in financial software. The company is headquartered in Mountain View, California. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3A6ZN5Rat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Jasperson ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasperson v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05070 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Jasperson case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UTneaLat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in JHI Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jetro Holding, Inc. et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04520 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 23, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Jetro case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Jetro Holdings. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers beverages, dry groceries, and tobacco products. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fVsvA8at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Kroger Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroger Co. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05078 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Kroger case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TN5uNHat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lakeshore Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lakeshore Interiors v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05081 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Lakeshore case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Lakeshore is a Wisconsin based interiors design company specializing in gffice furniture for all commercial interiors. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AyNujlat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lanning Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lanning et al v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02360 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 28, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Lanning case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AanSsIat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Leeber Cohen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leeber Cohen, M.D. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05878 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Cohen case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hmUrNnat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lombardo Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lombardo Bros., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Lombardo case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UUNXEbat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Luby's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04555 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 03, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Luby's case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g6ZaCyat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MCI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Cetta, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01831 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 14, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Cetta Inc case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TrJM1mat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Meijer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meijer, Inc. et al v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04131 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 29, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Meijer case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NZFtZYat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MTA Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04256 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 23, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The MTA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. MTA provides local and express bus, subway, and commuter rail service in Greater New York. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Gl4wEWat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NACS Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Association of Convenience Stores, et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04521 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 23, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The NACS case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hzQ0yXat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NGA Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Grocers Association (NGA), et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05207 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The NGA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. NGA is the national trade association representing the retail and wholesale grocers. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hD3I4eat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Old Jericho ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc. et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02394 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Old Jericho case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XaSjsPat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Parkway Corp Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parkway Corp. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05077 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Parkway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Parkway is a family-owned business in full-service real estate and parking ownership & management across North America. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g5BjTNat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Photos Etc. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Photos Etc. Corp. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05071 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Photos Etc case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tvkEMtat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Pizzabov Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pizzabov, Inc. et. al., v. Visa International Service Association et. al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01517 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 23, 2020), , the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Pizzabov case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3twThSdat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in PLI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Performance Labs, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05869 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 19, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Performance Labs case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Performance manufactures nutritional health supplements. The Company's products include GarliMax, AcidFree, and Vitalert. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. provides travels and financial services. The Company offers credit cards for consumers and businesses, consumer travel services, travelers checks, and point of sale, back-office, marketing products, and services for merchants. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TuowYPat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Publix Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04677 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 04, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Publix case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Publix is an employee-owned American supermarket chain headquartered in Lakeland, Florida. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g1SUMwat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in QVC Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QVC, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00592 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 22, 2007), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The QVC case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. QVC is an American free-to-air television network, and flagship shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping, owned by Qurate Retail Group. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O227ksat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Raley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raley's v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04799 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 12, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Raley's case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBpdlRat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Rue21 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rue21, inc v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07018 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 2, 2014), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Rue21 case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Rue21 is an American specialty retailer of women's & men's casual apparel and accessories headquartered in the Pittsburgh suburb of Warrendale, Pennsylvania. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NZXMONat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Seaway Gas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seaway Gas & Petroleum, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04728 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 06, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Seaway Gas case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Seaway Gas provides gasoline service stations from Cleveland, Ohio. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O3mv4Xat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in SuperValu Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Supervalu Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04650 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 30, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The case SuperValu is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. SuperValu was an American wholesaler and retailer of grocery products. The company, formerly headquartered in the Minneapolis suburb of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, had been in business since 1926. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fYT1IEat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Tabu Salon Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tabu Salon & Spa, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05072 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Tabu case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Tabu is full-service salon located on a little farm in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tp2rjFat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Target Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Target Corporation et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05745 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 21, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Target case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWRL9wat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Verizon Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Verizon Sourcing LLC, et. al., v. Visa, Inc. et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 17, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Verizon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Verizon specializes in the distribution and delivery of press releases, financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media and general public. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UAj8ogat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Wakefern Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wakefern Food Corporation v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05765 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 25, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Wakefern case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Wakefern is an American company that was founded in 1946 and is based in Keasbey, New Jersey. It is a retailers' cooperative group of supermarkets. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DVHIsMat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Westgate Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westgate Resorts, LTD. et l V. Visa, U.S.A., INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05567 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 08, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Westgate case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EmnuZBat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded Walt Disney Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Walt Disney Company v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04489 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The case Disney is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Disney is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EsjpE9at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Bi-Lo Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bi-Lo, LLC et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02532 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 22, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The BI-LO case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. BI-LO was an American supermarket chain owned by Southeastern Grocers, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WVXWe1at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Contrarian Funds Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Contrarian Funds, L.L.C. v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01519 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Mar 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion. -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor Kahn, and Dr. Teece. -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied. -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers. -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass- on opinions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Contrarian case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fXklanat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 47 West ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as 47 West 55th Rest. Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01829 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 14, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The 47 West case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ULboQ2at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Animal Land ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Animal Land, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05074 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards. The Animal Land case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Aap3IEat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Avon --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avon Products, Inc. et al. v. Visa, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02166 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Avon suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Avon is an American-British multinational cosmetics, skin care, fragrance and personal care company, based in London. It sells directly to the public. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2aQTRat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bishara ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishara v. Visa USA, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Bishara case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WZb8z1at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DGC -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dollar General Corporation, et al., v. VISA U.S.A. INC., et al., Case No.1:17-cv-05988 (E.D.N.Y., Filed: Oct. 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Dollar General case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. A Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Eq17n2at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Home Depot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Home Depot, Inc. et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05507 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 6, 2016), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Home Depot case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EqJsM9at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Walt Disney ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Walt Disney Company v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04489 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Walt Disney suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as Disney, is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBk39zat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Westgate ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., V. Visa, U.S.A., INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05567 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 8, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that this is the case." The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages." EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure) chip-card transactions." The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards. The Westgate case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720. Westgate Resorts is an American timeshare resort company founded by David A. Siegel in 1982. Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GfwQZHat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2913: Campbell-Savona Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL-SAVONA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06949 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Campbell-Savona Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Campbell-Savona Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 8455 County Route 125 in Campbell, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Catskill Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic --------------------------------------------------------------- CATSKILL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Catskill Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Catskill Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 343 W. Main Street in Catskill, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Charlotte Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLOTTE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06954 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Charlotte Valley Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Charlotte Valley Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 15611 State Highway 23 in Davenport, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Afton Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- AFTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06960 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Afton Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Afton Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 29 Academy Street in Afton, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Arkport Central Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARKPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06965-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Arkport Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Arkport Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 35 East Avenue in Arkport, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Faces Deposit Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEPOSIT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06959-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Deposit Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Deposit Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 171 Second Street in Deposit, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Hancock Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ HANCOCK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06955 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Hancock Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Hancock Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 67 Education Lane in Hancock, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Massena Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- MASSENA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06958-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Massena Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Massena Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 84 Nightengale Ave. in Massena, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Schuyler Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SCHUYLER-STEUBEN-CHEMUNG-TIOGA-ALLEGANY BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06898 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Schuyler-Steuben-Chemung-Tioga-Allegany Board of Cooperative Educational Services case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Schuyler-Steuben-Chemung-Tioga-Allegany Board of Cooperative Educational Services is an educational institution with its offices located at 9579 Vocational Drive in Painted Post, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Stamford Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- STAMFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06894-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Stamford Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Stamford Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1 River Road in Stamford, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Edmeston Central Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDMESTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06956-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Edmeston Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Edmeston Central School District is a school district with its offices located at 11 North Street in Edmeston, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Waverly Central Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- WAVERLY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06879 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of 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. Waverly Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Waverly Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 15 Frederick Street in Waverly, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MINDBODY INC: $3.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,925,000, and $560,715.36 in payment of Litigation Expenses in the lawsuit styled IN RE MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08331-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came on for hearing on Oct. 27, 2022, on Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses, including an award to Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of March 3, 2022. Notice of Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, and they were given the opportunity to object by Oct. 14, 2022. There have been no objections. Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,925,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund (i.e., 30% of the Settlement Fund) and $560,715.36 in payment of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued interest, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: (a) The Settlement has created a fund of $9,750,000 in cash that has been paid into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement Class Members, who submit valid Claim Forms, will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of counsel; (b) The fee sought by Lead Counsel has been reviewed and approved as reasonable by Co-Lead Plaintiffs, sophisticated institutional investors that oversaw the prosecution and resolution of the Action; (c) 22,387 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential Settlement Class Members and nominees stating that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund and Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $800,000; (d) The Action required the navigation of highly challenging and complex issues concerning damages, loss causation, falsity, scienter, and materiality within the scope of Mindbody's business and a merger, as well as issues related to class certification, such as whether the fraud on the market presumption of reliance could be applied in this case; (e) Had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would remain a significant risk that Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Settlement Class may have recovered less or nothing from the Defendants; (f) Lead Counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement with skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy; (g) The attorneys' fees awarded and Litigation Expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case and consistent with awards made within this District; (h) Public policy concerns favor the award of attorneys' fees and expenses in securities class action litigation; and (i) Lead Counsel expended more than 6,500 hours with a lodestar value of $3,254,648.50, to achieve the Settlement, representing a substantial effort. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Walleye Trading LLC and Walleye Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. are collectively awarded $8,000 from the Settlement Fund in connection with their reasonable costs and expenses directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section78u-4(a)(4). Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval of any attorneys' fees and expense application, including that of Lead Counsel, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment. Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this Order will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4f8jw4jy from Leagle.com. MINTO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Sica RICO Class Suit Over Loan Rates ------------------------------------------------------------- Brenden Sica, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Minto Development Corporation, Minto Financial d/b/a Minto Money, Benhti Economic Development Corporation, Douglas William Isaacson, and Clarity Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-06480 (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Minto Money lends to New Jersey residents at rates exceeding 600% annually -- more than 37 times the maximum lawful rate in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. To evaluate potential borrowers, Minto Money obtains consumer reports from Clarity, a consumer reporting agency which tailors its reports to the subprime lending industry. On July 11, 2022, Mr. Sica obtained a loan in the principal amount of $1,100.00 from Minto Money (the Minto Money Loan). The Minto Money Loan carried an annual interest rate of 653.65%, meaning that Mr. Sica was to pay $5,877.39 over a ten-month period for a $1,100 loan, says the suit. Minto Financial dba Minto Money is a wholly owned subsidiary of Benhti Economic Development Corporation (BEDCO), a sovereign economic arm, enterprise and instrumentality of, and created under the laws of and for the benefit of, the Native Village of Minto, a federally recognized sovereign American Indian tribe in Alaska. Bedco claims to be the owner of an online payday lending website Minto Money, which operates from www.mintomoney.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP A.P.C 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 259-4800 E-mail: ross@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and – Bryan Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 1614 N. 19th Street Tampa, FL 33605 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Hold Objector Helfand in Contempt Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to hold Objector Steven Helfand in contempt in the lawsuit titled In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ. 5914 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.). On Aug. 5, 2022, in a lengthy bench decision, the Court approved (1) the proposed class action settlement; and (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, issuing separate orders as to these subjects. On Aug. 17, 2022, Steven Helfand, a pro se objector and non-party member of the Class, filed a notice of appeal. No other putative class member appealed. On Sept. 28, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to order that Mr. Helfand post an appeal bond of $25,000 as a condition of proceeding with his appeal. In so ordering, the Court recognized the considerable prejudice caused to the settlement class by Mr. Helfand's appeal, which the Court viewed as meritless. In particular, the Court recognized that, given the nature of the remedies that the settlement afforded participating class members--which include payment of cash benefits and the provision of Aura Financial Shield coverage--it would in practice be impossible to restore the status quo ante in the event that the settlement terms were implemented but the settlement thereafter overturned on appeal. Accordingly, the Court recognized, Mr. Helfand's appeal stands to materially delay provision of relief to the class. On Oct. 14, 2022, Mr. Helfand appealed the Court's order requiring him to post the appeal bond. On Oct. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved to hold Mr. Helfand in contempt, for failure to timely comply with the order to post the appeal bond. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $50,000, and an award of attorney's fees to settlement class counsel. On Oct. 25, 2022, the Court issued an order stating that it was considering a different form of contempt sanction--a coercive, rather than punitive, sanction, under which Mr. Helfand, beginning Nov. 4, 2022, would be ordered to pay $250/day to the Clerk of this Court until either posting such a bond or dismissing his appeal. On Oct. 25, 2022, Mr. Helfand filed a notice reflecting that he has now complied with the Court's order to impose bond. He attached a domestic wire transfer authorization indicating that he had transferred $25,000 to the Clerk of this Court. He further asked that the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' contempt motion and excuse him from the obligation to appear at the Nov. 2, 2022 conference. He argued that he understood the compliance date for posting bond to be Oct. 26, 2022, on the ground that, although the bond order had been served on him by the Plaintiffs by first class mail on Oct. 3, 2022, he had not received the order until Oct. 6, 2022. On Oct. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of contempt. They noted that the timetable for Mr. Helfand to comply with the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 order imposing bond was set by the entry of that order, that the Sept. 28 order had timely been entered on the docket, that Mr. Helfand had been obliged to monitor the docket, and that Mr. Helfand had been capable of timely filing his appeal. Judge Engelmayer finds that the Plaintiffs are correct that Mr. Helfand failed to timely comply with the order to post bond. As the Plaintiffs note, the Sept. 28, 2022 order required Mr. Helfand to comply with the bond requirement within 20 days of the order, and did not require the Plaintiffs to serve the order upon Mr. Helfand as a predicate to compliance. The deadline for Mr. Helfand's compliance was, thus, Oct. 18, 2022. Mr. Helfand does not recite any sound basis for failing to meet that deadline. The Court reaffirms why imposition of a bond was necessary here, including the substantial costs, inconvenience, and delay that Mr. Helfand's appeal is likely to visit upon the settlement class. Nonetheless, with Mr. Helfand having now posted the required bond, a civil contempt sanction is no longer warranted as a means to bring about his compliance. And the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Mr. Helfand's delay in posting the bond visited any out-of-pocket costs on them, let alone the $50,000 that the Plaintiffs urge Mr. Helfand to be required to pay. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to hold Mr. Helfand in contempt, declines to impose a monetary sanction on Mr. Helfand for his belated compliance, and cancels as unnecessary the emergency conference scheduled for Nov. 2, 2022. The Court does take this opportunity to encourage the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear and resolve Mr. Helfand's appeal expeditiously, in the interest--assuming affirmance--of enabling the class to obtain the benefits of the settlement as promptly as possible. Although Mr. Helfand remains charged with monitoring the docket of this case, the Court further directs the Plaintiffs to furnish a copy of this order to Mr. Helfand forthwith and to file a notice of such service on the docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/53jv98my from Leagle.com. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: 9th Circuit Affirms Mulquin Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nektar Therapeutics disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Mulquin action on May 19, 2022. In October 2018, we and certain of our executives were named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 18-cv-06607, which we refer to as the Mulquin action). The Mulquin plaintiffs challenged public statements Nektar made, between January 2017 and June 2018, about the clinical trials of bempegaldesleukin. In December 2020, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2021 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 19, 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against the defendants. Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer, auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. Nektar Therapeutics was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Neil Kitzler, an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-06550 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on Nov. 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03241-JMG-CRZ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Lirit Ariella King, Esq. Marcus Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Fax: (805) 618-2939 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com The Defendants are represented by: James Monagle, Esq. MULLEN, COUGHLIN LAW FIRM LLC 426 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19087 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: anowell@mullen.law NRG ENERGY: Two TCPA Cases Against Direct Energy Pending -------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that two putative class actions involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are pending against Direct Energy. Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Cases — In the cases set forth below, referred to as the TCPA Cases, such actions involve consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. The underlying claims of each case are similar. The Company denies the allegations asserted by plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend these matters. These matters were known and accrued for at the time of the acquisition. There are two putative class actions pending against Direct Energy: (1) Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP (D. Md Sept 2021) - Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting the ruling in the Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy (S.D. Tex. Feb 2019) preempts the Plaintiff's ability to file suit based on the same facts. The Court denied Direct Energy's motion stating the Court does not have the benefit of all of the facts that were in front of the Burk court to issue a similar ruling. On October 19, 2022, Direct Energy filed a Motion to Transfer Venue asking the Court to transfer the case to the Southern District where the Buck case was filed. Direct Energy will await the court's ruling before moving forward with written discovery; and (2) Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) - The case was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the TCPA during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed, and the parties are in the briefing process. NRG Energy, Inc. is an American energy company, headquartered in Houston, Texas. It was formerly the wholesale arm of Northern States Power Company, which became Xcel Energy, but became independent in 2000. NRG Energy is involved in energy generation and retail electricity. O'GARA COACH: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Towell Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One, affirms the denial of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled SELENA TOWELL, Plaintiff and Respondent v. O'GARA COACH COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B310742 (Cal. App.). Before Plaintiff and Respondent Selena Towell began working at a car dealership owned by Defendant and Appellant Westlake Coach Co., LLC, an affiliate of Defendant and Appellant O'Gara Coach Co., LLC, she digitally signed an employment application that contained a clause requiring her to pursue any claims against the Defendants in individual arbitration. Two days later, Towell signed an at-will employment agreement in which Westlake offered her an option to opt out of a waiver of her right to pursue class actions in court. She checked the box indicating that she opted out of the class action waiver. Two weeks after that, on her first day on the job, Towell physically signed the employment application, certifying that she was the person, who submitted the application in the first place. Ms. Towell subsequently filed a class-action complaint against the Defendants, and the question in this case is which of the two documents she signed controls. The trial court concluded that the opt-out provision in the at-will employment agreement superseded the arbitration agreement in the employment application, and on that basis denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants contend this was error, but the Appellate Court disagrees and affirms. On Dec. 23, 2019, Towell filed a class action complaint against O'Gara, alleging several violations of employment law. She claimed that she worked on behalf of O'Gara as a lease retention manager at a car dealership in Thousand Oaks from July 18, 2018, to Dec. 18, 2018. She was paid on a commission basis for selling cars, and she alleged that O'Gara failed to pay at least the minimum wage, and failed to pay for required non-commission work, among other claims. She later amended the complaint to include Westlake, the O'Gara affiliate that owned the dealership where she had worked. On Nov. 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, alleging that by signing the employment application, Towell agreed to address all disputes regarding her employment in individual arbitration. Towell opposed the motion on the ground that the opt-out provision in the at-will employment agreement superseded the employment application. In the alternative, she argued that the arbitration agreement in the employment application was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Finally, Towell argued that any arbitration agreement was unenforceable to the extent that Towell's claims fell within Labor Code section 229, which bars the enforcement of arbitration agreements in cases seeking the recovery of unpaid wages. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Towell's decision to opt out of the class action waiver was controlling. The trial court did not reach the issues of unconscionability or Labor Code section 229. The Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court's order denying the motion. They argue that if the Appellate Court applies the general principles of contract law, it must conclude that there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. On July 18, 2018, Towell signed the employment application, which included a provision stating that "this agreement is the entire agreement between the Company and the employee regarding the rights of the Company or employee to terminate employment with or without good cause and this agreement takes the place of all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations, and understandings of the employee and the Company." Thus, according to the Defendants, Towell's signature created a new contract that voided all prior contracts with them, including the at-will employment agreement in which Towell opted out of the waiver of her right to file a class-action employment claim. If the July 18 "wet-ink" signature were the only signature on the at-will employment agreement, the Defendants' argument might be persuasive, says Associate Justice Patricia D. Benke, writing for the Panel. But when Towell was presented with the employment application as she began work at the car dealership on July 18, her electronic signature was already present on the document, along with the date she first signed it, July 6, 2018. In this context, Judge Benke finds that it is not at all clear that Towell's July 18 signature served to create a new contract and supersede all prior agreements. Towell proposes another plausible interpretation: that the purpose of signing the document a second time was merely to authenticate her original electronic signature. Towell's interpretation of the July 18 signature is ore persuasive than the Defendants' interpretation. If the parties meant for Towell's second signature to void the opt-out clause that she had signed merely 10 days earlier, the Appellate Court would expect that intention to be stated clearly and unequivocally. Another consideration supporting Towell's interpretation is the principle that, if the meaning of a standardized contract cannot be resolved through other means, it must be construed against the drafter, Judge Benke holds. The Defendants prepared both of the contracts in this case and controlled the sequence in which Towell signed them. If the Defendants' interpretation of the documents were correct, it would mean that their policy was to offer their new employees an opportunity to opt out of waiving their class-action rights, but then to require the employees to void that waiver when they began work and signed the employment application for a second time. This is an absurd outcome, Judge Benke points out. The Defendants had the ability to design their employment contracts as they wished. If they did not mean for employees like Towell to have the right to opt out of the class-action waiver, they could have declined to offer the option in the first place, Judge Benke holds. In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, the Appellate Court will not interpret Towell's second signature on the employment application as a decision to surrender an option the Defendants had explicitly offered her merely 10 days earlier. By opting out of the class action waiver, Towell retained her right to file a class action suit. There is no agreement between the parties to arbitrate Towell's class-action claims, and the trial court did not err by denying the Defendants' motion. Hence, the trial court's order is affirmed. Towell is awarded her costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rbmntyx from Leagle.com. Kolar & Associates, Elizabeth L. Kolar -- kolarlaw@kolarandassociates.com -- and Benjamin T. Runge -- ben@kolarandassociates.com -- for the Defendants and Appellants. Berenji Law Firm, Shadie L. Berenji -- berenji@employeejustice.law -- and Kristopher N. Tayyeb -- tayyeb@employeejustice.law -- for the Plaintiffs and Respondents. OHIO: Court Dismisses Remaining Claim in Hairston v. Bowerman ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, grants Defendant J. Fox's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claim in the lawsuit titled Rico Isaih Hairston, et al., Plaintiff v. Sean Bowerman, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-37 (N.D. Ohio). On Jan. 1, 2019, pro se Plaintiffs Rico Hairston and Johnnie McCall, both inmates of the Toledo Correctional Institution ("ToCI") in Toledo, Ohio, filed a putative class action complaint, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights. Hairston later filed a document he referred to a supplement to his complaint, asserting a Section 1983 claim against Defendant J. Fox for First Amendment retaliation based upon Fox's alleged actions after Hairston filed this litigation against the other Defendants. McCall reached a settlement agreement as to each of his claims and those claims were dismissed with prejudice. Defendants Sean Bowerman, Jason Bennett, Joshua Gajewski, and Fox filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hairston filed a brief in opposition to that motion. Hairston subsequently dismissed his claims against all Defendants except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against Fox. Mr. Hairston alleges that, on March 16, 2019, he was verbally harassed by Fox, an officer at ToCI, and an inmate named Jones while he was waiting to be transported for a visit with his attorney. Hairston claims Fox and Jones were harassing him because of the crime for which Hairston was convicted. Hairston alleges that, after this incident and his visit with his attorney, he returned to his cell to find his cell had been searched. He claims his property was damaged and his legal papers torn up, and that his headphones, medications, books, and hygiene items were removed from his cell. Hairston believes this was a target from inmate Jones' harassment towards him, by Defendant J. Fox. Mr. Hairston also alleges that, after the incident with Fox and Jones, Fox also wrote two conduct reports against Hairston. Hairston alleges both conduct reports were fabrications and that he did not engage in any of the conduct included in those reports. He asserts Fox both searched his cell and wrote the conduct reports in retaliation for Hairston's exercise of his First Amendment rights by filing a lawsuit against the other Defendants. Judge Helmick opines that Fox is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Hairston fails to plausibly allege there is a causal connection between his protected conduct in filing this lawsuit and the alleged adverse actions taken against him. Further, even if Judge Helmick assumes Fox had knowledge of the lawsuit, Hairston's allegations do not establish a causal connection. Hairston has not pled any facts, which suggest Fox was motivated by Hairston's protected conduct. Like the plaintiff in Skinner v. Bolden, 89 F. App'x 579, 579-80 (6th Cir. 2004), Hairston has offered only conclusory allegations of a retaliatory motive, and temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish the required causal connection between his protected conduct and the alleged adverse actions. Therefore, the Court concludes he fails to state a plausible claim for relief and grant Fox's motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendant Fox's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ypd72sf from Leagle.com. OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled IN RE OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17 Civ. 8983 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel on March 16, 2022; the Defendants filed an opposition brief on Aug. 15, 2022; and the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on Sept. 15, 2022. While the Plaintiffs' motion was pending, on Oct. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs informed the Court that the parties have reached an agreement, in principle, to settle this class action as to all claims and all parties and asked the Court to suspend the deadlines in the Dec. 16, 2021 Revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to suspend the deadlines in the scheduling order on Oct. 25, 2022. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot without prejudice to its re-filing should the settlement not be finalized. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/kup394hr from Leagle.com. OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Interim Status Conference Set for Nov. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Omnicell Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court set an interim status conference for the class action suit captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omnicell, Inc. on November 30, 2022. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817 (the "Heard Action"). The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company. The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the case with the action Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (the "Mazya Action"). The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion, without prejudice, as being moot in view of the dismissal of the claims against the Company in the Mazya Action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Heard Action on October 31, 2019. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on September 2, 2020. The Court ruled from the bench and dismissed the complaint without prejudice giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by September 30, 2020. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2020 and the Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2020, which was fully briefed, but the Court had not heard oral argument on the motion. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on January 25, 2022, (the "Settlement Agreement"). On February 1, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Following preliminary approval, plaintiff conducted discovery to identify class members and to determine the class size. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and following class size discovery, the parties will participate in non-binding mediation, which is currently scheduled for November 21, 2022 to determine if the settlement will move forward. The Court has scheduled an interim status conference for November 30, 2022. Subject to final approval of the settlement, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. PACIFICORP: Class Action in Oregon Over 2020 Wildfires Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- PacifiCorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the class action complaint in Oregon, on behalf of plaintiffs related to the 2020 Wildfires is ongoing. In September 2020, a severe weather event resulting in high winds, low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to several major wildfires, which resulted in real and personal property and natural resource damage, personal injuries and loss of life and widespread power outages in Oregon and Northern California. The wildfires spread across certain parts of PacifiCorp's service territory and surrounding areas across multiple counties in Oregon and California, including Siskiyou County, California; Jackson County, Oregon; Douglas County, Oregon; Marion County, Oregon; Lincoln County, Oregon; and Klamath County, Oregon burning over 500,000 acres in aggregate. Third party reports for these wildfires indicate over 2,000 structures destroyed, including residences; several structures damaged; multiple individuals injured; and several fatalities. Fire suppression costs estimated by various agencies total approximately $150 million. Investigations into the cause and origin of each wildfire are complex and ongoing and being conducted by various entities, including the United States Forest Service, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Justice, PacifiCorp and various experts engaged by PacifiCorp. As of the date of this filing, 60 lawsuits have been filed in Oregon and California, including a class action complaint in Oregon, on behalf of plaintiffs related to the 2020 Wildfires. The plaintiffs seek damages that include property damages, economic losses, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. Additionally, several insurance carriers have filed subrogation complaints in Oregon and California with allegations similar to those made in the aforementioned lawsuits. The final determinations of liability, however, will only be made following the completion of comprehensive investigations and litigation processes. Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers, including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. PACIFICORP: Trial by Jury Demanded in Dietrich Suit --------------------------------------------------- PacifiCorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that in the putative class action captioned Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp filed in Oregon, the plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury. On August 26, 2022, a putative class action complaint seeking declaratory and equitable relief against PacifiCorp was filed, captioned Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp, Case No. 22CV29187, Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon. The complaint was filed by two Oregon residents individually and on behalf of a class initially defined to include residents of, business owners in, real or personal property owners in and any other individuals physically present in specified Oregon counties as of September 7, 2020 who experienced any harm, damage or loss as a result of the Santiam, Beachie Creek, Lionshead, Echo Mountain Complex, Two Four Two or South Obenchain fires in September 2020. The complaint was amended on September 6, 2022, to seek damages of over $900 million that were originally demanded on August 4, 2022, pursuant to Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 32 H. The amended complaint alleges: (i) negligence due to alleged failure to comply with certain Oregon statutes and administrative rules; (ii) gross negligence due to alleged conscious indifference to or reckless disregard for the probable consequences of defendant's actions or inactions; (iii) private nuisance; (iv) public nuisance; (v) trespass; (vi) inverse condemnation; (vii) accounting/injunction; (viii) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The amended complaint seeks the following: (i) an order certifying the matter as a class action; (ii) economic damages not less than $400 million; (iii) double the amount of economic and property damages to the extent applicable under Oregon statute; (iv) reasonable costs of reforestation activities; (v) doubling and trebling of certain other damages to the extent applicable under certain Oregon statutes; (vi) noneconomic damages not less than $500 million; (vii) prejudgment interest; (viii) an order requiring an accounting with respect to the amount of damages; (ix) an order enjoining PacifiCorp from leaving power lines energized in areas of Oregon experiencing extremely critical fire conditions; (x) an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, investigation costs, disbursements and expert witness fees; and (xi) other relief the court finds appropriate. The plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury. Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers, including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. PFIZER INC: Drug Contains Nitrosamine Impurity, Walter Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DAPHNE WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01708-SB (D. Or., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the drug Chantix sold by the Defendant are adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved varenicline-containing drugs (VCDs). The brand name drug Chantix is known generically as varenicline and is a partial nicotine agonist. It is a first-line therapy in the treatment to help quit smoking. Unlike many other smoking-cessation aids, Chantix does not contain nicotine. Chantix quickly became one of Pfizer's fastest growing products. Major media spending on Chantix totaled approximately $55 million in 2007 (the year after its approval). In the year Chantix launched, Pfizer spent approximately $4.3 million in medical journal advertisements alone. The market rapidly embraced Chantix and continues to do so to this day. For example, from its launch through 2015, the number of Chantix prescriptions for Medicaid beneficiaries increased 13,277%. The price for Chantix has also steadily climbed since its launch. Price estimates at launch were approximately $113.98 climbing to $254.50 in 2015. By 2018, the price had more than doubled to $485 for a 30-day supply, bringing in $997 million in sales that year. The market for smoking-cessation treatments remains strong with sales of Chantix at approximately $919 million prior to recall, says the suit. On July 2, 2021, and July 19, 2021, Pfizer allegedly began recalling its VCDs "because the product may contain levels of a nitrosamine impurity, called N-nitroso-varenicline, above FDA's acceptable intake limit." Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. Piucci, Esq. PIUCCI LAW, LLC 900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 228-7385 Facsimile: (503) 228-2571 E-mail: joe@piucci.com PFIZER INC: Faces Ellis Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-11876-RGS (D. Mass., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action arising from adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved varenicline-containing drugs ("VCDs") that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, sold by the Defendant under the brand name Chantix. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that according to FDA testing, the Defendant's VCDs contained nitrosamine levels many times higher than the FDA's updated interim limits for nitrosamine impurities. On July 2, 2021, and July 19, 2021, Pfizer began recalling its VCDs "because the product may contain levels of a nitrosamine impurity, called N-nitroso-varenicline, above FDA's acceptable intake limit." N-nitroso-varenicline contamination of the Defendant's VCDs dates back many years, at which point the Defendant had actual or, at a minimum, constructive notice of the contamination. The Defendant's wrongful acts caused those people trying to use smoking products less to take a pill containing carcinogens similar to those contained in cigarettes. The Plaintiff paid for VCDs that were illegally and willfully introduced into the market by the Defendant, which caused them and hundreds of other purchasers paying for or reimbursing prescriptions for these VCDs to sustain substantial economic damages. PFIZER INC. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company offers medicines, vaccines, medical devices, and consumer healthcare products for oncology, inflammation, cardiovascular, and other therapeutic areas. Pfizer serves customers worldwide. BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paula S. Bliss, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 210 Washington Street North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone:(508) 230-2700 Email: paula@justicelc.com SAFEBUILT FLORIDA: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY SYKES, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. SAFEBUILT FLORIDA, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-62059-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unlawful interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt and hourly-paid Permit Tech on or about September 3, 2020 and still employed as of the date and time of this filing. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff works approximately 44 hours per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff earned approximately $17.86 per hour from on or about September 4, 2020, until on or about September 25, 2022, and $20.00 per hour from September 26, 2022 through the present. However, the Defendant automatically deducted a full hour from the Plaintiff's hours worked daily for a meal period even though she was not completely relieved of her duties. As a result, she was not properly compensated the federally mandated overtime wages during the previous 3 years. In addition, the Defendant failed to keep accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff and all members of the putative collective, says the suit. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for back pay, front pay, an equal amount of liquidated damages, other damages and benefits provided for under the FMLA, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and any and all further relief that this Court determines to be just and reasonable. Safebuilt Florida, LLC is engaged in community development and infrastructure services and supports local communities and developers in the South Florida area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com SALLY BEAUTY: Teuscher Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TESSA TEUSCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC; SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV-22-1438, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 4, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02006-DAD-KJN 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 minimum wages, failure to pay overtime owed, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, and unfair competition. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC is a supplier of beauty products and equipment, headquartered in Denton, Texas. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. is an international specialty retailer and distributor of professional beauty supplies, headquartered in Denton, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gutierrez Suit Stayed Pending Consolidation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled TAMMY GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05719-SK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, signed the parties' Stipulation and Order to stay proceedings pending decision on motion for transfer and consolidation. On Oct. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint in the action. On Oct. 11, 2022, she served the original summons and Complaint on Samsung Electronics America, Inc. On Oct. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs in a related action currently pending in this District, styled Seirafi, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-5176, filed a Motion for Transfer of Actions to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings before the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Petition"), specifically listing this action for inclusion in any centralization order issued by the Panel, In re: Samsung Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, JPML Case No. 3055, ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Panel's decision on the MDL Petition may directly impact this case and whether it proceeds in this Court. In light of the possibility that this action might not proceed in this Court, the parties agree that a stay of these proceedings during the pendency of the MDL Petition would save judicial and party resources. The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate that this action be stayed pending the Panel's determination on the MDL Petition. Should the Panel deny centralization of the actions that are the subject of the MDL Petition (including this one), the parties will confer and jointly submit a proposed order lifting the stay for the Court's review and approval, which will include a deadline for Samsung's response to the Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4evvw8mj from Leagle.com. Jason J. Kim -- kimj@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Attorney for Defendant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. Marcus J. Bradley -- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Kiley L. Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Lirit A. King -- lking@bradleygrombacher.com -- BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP, in Westlake Village, California, Attorney for Plaintiff TAMMY GUTIERREZ. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Raffi Kelechian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 22STCV30284, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08056-AB-PLA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (310) 601-3131 Fax: (310) 388-8444 Email: daniel@slfla.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq. Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 532-2000 Fax: (213) 532-2020 Email: kimj@huntonak.com amortimer@huntonAK.com SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Adams-Gillard's $1.6MM Settlement Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, grants the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit titled DENITA ADAMS-GILLARD and JAY SYCKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-2038 (W.D. Tenn.). The multistate class action arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of misclassifying workers as exempt from entitlement to overtime wages. Sedgwick and Representative Plaintiffs Denita Adams-Gillard and Jay Sycks filed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release on May 13, 2022 (the "Settlement"). On May 16, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement and provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only. On Sept. 6, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Sept. 22, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs from Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court finally certifies the following classes for settlement purposes only: -- The Illinois Class refers to current and former employees of Defendant who held the position of Disability Representative Sr. in Illinois during the time period from January 15, 2018 to May 24, 2021 except for those 16 individuals who were the subject of the tolling agreement entered into in conjunction with the Easterwood, et al. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. action, Middle District of Florida, Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-700 for whom the time period commences as early as July 21, 2017; and, who were classified as exempt from overtime wages. This class excludes those individuals who worked as Disability Representative Seniors in Illinois processing requests or claims for accommodation under the ADA who are in the initial putative class alleged in Walker and Harris v. Sedgwick, in the Northern District of Illinois, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07482; and -- The Ohio Class refers to all current and former employees of Defendant who held the position of Disability Representative Sr. in Ohio during the time period from January 15, 2019 to May 24, 2021 except for those 15 individuals who were the subject of the tolling agreement entered into in conjunction with the Easterwood, et al. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. action, Middle District of Florida, Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-700 for whom the time period commences as early as July 20, 2018; and, who were classified as exempt from overtime wages. The Settlement provides that Defendant will create a class fund in the amount of $1.6 million. The Motion for Attorneys' Fees requests that $400,000 of this sum be paid to class counsel. Of the remainder, $787,500 is to be paid to Illinois Class Members and $412,500 is to be paid to Ohio Class Members. Judge Mays holds that the Settlement satisfies the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) and is appropriate under Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appoints Mary E. Lytle and David V. Barszcz of Lytle & Barszcz, P.A., as class counsel for the Settlement Classes. The Court also designates Representative Plaintiffs Denita Adams-Gillard and Jay Sycks as the representatives of the Settlement Classes. Judge Mays finds that the Defendant has complied with all notice obligations under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1715, et seq., in connection with the Settlement. Pursuant to the preliminary approval order, any objections to the Settlement were to have been submitted no later than Aug. 5, 2022. There have been no objections to the Settlement. Class Members who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement are deemed to have waived any such objection through any appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval and approves and adopts the Settlement, fully and finally terminating the claims of the Representative Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes in this action against the Defendant, on the merits and with prejudice. The releases set forth in section 23 of the Settlement are incorporated herein in all respects and are effective as of the entry of judgment. The class counsel requests that they be awarded $400,000 in fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting the case for nearly two years. This figure includes $387,863.39 in fees and $12,136.61 in costs advanced. The requested fees and expenses will not reduce the amounts set aside for the benefit of the Class Members. The Settlement provides substantial relief to the Class Members. There are 135 members in each of the Illinois and Ohio classes. The settlement provides $787,500 to the Illinois class (an average of $5,833.33 per class member) and $412,500 to the Ohio class (an average of $3,055.56 per class member). Based on all of these findings, the Court grants the Motion for Attorneys' Fees. As a result, the Court orders and authorizes the requested award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of $400,000 to be paid to class counsel by the Defendant. The Defendant will not be responsible for and will not be liable with respect to the allocation among class counsel or to any other person who may assert a claim for attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/frmm3hw6 from Leagle.com. SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Pace Suit Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Company has entered a settlement deal with plaintiffs in the Pace putative class action that is subject to the final approval of the court. On January 14, 2020, Susanne Pace filed a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri against Landmark Bank, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Landrum Company, to which Simmons Bank is a successor by merger in connection with the Company's acquisition of The Landrum Company, which closed in October 2019. The complaint alleges that Landmark Bank improperly charged overdraft fees where a transaction was initially authorized on sufficient funds but later settled negative due to intervening transactions. The complaint asserts a claim for breach of contract, which incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all Landmark Bank checking account customers from Missouri who were allegedly charged overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking account. Plaintiff seeks unspecified actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as costs, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations but has entered into a settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, subject to the court's final approval. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Walkingstick Suit Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Company has entered a settlement deal with plaintiffs in the Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort suit that is subject to the final approval of the court. On May 22, 2019, Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The operative complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw customers' accounts by utilizing the checking account's "available balance" to assess overdraft fees instead of the "ledger balance." Plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and they seek to represent a proposed class of all Simmons Bank checking account customers who were assessed an overdraft fee on a transaction that purportedly did not overdraw the account. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems proper for themselves and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations but has entered into a settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, subject to the court’s final approval. