/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 233 Headlines 66 MEAT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges A-1 REALTY: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ADVOCATE AURORA: Wis. App. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Reetz Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Policyholders Class Certified in Hilario Suit APPLE INC: Court Compels Sleighter to Arbitration in Foreman Suit BAYER HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Sidhu Class Suit Granted in Part BED BATH: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Munday Suit Alleges BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Award in Franco Suit CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Hits Overcharging for Copies of Medical Records DEALER LOYALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Webb Class Suit DECORATIVE PANEL: Burcar Allowed to File First Amended Complaint DEDICATED NURSING: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Fortin Suit GRANDE COSMETICS: Nixon Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Perry Sues Over Replacement Motor Parts' Monopoly HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Order Dismissing Huston Class Suit Affirmed HOLY SEE: Blecher Appeals Sexual Abuse Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. IRVINE CO: Artificially Inflates Real Estate Prices, Suit Alleges ISS FACILITY: N.D. Cal. Refuses Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit JOHN HIESTER: Beard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Sues Over Mislabeled Flavored Drink