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. SOLAREDGE TECH: Faces Reford Suit Over 2.3% Drop of Stock Shares ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLAN REFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES INC., SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, ZVI LANDO and RONEN FAIER, Case No. 1:22-cv-09423 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of SolarEdge stock between August 6, 2022 to October 19, 2022, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors that the designs of the power optimizers, inverters, and components thereof used to develop SolarEdge's products potentially originated with and were misappropriated from Ampt LLC, a competitor in the renewable energy industry. As a result, SolarEdge faced a threat of regulatory and/or court action, which could prohibit the import, marketing, and sale of its power optimizers and inverters, including solar energy systems that contain such products; which in turn seriously threatened SolarEdge's ability to monetize on their solar energy systems that contain the power optimizers and inverters in the United States and generate revenue. The investing public learned of this alleged patent infringement on July 28, 2022 when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) agreed to review a patent infringement case filed by Ampt against SolarEdge on July 28, 2022, says the suit. The news of the ITC's vote to institute an investigation of SolarEdge on August 29, 2022 caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price of SolarEdge shares. While SolarEdge's stock price opened at $284.23 on August 29, 2022, the news of ITC's vote resulted in SolarEdge’s stock price to fall approximately 1.4% to close at $279.46 on August 29, 2022. This news caused SolarEdge to lose market capitalization of $265 million on August 29, 2022, added the suit. On October 19, 2022, investors learned the gravity of the ITC's investigation when Judge Connolly in the District Court of Delaware stayed a parallel proceeding filed against SolarEdge by Ampt and based on substantially similar allegations, styled Ampt, LLC v. SolarEdge Tech., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00997 (D. Del.) pending the ITC's investigation. On this news, shares of SolarEdge stock fell 2.3% to close at $199.46 on October 19, 2022, the suit further asserts. Solaredge provides solar power optimization and photovoltaic monitoring solutions for solar energy systems, offering optimizers, inverters, monitoring equipment, tools, and accessories for power harvesting, conversion, and efficiency while serving customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Farah, Esq. Alesandra Greco, Esq. Vincent R. Cappucci Jr., Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: afarah@lowey.com agreco@lowey.com vcappucci@lowey.com STAPLES THE OFFICE: Heightened Doc Protection in Corral Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, a limited liability company authorized to do business in the state of California, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01254 MCS (PVCx) (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, signed the parties' stipulation and order to supplement the protective order regarding confidential information with heightened levels of confidentiality. Recognizing the need for heightened levels of protection for certain documents to be designated as "Highly Confidential—Attorneys' Eyes Only," Corral and Staples stipulate to and petition the Court to enter their supplement to the "Stipulated Protective Order" entered by the Court on May 13, 2022. The class action was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 21STCV41815. The lawsuit is a putative class and PAGA representative action that is likely to involve discovery regarding trade secrets, commercial, financial, proprietary, and/or personal information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution or defense of this action is warranted. Certain confidential and proprietary materials and information should be considered highly confidential because disclosure of such information would create substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the Parties are entitled to keep highly confidential, to ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a supplement to the Protective Order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as highly confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a highly confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The Supplement provides that all definitions and provisions in the May 13, 2022 Protective Order remain valid unless otherwise explicitly stated here. All terms, including the designation, production, and use of confidential documents, apply to the heightened designation of "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only," unless otherwise stated here. "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" means any information which belongs to a Designating Party who believes in good faith that the Disclosure of such information to another Party or non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means. "Highly Confidential Materials" means any Documents, Testimony, or Information designated as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the provisions of the Parties' May 13, 2022 Protective Order and this Stipulation and Order to Supplement the Protective Order. Any document or tangible thing disclosed in the action that is reasonably believed to be "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" by a Party producing the same will be designated as such by marking the document or thing as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" prior to production. Highly Confidential Materials designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" may be disclosed only to the following persons: (a) The Court; (b) Attorneys of record, et al.; (c) court reporters and videographers; (d) outside experts or expert consultants; and (e) any other person that the Designating Party agrees to in writing. Counsel for the Party, who intends to disclose Highly Confidential Materials to any outside experts or expert consultants consulted by the Parties or their counsel in connection with the Proceeding, will be responsible for delivering a copy of the Parties' May 13, 2022 Protective Order and this Stipulation and Order to Supplement the Protective Order to such person, will explain its terms to such person, and will secure the signature of such person on a statement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 prior to the Disclosure of Highly Confidential Materials, before disclosing any Highly Confidential Materials to that person. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Protective Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuawzxsc from Leagle.com. TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Obsolete Telematics in Motor Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN BENNETT; and BRIAN WELIKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-08147 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty and implied warranty, fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class purchased or leased Toyota and Lexus branded vehicles which were manufactured with a 3G modem, an obsolete piece of telematics equipment, the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles have a telematics system that requires wireless network connectivity to remain wholly operable. However, due to the Defendants' decision to equip the Class Vehicles with obsolete telematics equipment, many of the Class Vehicles' internet enabled features—such as collision notification and roadside assistance safety features—have become inoperable because the Class Vehicles' internet enabled features no longer are supported by 3G wireless compatibility which has been discontinued, says the suit. Because of the Defendants' decision to equip the Class Vehicles with internet enabled features and services that prematurely become inoperable and their refusal to upgrade Class Vehicles to maintain telematics capabilities, the Plaintiffs and class members are unable to utilize their Vehicles' telematics equipment and its safety features. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class have been damaged and were injured on account of receiving Vehicles that were fundamentally different from what they believed they were purchasing and obtained Vehicles that are less valuable than what they paid to purchase the Vehicles, the suit added. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC. operates as a holding company. The Company manages all North American operations covering automotive sales, engineering, manufacturing, economic research, advertising, corporate communications, government affairs, and all other related operations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE: Cannon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Marshal Service, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Cannon: Bey, In re President; On Behalf of Himself and Similarly Situated persons, Petitioner v. U.S. Marshal Service et al., Defendant; The United States District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois et al., Respondent; Case No. 1:22-cv-06098 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2022). The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights for Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The United States Marshals Service -- https://www.usmarshals.gov/ -- is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States.[BN] The Petitioners appear pro se. The Defendant and Respondent are represented by: AUSA – Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL-Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Contains High Benzene, Sims Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAWANDA SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06140 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Unilever's dry shampoo products sold under various brands contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. In October 2022, Unilever announced that "select lot codes of dry shampoo aerosol products produced prior to October 2021 from Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TIGI (Rockaholic and Bed Head), and TRESemme" were being recalled due to potentially elevated levels of benzene. Unilever instructed consumers to "stop using the affected aerosol dry shampoo products." Benzene is a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke, and is one of the elementary petrochemicals. Benzene exposure has been linked with acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The Defendant manufacture, distributes, advertises, markets and sell the dry shampoo products. The Products at issue include : (a) Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness (b) Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh Coconut (c) Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh and Floral (d) Dove Dry Shampoo Ultra Clean (e) Dove Dry Shampoo Invisible (f) Dove Dry Shampoo Detox and Purify (g) Dove Dry Shampoo Clarifying Charcoal (h) Dove Dry Shampoo Go Active (i) Nexxus Dry Shampoo Refreshing Mist (j) Nexxus Inergy Foam Shampoo (k) Suave Dry Shampoo Hair Refresher (l) Suave Professionals Dry Shampoo Refresh and Revive (m) TRESemme Dry Shampoo Volumizing (n) TRESemme Dry Shampoo Fresh and Clean (o) TRESemme Pro Pure Dry Shampoo (p) Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Dry Shampoo (q) Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Volumizing Dry Shampoo (r) Bed Head Dirty Secret Dry Shampoo (s) Bed Head Rockaholic Dirty Secret Dry Shampoo. Unilever is multinational consumer goods company known for its wide range of personal care and hygiene products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and – Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone:(313) 303-3472 Facsimile:(865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Jonathan Shub, SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Hwy E., 2nd Fl. Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com jshub@shublawyers.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9189 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com UNITED STATES: C.D. California Dismisses Dinkins Prisoner Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT O. DINKINS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-08942-CAS (KES) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and concludes that the action should be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Plaintiff, a prisoner at U.S. Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, has alleged the following claims in his third amended complaint: (1) Eighth Amendment violation based on medical treatment for a sinus blockage; (2) Eighth Amendment violation based on failure to provide the Plaintiff with a wheelchair-accessible cell; (3) Eighth Amendment claim based on failure to protect the Plaintiff from COVID-19; (4) an Equal Protection Clause violation for failing to release the Plaintiff during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (5) Due Process Clause violations for failing to properly process grievances in prison, improperly punishing disabled prisoners for refusing to accept cell assignments, and failing to employ fair procedures in declining to transfer the Plaintiff to home confinement. The Magistrate Judge has undertaken screening of the Plaintiff's third amended complaint in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's pre-screening requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2), 1915A. As part of this screening, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing with prejudice all of the Plaintiff's claims. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical treatment claim and Equal Protection claim, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. As to the other Bivens Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend because the claims fail as a matter of law. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that those Bivens claims fail the Supreme Court's test set forth in cases like Ziglar v. Abbasi and Egbert v. Boule, that forbid extended Bivens to causes of action not previously recognized by the Supreme Court and where special factors counsel hesitation in doing so. The Plaintiff's Objection essentially raises two grounds: (1) that the Magistrate Judge has not considered his motion to be appointed counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e); and (2) that the Magistrate Judge and the Court fail to see the harm alleged in his complaint. The Court finds and concludes that all of the Plaintiff's objections are without merit. First, the Plaintiff argues that the Court has erred in refusing to grant his motion to be appointed counsel. Second, the Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge and the Court continue to state things like the Plaintiff didn't claim harm from delay of treatment when he clearly did so. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge wrote that the Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim seems to be based primarily on the delay in receiving the joint sinus and blockage surgery allegedly recommended by doctor(s) at USP Atlanta but that the TAC admits that the Plaintiff ultimately received this surgery and in the intervening months, received "blockage" surgery and medication to treat his sinus problems. Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that under the controlling case law the USP Lompoc doctor's choice to first attempt less aggressive forms of treatment does not plausibly suggest deliberate indifference. Neither the Magistrate Judge nor the Court deny that the Plaintiff alleges harm--rather, the Plaintiff throughout every iteration of his complaint fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment based on the delay in performing a specific type of surgery to treat the Plaintiff's problems. Moreover, while the Plaintiff does not raise specific challenges to the Magistrate Judge's analysis with respect to the rest of his claims, the Court in its de novo review agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the other Eighth Amendment claims, as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process claims, be dismissed for both failing the Ziglar test for Bivens claims and for additionally failing to state a claim. The Court specifically notes that the Plaintiff has alternative means to address his allegations on ongoing harm or conduct, including the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program established by 28 C.F.R. Section 542.10-542.19 and the Plaintiff's participation in the class action lawsuit in Torres v. Milusnic, 20-CV-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.). Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. It concludes that nothing set forth in the Objection or otherwise in the record for this case affects, alters, or calls into question the findings and analysis set forth in the Report. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court orders that Judgment should be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3xzkpe7h from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Dinkins' Habeas Claim Dismissed as Duplicative ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accepts the findings and recommendations issued by the United States Magistrate Judge in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT O. DINKINS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents, Case No. 2:21-cv-06991-CAS (KES) (C.D. Cal.). The Magistrate Judge recommended, among other things, dismissing the Petitioner's habeas claim as duplicative of the relief sought in Torres v. Milusnic, 20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the records and files herein, including the second amended habeas petition, the Respondent's motion to dismiss the second amended habeas petition, the Respondent's supplemental brief, the Petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss, the Petitioner's motion for leave to supplement the Petition, the Petitioner's response to the Respondent's supplemental brief, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner's Objections to the Report. The Petitioner is a prisoner in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") who is currently housed at the U.S. Penitentiary ("USP") in Lompoc, California. This case has a long procedural history, and presently before the Court is the Petitioner's second amended habeas petition. In the second amended petition, the Petitioner alleges that his incarceration at USP Lompoc is unconstitutional due to the threat of COVID-19 and his health conditions that put him at high risk of death or serious illness if he contracts the disease. The Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that the Petitioner's COVID-19-related habeas claim should be raised "in a civil rights complaint" seeking appropriate relief. In response, the Magistrate Judge requested supplemental briefing as to the preclusive effect of the litigation in Torres v. Milusnic, 20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), a "putative class action on behalf of all inmates at FCC Lompoc over the age of 50 or with certain underlying health conditions, alleging that Lompoc officials were failing to adequately protect them from COVID-19." In the Report, the Magistrate Judge noted that a "district court may properly dismiss an individual complaint because the complainant is a member in a class action seeking the same relief" (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the Petitioner's habeas claim as duplicative of the relief sought in Torres, of which the Petitioner is already a class member. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge described how the Petitioner was already reviewed for (and denied) home confinement in connection with the preliminary injunction issued in Torres requiring prison officials to develop a process for review as expanded by the CARES Act. There is currently a settlement pending review by the court in Torres litigation (which the Magistrate Judge identified the Petitioner had not objected to), with a fairness hearing set for Oct. 4, 2022, at the time of the Magistrate Judge's Report. The Petitioner's Objection essentially raises two points: (1) that the Objection is also an objection to the settlement in Torres; and (2) that the Magistrate Judge and Court err by refusing to overturn the prison's review denying the Petitioner home confinement. The Court finds and concludes that the Petitioner's objections are without merit. To the extent the Petitioner wishes to object to the settlement in Torres, he must do so through within the context of the Torres lawsuit itself, not in this separate litigation for a writ of habeas corpus. This reasoning also applies to the extent the Petitioner in his Objection challenges the home confinement review conducted pursuant to the injunction in the Torres litigation. Moreover, while the Petitioner does not raise specific challenges to the Magistrate Judge's analysis that his petition is duplicative of the Torres action, the Court in its de novo review agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the petitioner be dismissed on that basis. That is, the Petitioner's habeas claim, which alleges that his incarceration at USP Lompoc is unconditional due to the threat of COVID-19 and makes numerous specific references to the evidence and filings in the Torres litigation, is duplicative of the Torres litigation of which the Petitioner "is a member in a class action seeking the same relief." Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. It concludes that nothing set forth in the Objection or otherwise in the record for this case affects, alters, or calls into question the findings and analysis set forth in the Report. Therefore, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court grants the Petitioner's motion to supplement; grants the Respondent's motion to dismiss; and dismisses the Second Amended Petition, without prejudice to the Petitioner pursuing his habeas claim in Torres, 20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), but without further leave to amend in this action. As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, the Petitioner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/muuy7epc from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Mayorkas Appeals Final Judgment in Al Otro Lado Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Al Otro Lado, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Plaintiffs, acting on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals presenting themselves at Ports of Entry ("POEs") along the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum in the United States. The Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officials have systematically violated U.S. law and binding international human rights law by refusing to allow individuals, including the Plaintiffs - who present themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border and assert their intention to apply for asylum or a fear of returning to their home countries - to seek protection in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals of their statutory and regulatory rights to apply for asylum, violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violated the United States' obligations under international law to uphold the principle of non-refoulement. On August 23, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment in this case through an Order signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant. The appellate case is captioned Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 22-55988, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 1, 2022; -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 20, 2022; and -- Appellees' answering brief is due on January 19, 2023. [BN] UNITED STATES: North Carolina Court Dismisses Burghart Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, dismisses the lawsuit styled BOBBY BURGHART, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-CT-3163-BO (E.D.N.C.). On May 13, 2022, the Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a "class action complaint" under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FICA"), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Burghart moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, to certify class action, a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, entry of default, and recusal. Mr. Burghart brings this action "on behalf of himself and all persons who has, currently works, or will work for FPI (Unicore) in the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) at the BOP's FPI (Unicore) plants." He "believes" that this class consists of approximately 450 past and current PIECP workers. Mr. Burghart asserts five claims: (1) a tort claim for the illegal seizure of funds (wages) rightfully belonging to the plaintiff(s); (2) Plaintiff(s)' Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the intentional, willful, and malicious illegal seizure of funds (wages); (3) Plaintiff(s)' Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the taking and converting of personal property (wages) into the use of the BOP, without compensation and/or justification; (4) Plaintiff(s) suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by the illegal seizure of personal property (wages); and (5) Plaintiff(s) assert that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as applied to them violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The Prison Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA") three-strikes provision allows the court to dismiss a prisoner's action if the prisoner has not paid his filing fees and "the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Judge Boyle states that Burghart has used his three strikes (Burghart v. United States, No. 5:16-CT-3332-FL (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2017)). He holds that lost wages do not place Burghart in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Moreover, Burghart cannot defeat the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g) by adding another Plaintiff to his Complaint. Thus, Burghart has not made a colorable showing that this action should proceed under the exception to the three-strikes rule. As for Burghart's motion to certify class action, Judge Boyle points out that Burghart is not a lawyer and cannot represent other inmates in a class action. Thus, the Court denies the motion. As for Burghart's motions for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Judge Boyle finds that Burghart has not plausibly alleged that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Thus, the Court denies the motions. As for Burghart's motion for recusal, Burghart seeks recusal of Judge Boyle based in part by his actions in other litigations involving Burghart and current inactions. Burghart states that Judge Boyle has not taken any action in four months and alleges that Judge Boyle's hesitancy to rule on any of the motions pending shows partiality toward the Defendants, and bias against Burghart because of his status of a federal prisoner. Judge Boyle holds that Burghart has failed to make the requisite showing for recusal. Thus, the Court denies the motion. As for Burghart's motion for entry of default, Judge Boyle finds the motion is premature. An entry of default will be made when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Because the Defendants have not been served with the summons and complaint, no answer is due. Thus, the Court denies the motion. In sum, the Court denies Burghart's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Court denies Burghart's remaining motions. The Clerk will close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cph5fep from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: Class Certification in Cross Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Trevor Cross, Plaintiff-Appellee v. University of Toledo, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 21AP-279 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, reverses and remands the order granting class certification. Spring semester classes at UT began on January 21, 2020, and final exams were scheduled to end on May 8, 2020, with on-campus students scheduled to move out of their dormitories the next day. When COVID-19 emerged, Defendant-Appellant University of Toledo ("UT") announced a number of responsive measures that disrupted this schedule. On March 13, 2020, it announced that all in-person classes would be converted to online classes and that any student living on campus able to leave should do so, as it was closing residence halls and only students with extenuating circumstances would be permitted to remain in on-campus housing. The University offered a credit of $1,230 to students, who had paid for room and board and a meal plan but did not offer any refund or credit for tuition or other fees. Plaintiff-Appellee Trevor Cross, a "finance and professional sales major," who had paid tuition, room and board, and fees for the entire Spring 2020 semester, was living on-campus when UT converted all classes online and shut the residence halls. He moved back home after the University's announcement. On April 28, 2020, Mr. Cross filed suit against UT, purporting to represent the following three classes of students: (1) Tuition Class: All people who were charged for or paid tuition for students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester who were denied live in-person instruction and forced to use online distance learning platforms for the last quarter of the 2019-2020 academic year (the Tuition Class); (2) Room and Board Class: All people who were charged for or paid the costs of room and board (housing and meals) for students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester who moved out of their on-campus housing prior to the completion of that semester because of the University's policies and announcements related to COVID-19 (the Room and Board Class); and (3) Fee Class: All people who were charged for or paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester (the Fee Class). In a section captioned "Class Action Allegations," the complaint described how Mr. Cross aimed to satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 23. The impracticable joinder of all individual student class members satisfied the numerosity requirement of Civ.R. 23(A)(1), and the "precise number of members" could "be ascertained from the University's records." The complaint listed a number of common questions of law or fact, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(2), including whether there is a difference in value between online distance learning and live in-person instruction. Mr. Cross also alleged that his claims were typical of the classes he described, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(3), and that he would adequately represent the class members when litigating those claims, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(4). As to the claims themselves, Mr. Cross's complaint asserted three breach of contract claims and three unjust enrichment claims on behalf of each class. In sum, Mr. Cross sought as relief for himself and other class members the following: "a reduction in outstanding charges and a partial refund of tuition representing the difference in value of a half semester of live in-person instruction versus the value of a half semester of online distance learning; a reduction in outstanding charges and the return of the unused portion of room and board costs proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring 2020 semester when students were forced to move out of their on-campus housing; and, a reduction in outstanding charges and the full refund of the unused portion of each meal contract and a refund of a prorated share of fees." Two days before a scheduled hearing on the issue, Mr. Cross filed a motion for class certification supported by an expert report prepared by Ted Tatos, an economist and statistician. The trial court granted Mr. Cross's motion for certification (Apr. 26, 2021 Decision at 10.). In sum, it determines that Cross has satisfied requirements for class certification by a preponderance of the evidence. A class action would achieve economies of time, expense and effort, as well as promote a uniformity of decisions relative to similarly situated persons. The trial court made no alteration to the definitions proposed by Mr. Cross before certifying them. UT timely appealed from the trial court's order and states the following as its single assignment of error: "The Court of Claims erred by certifying three separate classes, each of which contains numerous members who have sustained no injury at all. As a preliminary matter, Judge Michael C. Mentel, writing for the Panel, notes that UT's appeal presents no argument challenging the trial court court's Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), or (4) rulings on numerosity, typicality, or Mr. Cross's ability to fairly and adequately represent the classes. Nor did UT contest Mr. Cross's arguments on the Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), or (4) prongs when opposing his motion for class certification in the trial court. Consequently, UT has waived any challenge to those portions of the trial court's certification order and the Appellate Court will not address them in its analysis. Because Mr. Cross fulfilled his burden to present evidence in support of the Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), and (4) requirements with an affidavit and reference to undisputed facts, Judge Mentel says there is no basis for disturbing the trial court's ruling on them without any affirmative challenge from UT. Consequently, the review of the trial court's decision will be limited to its conclusions that Mr. Cross satisfied the requirements of Civ.R. 23(A)(2) and (B)(3). Judge Mentel finds that as an analysis of commonality, the trial court's statement merely identifies an element common to all litigation: whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a remedy. Apart from that self-evident observation, the trial court's circular reasoning simply repeats the language of Civ.R. 23(A), offering it as both premise and conclusion. It fails to identify a single question of law or fact raised by Mr. Cross's claims, much less describe any element of commonality that makes a class action the ideal method for resolution, Judge Mentel points out. The trial court's sole statement concerning predominance is even less rigorous, in spite of the fact that the Civ.R. 23(B)(3) requirement "is even more demanding" than commonality under Civ.R. 23(A), Judge Mentel holds. Again, however, the trial court's discussion does little more than repeat the language of the rule. Judge Mentel says the parties' competing positions raise several questions, and a rigorous analysis was required to answer them. But no issue of commonality or predominance may be answered without confronting them. The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring these questions and the parties' conflicting positions on how to resolve them, Judge Mentel holds. Instead of confronting the evolution of Mr. Cross' tuition-based claims and the evidence he proposed would prove them, the trial court reached back to the allegations as stated in the complaint, Judge Mentel opines. The trial court went no further in addressing how issues of commonality or predominance applied to the claims of the Room and Board Class or the Fee Class either. A "rigorous analysis" under Civ.R. 23 requires addressing these issues for all classes proposed by Mr. Cross, Judge Mentel points out. As with predominance, Judge Mentel finds the trial court's sole reference to the superiority requirement under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) lacks the rigor required to determine whether "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The trial court stated that a class action would be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, especially given the desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in this forum. Forum is irrelevant to the superiority analysis in the case, Judge Mentel holds. There is no question of the "desirability or undesirability" of the forum because the Court of Claims "has exclusive, original jurisdiction" over Mr. Cross' claims. For the reasons discussed, the Appellate Court concludes that it was unreasonable for the trial court to certify the classes proposed by Mr. Cross without a rigorous analysis of the issues of commonality, predominance and superiority required by Civ.R. 23. The little discussion the trial court provided was perfunctory, conclusory, and failed to grapple with the relevant law and the parties' arguments, Judge Mentel notes. It cannot be said to result from a sound reasoning process. Finally, Judge Mentel says this decision should not be read to encourage or discourage certification on remand, a position on which the Appellate Court remains necessarily agnostic. For these reasons, the Appellate Court sustains UT's assignment of error insofar as it asserts that the trial court erred in granting Mr. Cross's motion for class certification under Civ.R. 23. The decision of the Court of Claims of Ohio is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mt3va8cf from Leagle.com. Merriman Legando Williams & Klang, LLC, Drew Legando, Tom Merriman, and Edward S. Jerse; Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLP, and Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler; Evangelista Worley LLC, and James Evangelista; Fink Bressack, David H. Fink, and Nathan J. Fink, for the Appellee. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Randall W. Knutti, Peter DeMarco, Jeanna Jacobus, and Michelle Brizes, for the Appellant. WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Wilkerson's Certification Bid Denied in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge James A. Teilborg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification and notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Andrea Wilkerson, Plaintiff v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-01427-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz.). Defendants Walgreens Mail Service, LLC and Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc. ("HSS") each filed responses opposing conditional certification, and the Plaintiff replied to those responses. HSS is a staffing agency that hires and places employees in AllianceRx positions. HSS hired the Plaintiff, an Arizona resident, to work remotely in Arizona for an AllianceRx call center. The Plaintiff alleges that she and other employees working at AllianceRx call centers were regularly scheduled to work 40 hours per week but were not compensated for additional time spent turning on their computers and opening programs before their shifts or for turning off their computers after their shifts. She alleges that this violates, among other laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. The Defendants each argue that preliminary certification should be denied because the Plaintiff is not similarly situated to the members of the proposed collective action. They also argue that, if the Court were to grant preliminary certification, the resulting notice should be limited to potential plaintiffs, who worked in Arizona because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state potential plaintiffs against them. Because the question of which the Plaintiffs may join the proposed collective action necessarily bears on whether those potential plaintiffs are situated similarly to one another, the Court considers limits to its personal jurisdiction before addressing preliminary certification. The Defendants argue that because the Supreme Court's holding in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) requires that a district court have personal jurisdiction over each defendant as to every claim by each plaintiff, and because here each Defendant was incorporated and has its principal place of business in states other than Arizona, the Court holds it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants with respect to potential opt-in plaintiffs whose claims arose from employment in other states. For her part, the Plaintiff argues that Bristol-Meyers does not apply to federal claims heard in federal court, and that finding otherwise would be out of step with district courts in the Ninth Circuit and would contravene Congressional intent by hindering nationwide FLSA actions from being tried jointly. The Plaintiff also argues that the Defendants have waived their personal jurisdiction argument by failing to raise it prior to their responses to her motion for preliminary certification. A party waives a personal jurisdiction defense by failing to include it in a Rule 12 motion or a responsive pleading. The Defendants are not required "to seek dismissal of hypothetical future plaintiffs," and cannot waive defenses that were not available, Judge Teilborg notes, citing Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., 8 F.4th 872, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2021). The only relevant parties with respect to whom the Defendants could have waived a personal jurisdiction defense are, therefore, out-of-state plaintiffs, who have already opted in. Opt-in plaintiff Karole Rone (apparently the sole out-of-state opt-in plaintiff) joined the suit by filing her written consent, prior to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"). No Rule 12 motion has been filed since Rone opted in. Thus, the first responsive pleading in which the Defendants could have failed to raise a personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone was in answering the SAC. HSS, in answering the SAC, denied that the Court has personal jurisdiction over non-Arizona residents, and thus has not waived its personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone or any other out-of-state plaintiffs. For its part, AllianceRx admitted that personal jurisdiction over it was appropriate, at least with respect to Plaintiff Wilkerson. However, whether Rone would continue as a plaintiff in the lawsuit was ambiguous after the SAC was filed and before the present motion was filed. Rone was neither named nor explicitly mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint. And although the Second Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of "Andrea Wilkerson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals," subsequent references are to a singular "Plaintiff" rather than plural "Plaintiffs," Judge Teilborg notes. Additionally, AllianceRx did raise a personal jurisdiction defense in its answer, noting that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. Given the ambiguity regarding whether Rone remained part of the lawsuit and whether personal jurisdiction was, therefore, an available defense as to her claim, and given that AllianceRx did assert a personal jurisdiction defense in its answer to the SAC, the Court will not find that AllianceRx waived its personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone. But even if all Defendants had waived personal jurisdiction defenses as to Rone, as a matter of efficiency and case management it would still be appropriate at this juncture for the Court to consider whether it would have personal jurisdiction over other members of the proposed collective action: if the Court concludes it would lack personal jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs, sending notice of the collective action to such plaintiffs would be an exercise in futility, as the Defendants could simply raise a personal-jurisdiction defense to each individual opt-in plaintiff at the time each plaintiff filed his or her written consent with the Court. The Court, therefore, will proceed to consider the parties' arguments regarding personal jurisdiction over the proposed collective. The Court finds the reasoning of cases applying Bristol-Meyers in FLSA collective actions more persuasive, and, therefore, agrees with the Defendants that it would lack personal jurisdiction over opt-in plaintiffs whose claims did not arise from Defendants' contacts with Arizona. In sum, no basis to assert personal jurisdiction other than Rule 4(k)(1)(A) presents itself. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) allows the Court to reach only those claims over which an Arizona state court would have jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of Arizona courts is limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Clause requires a state court to have personal jurisdiction over each defendant as to every claim by each plaintiff. Because employment claims by potential opt-in plaintiffs employed by the Defendants out of state cannot be said to have arisen from the Defendants' activities in Arizona, a state court would lack personal jurisdiction over those claims. Because a state court would lack personal jurisdiction so--through operation of Rule 4(k)(1)(A)--will this Court. Accordingly, the portion of the Defendants' motions requesting limitation of the potential opt-in class to only those potential plaintiffs employed in Arizona will be granted. The Court has previously preliminarily certified collectives upon submission of statements by plaintiffs of seventeen, eight, six, and three persons claiming to be similarly situated to one another. Because opt-in Plaintiff Rone must be excluded from the potential class for want of personal jurisdiction over her claim, her declaration is not probative of whether the Plaintiff is similarly situated to an Arizona-only collective, Judge Teilborg holds. Put differently, Rone's declaration cannot show that the Plaintiff is similarly situated to a potential collective that Rone will not be part of. Judge Teilborg says this leaves the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification with only one supporting declaration: her own. Mindful that the Court's order limiting the potential collective to Arizona plaintiffs may have been unexpected given the current state of the law on this issue within the Ninth Circuit, that any denial would likely be without prejudice, and that the burden at preliminary certification is light, in the interest of efficiency the Court will postpone ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification to permit the Plaintiff to submit additional evidence showing that the Plaintiff is similarly situated to members of an Arizona-only collective. For these reasons, Judge Teilborg rules that the motion for preliminary certification is denied in part. The potential FLSA collective is limited to opt-in plaintiffs employed by the Defendants in Arizona. The portion of the Plaintiff's motion requesting certification of an Arizona class remains pending. Opt-in Plaintiff Karole Rone's FLSA claims against the Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff may within 30 days file supplemental declarations of additional potential opt-in plaintiffs or other evidence showing that the Plaintiff is similarly situated to an Arizona-only collective. The Defendants may then file responses limited to five pages each with no attachments within 15 days of the Plaintiff's submission of her supplemental evidence, and the Plaintiff may file one reply limited to five pages with no attachments within 15 days of the latest timely filed response. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/28w6wv97 from Leagle.com. WISCONSIN: Clayborne's Bid to Certify Case as Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JACK A. CLAYBORNE, JUSTIN L. WILLIAMS, JAMAL D. JONES and URIJAH DAVIS, Plaintiffs v. TRITI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-694-pp (E.D. Wis.), Chief District Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denies Clayborne's request to certify the case as a class action. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Court entered a case management order directing plaintiffs Jack A. Clayborne, Robert D. Cartledge, Justin L. Williams, Jamal D. Jones and Urijah Davis to comply with certain requirements if they wanted to proceed jointly in this case. The Court first ordered that if any Plaintiff no longer wished to continue with the case, he must notify the Court in writing of his desire to withdraw by the end of the day on Sept. 16, 2022. On Sept. 15, 2022, the Court received Plaintiff Cartledge's notice of his withdrawal. The Court has removed Cartledge from the docket and will not assess him the filing fee. The Court next ordered any plaintiff, who wished to proceed in the case to submit either the $402 filing fee or a request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and certified trust account statement by the end of the day on Sept. 30, 2022. The Court previously had received requests to proceed without prepaying the filing fee from Plaintiffs Clayborne, Jones and Davis. Only Plaintiff Jones filed a current institutional trust account statement. The copy of the order sent to Plaintiffs Williams and Davis was returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation that reads, "Not in Custody." The Court previously noted that neither of these Plaintiffs is incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail. Neither Plaintiff since has provided the Court with a current address. Plaintiffs Williams and Davis' failure to keep the Court advised of their addresses suggests they no longer wish to participate in the litigation. The Court will dismiss these Plaintiffs without prejudice and order the Clerk to terminate them from the docket. The Court received from Plaintiff Clayborne a motion for an extension of time to file his trust account statements. He says he needs additional time "to request account statements" from various jails where he has been incarcerated. He says he does not currently have the postage for these requests, and the commissary "has been out of stock on legal writing paper." Mr. Clayborne also asks the Court to "certify this case as a CLASS" because the claims have common questions of law and facts for all Plaintiffs. He asks the Court to appoint him as counsel because inmates usually do not represent other inmates. He also says "this case is too complex to be litigated by an inmate." He asserts that he needs a private investigator to find other Plaintiffs -- Justin L. Williams and Urijah Davis. Mr. Clayborne labels the motion as if it was filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs, but he is the only Plaintiff who signed the motion, Judge Pepper states. Because no other plaintiff signed this motion, and because each plaintiff is representing only himself, the Court construes Clayborne's motion as being brought only on his own behalf. The Court will grant Clayborne's request for additional time to file certified copies of his institutional trust account statements. He must file them in time for the Court to receive them by the deadline the Court will set at the end of this order. If Clayborne does not file all relevant trust account statements (statements covering the six-month period from December 2021 to June 2022) by the deadline, or notify the Court in writing why he cannot do so, the Court may dismiss him from this case. The Court will deny Clayborne's request to certify this case as a class action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4), a single representative may represent a proposed class only if the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. That requirement has caused courts in this circuit and others to decline to allow a self-represented incarcerated person to represent a class in a class action. The Court also will deny Clayborne's request that the Court recruit counsel to represent him in this lawsuit. Courts in this district have informed Clayborne that it is premature to request appointment of a lawyer before the Court has had an opportunity to screen the complaint. The Court also has informed Clayborne that incarcerated plaintiffs seeking counsel must "try to find counsel on their own and be able to provide proof they contacted at least three attorneys before they can file a motion asking the court to appoint counsel on their behalf." Mr. Clayborne's request does not satisfy that requirement, Judge Pepper holds. He has not alleged that he has made any effort to obtain counsel on his own. The Court has the ability to deny his request for that reason alone. Mr. Clayborne also has not satisfied the second requirement for recruiting counsel for indigent plaintiffs--showing that he is incapable of adequately litigating the case on his own. He has not given the Court any reason to believe he is incapable of adequately representing his own interests. Clayborne may be correct that litigating this large-scale case will be difficult. That is precisely why the court entered the case management order informing the Plaintiffs of the inherent difficulties in bringing a joint case and gave each Plaintiff the option to withdraw from the case without penalty to file his own lawsuit. Clayborne's decision to proceed in this multiple-plaintiff lawsuit is not reason to recruit counsel to assist him, Judge Pepper points out. The Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs Justin L. Williams and Urijah Davis for their failure to provide a current address. It grants Clayborne's motion for an extension of time to file his institutional trust account statements. Clayborne must file his trust account statements in time for the court to receive them by the end of the day on Nov. 25, 2022. If by the end of the day on Nov. 25, 2022, the Court has not received all necessary trust account statements, or Clayborne has not notified the Court in writing why he cannot provide them, it may dismiss him from this lawsuit. Hence, the Court denies Plaintiff Clayborne's request to certify this case as a class action. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff Clayborne's request that the Court recruit him counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xruzn32 from Leagle.com. WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Wins Bid to Recuse Magistrate Judge Youchah ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order in the lawsuit titled JOHN V. FERRIS and JOANN M. FERRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, STEPHEN A. WYNN, CRAIG SCOTT BILLINGS, STEPHEN COOTEY, MATTHEW O. MADDOX, JOHN J. HAGENBUCH, ROBERT J. MILLER, PATRICIA MULROY, CLARK T. RANDT JR., ALVIN V. SHOEMAKER, KIMMARIE SINATRA, DANIEL B. WAYSON, JAY L. JOHNSON, RAY R. IRANI, and J. EDWARD VIRTUE, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-APG-EJY (D. Nev.): (1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal filed on July 13, 2022; (2) granting Defendants' Wynn Resorts, LTD, and Matthew Maddox's Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Recusal; and (3) referring this action to the Clerk of Court for random assignment of the case for all further proceedings. Judge Youchah states that she first took the bench as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on Aug. 6, 2019, at which time she placed Wynn Resorts on her recusal list where it remained for two years. This matter was randomly reassigned to her on Aug. 17, 2021. As stated by the Plaintiffs in their Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), the lawsuit is a federal securities class action, against the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between Feb. 28, 2014, and Feb. 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Judge Youchah issued her first substantive order in the matter on Oct. 4, 2021, denying a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order, and requiring the parties to take various steps regarding electronically stored information, a proposed stipulated confidentiality and protective order, and phased discovery. On Oct. 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed separate proposed discovery plans and scheduling order, which Judge Youchah considered at a one hour hearing held on Nov. 8, 2021. Judge Youchah denied the Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order without prejudice, and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' proposal. At that hearing, Judge Youchah stated she understood "the basic underlying facts" of the case because it's hard to live in Las Vegas and not know those. She has lived in Las Vegas for almost 30 years. On Dec. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, which Judge Youchah set for hearing on Jan. 25, 2022. Judge Youchah held her second hearing in this case on that date. The hearing resulted in granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion. On April 18, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel. On June 28, 2022, Judge Youchah held her third hearing in this case to address the Defendants' Motion. The hearing lasted approximately one hour at the end of which she granted the Defendants' Motion. The Plaintiffs state, through the Declaration of Elina Rakhlin (the counsel for the Plaintiffs), that counsel first discovered new facts concerning Judge Youchah's background during the week of June 27, 2022. Their counsel further states it was the upcoming deadline for their class certification opening brief that prompted their internet research into the background. The research discovered an article about a case brought in California, in which Judge Youchah is not a party, alleging, in sum, corruption in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, citing a news article from "Casino.org" entitled "Federal Appeals Court Won't Toss RICO Case vs. Steve Wynn, Wynn Resorts" by Philip Conneller, dated April 25, 2022. Judge Youchah says it was only then--approximately one year after she was randomly assigned this matter and had issued several substantive decisions--that the Plaintiffs claim they first discovered publicly available information regarding her role as counsel for Wynn Resorts while in private practice. The case on which the Plaintiffs are focused is a Title VII case, filed in 2018, challenged and decided solely on the basis of the applicable time-bar, and in which discovery was stayed. The case, Limcaco v. Wynn Resorts, Ltd., et al., is found at Case No. 18-cv-01685-MMD-GWF. More specifically, Limcaco was decided on a motion to dismiss by District Judge Miranda M. Du because she found Limcaco's federal claims were time-barred. Consistent with the law, all allegations of fact in that case were presumed true at the time the motion to dismiss was filed. Nonetheless counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action have concluded there is "reason to question" whether, by virtue of her brief involvement in Limcaco, she gained personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in this Action, Judge Youchah says. The Plaintiffs allege Judge Youchah's October 2018 through early April 2019 representation of Wynn Resorts in Limcaco was a new discovery despite paragraph 199 of the Plaintiffs' SAC citing to the Limcaco case. More than two years lapsed between the cessation of Judge Youchah's representation of Wynn in Limcaco on April 2, 2019, and her random assignment to this case in August 2021. Further, discovery was stayed in Limcaco in December 2018. As the granted Motion to Stay Discovery portended, no discovery was conducted in the Limcaco matter. The Plaintiffs contend that because Judge Youchah knew about events alleged in Limcaco's Complaint, as well as reported by the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 26, 2018 (eight months before Ms. Limcaco filed her Complaint and nine months before Judge Youchah appeared as counsel for Wynn Las Vegas), Limcaco cited an "IEB Report" extensively in her Second Amended Complaint, and Judge Youchah indicated, as cited, a general awareness of underlying events, Judge Youchah have some knowledge or information that creates a bias requiring recusal. Judge Youchah notes that the Plaintiffs' Motion was filed almost one year after she was assigned to this matter in August 2021 (which was more than two years after she ceased her representation of Wynn Resorts on April 2, 2019), two years after the Plaintiffs referenced Limcaco in their SAC filed July 1, 2020, and approximately two weeks after she issued a ruling against the Plaintiffs on a Motion to Compel. The explanation offered by the Plaintiffs--that they began to research her background approximately twenty minutes after this adverse ruling based on an upcoming due date for a class certification motion--is not persuasive, Judge Youchah holds. These facts, when applied to the law, militate against recusal. Despite no actual bias or prejudice and suspect timing, the Court finds the potential for a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts could conclude Judge Youchah impartiality might be reasonably questioned. "It is with reluctance, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, that I decide to recuse myself from this matter," Judge Youchah wrote. "I take my duty as a judge sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Nevada seriously." "My role is one of significant responsibility to my colleagues, litigants, counsel, and the community. After almost 30 years as a lawyer it is surprising to find a claim of bias or prejudice would be raised. Nonetheless, because of the unique circumstances here, and what matters is appearance, I cannot jeopardize this litigation based on my personal knowledge that fairness and the Rule of Law are always the tenets under which I act," Judge Youchah says. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xzp86yr from Leagle.com. YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment in Eastwood Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JOY EASTWOOD, On Behalf of Minor M.E., individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YAMHILL COUNTY, et al., Defendants-third-party-plaintiffs-Appellees v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Third-party-defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-35331 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Joy Eastwood, on behalf of her minor son M.E., appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County and third-party Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"). M.E. filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit against Yamhill County alleging that he and other juveniles were deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights while in custody at Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Center ("YCJDC"). As a threshold matter, Yamhill County argues that M.E. waived all substantive arguments by failing to set out clear arguments in his Opening Brief. M.E.'s brief fails to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), which requires a brief to contain "appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies." Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals addresses the merits of M.E.'s arguments because he has raised discrete issues for its review, and they have been fully briefed. The Court of Appeals holds that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County on M.E.'s Section 1983 claim. It analyzes a Section 1983 claim against a municipality using the framework set forth in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To establish a Monell claim against Yamhill County, M.E. must prove: "(1) that [he] possessed a constitutional right of which []he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation." The first prong is not satisfied here: M.E. fails to establish that he was deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report on M.E.'s claims about the conditions at YCJDC and concluded that M.E. was not "at substantial risk of suffering serious harm." The Court of Appeals agrees with the district court that the treatment did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. M.E. claims that he disliked his food, had a broken water fountain in his cell, slept on an uncomfortable bed, was required to exercise for two hours per day, and was spoken to disrespectfully by staff, but there is no evidence that these conditions placed him at "substantial risk of suffering serious harm," the Court of Appeals opines. Similarly, that M.E. did not receive mental health medication from Nov. 7 to Nov. 8, 2016, and experienced delays receiving his medication on Aug. 8, 2017, and Sept. 8, 2017, does not establish that he was at substantial risk of serious harm. The Court of Appeals points out that it treats claims alleging deficient medical care "substantially the same as other conditions of confinement violations," applying the objective deliberate indifference test. Although Yamhill County does not dispute that M.E. was taking psychotropic medications at the time, including Lexapro, Xanax (alprazolam), and Adderall, M.E. did not provide any medical evidence about his mental health conditions. Notably, he did not provide evidence from a treating physician explaining the effects of missing his medication. M.E. failed to show he had a "serious medical need," which if left untreated for the brief periods in question, could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. The conditions of M.E.'s confinement during the short times he was incarcerated did not violate his constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals holds. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County on the Section 1983 claim. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/28wm8zan from Leagle.com. YOUNG LIVING: Objection to Arbitration Denial in Penhall Sustained ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District Utah sustains the Defendant's objection to one part of the Order in the lawsuit captioned LINDSAY PENHALL, SARAH MALDONADO, and TIFFANIE RUNNELS, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00617-DBB-CMR (D. Utah). The matter before the Court is the Defendant's Objections to the Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration (the "Order"). The Plaintiffs are former Young Living distributors. To be a distributor, they had to agree to Young Living's Member Agreement, Policies and Procedures ("P&Ps"), and Compensation Plan (collectively the "Agreement"). While Young Living periodically revised the documents, all versions of the P&Ps contained the same arbitration clause: "If mediation is unsuccessful, any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, will be settled by arbitration. The parties waive all rights to trial by jury or to any court." The pre-2019 version of the Member Agreement also had a forum selection clause: "Any legal action concerning the Agreement will be brought in the state and federal courts located in Salt Lake City, Utah." In December 2019, Young Living published a new Member Agreement that replaced the forum selection clause with a statement that the parties consent to "jurisdiction and venue before any state or federal court located in Salt Lake City, Utah, for any legal action not subject to arbitration, including for purposes of enforcing an award by an arbitrator, or any other matter not subject to arbitration as specified in the Policies and Procedures." The revised P&Ps had the same arbitration clause incorporating the JAMS rules ("2020 Arbitration Agreement") as the previous versions. The revised P&Ps also contained a retroactive clause in the dispute resolution section, which stated that "Amendments will not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment unless expressly accepted by the member." Ms. Runnels enrolled with Young Living on Sept. 4, 2014; Ms. Maldonado enrolled on Dec. 19, 2018; and Ms. Penhall enrolled on May 24, 2018. In November 2018, Ms. Penhall's membership was terminated due to inactivity. On March 3, 2020, Ms. Penhall logged into Young Living's website to recover documentation from her former account. Because her membership had been terminated, she had to reenroll to gain access to her account, which meant buying Young Living products at wholesale prices. She was presented with a clickwrap agreement that included hyperlinks to the revised 2019 Member Agreement and the 2020 P&Ps, a statement that "I have read and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement," and a checkbox accompanied by the following text: "By clicking this box, I agree to these statements and to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement." Ms. Penhall clicked the checkbox and advanced to the shopping page. Before completing her purchase, Ms. Penhall then had to click another checkbox next to the following text: "By placing your order, you agree to Young Living's Policies and Procedures." The phrase "Young Living's Policies and Procedures" was hyperlinked to the 2020 P&Ps. The Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Young Living in the Southern District of California on Dec. 6, 2019. The district court transferred the case to the District of Utah on Aug. 17, 2020. After Young Living's first motion to dismiss and compel arbitration was denied as moot when the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint, Young Living moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on Sept. 27, 2021. Young Living's motion was denied on Aug. 29, 2022. On Sept. 12, 2022, Young Living objected to one part of the Order. Young Living contended that the 2020 Arbitration Agreement was valid, enforceable, and that it was undisputed that Ms. Penhall intended to enter the Agreement. Young Living objects only to the part of the Order concerning the need for a summary trial to determine whether Ms. Penhall is bound by the 2020 Arbitration Agreement. The parties disagree about the standard of review the Court should apply. Given an objection, if the motion to compel is non-dispositive, then the Court will modify or set aside an order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. But if the motion to compel is dispositive, the Court will review an order de novo. Courts in the Tenth Circuit have applied both standards on a motion to compel arbitration. The Court need not decide this issue because the result here is the same under either standard. The Order found that there were questions of fact about whether Ms. Penhall accepted the 2020 P&Ps. It highlighted Ms. Penhall's claim that "she 'never intended' to enter a new agreement with a company she had sued three months prior, and that if she did so, 'it was by mistake.'" The Order also noted that the issue of notice was relevant. On that basis, the Order reasoned that the question of whether Ms. Penhall intended to accept the agreement was a "dispute of material fact that prevented the court from determining whether the 2020 Arbitration Agreement was a valid agreement to arbitrate between Penhall" and Young Living. It concluded that the factual dispute dictated a summary trial. Concerning Ms. Penhall's claim that she did not remember seeing the Agreement's terms, Judge Barlow notes that courts routinely hold such failure of memory to be insufficient to invalidate a clickwrap agreement. Likewise, there is no support here for the proposition that the agreement could be invalidated for a lack of "meeting of the minds" because one of the parties made a "mistake." Ms. Penhall had the opportunity to read the clickwrap agreement and the hyperlinked P&Ps containing the 2020 Arbitration Agreement. Judge Barlow holds that she cannot avoid the contract on the ground of mistake if she signed it without reading it or if she read it and no longer remembers that she did. The Order next reasoned that the issue of whether Penhall received notice was at least relevant to whether there was a meeting of the minds and is another issue of fact that may be addressed at a summary trial. The Court agrees that notice is relevant. The Arbitration Agreement was available to read, easy to find, and made plain that claims involving the Agreement would be settled by binding arbitration. Young Living gave Ms. Penhall adequate notice. And because the clickwrap agreement gave Ms. Penhall reasonable notice and she affirmatively manifested assent to the terms, the clickwrap agreement was valid. The only issue remaining is the scope of the 2020 Arbitration Agreement -- specifically, whether it applied retroactively to Ms. Penhall's claims. While the Plaintiffs' Response focuses heavily on the retroactivity issue -- indeed, very nearly to the exclusion of the actual issue before this Court -- the Order did not decide that issue and Young Living's objection is not based upon it. Therefore, the Court does not address it. For these reasons, the Court sustains the Defendant's Objections to the Memorandum Decision and Order. The Court vacates Part IV.C of the Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymsexchn 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 ***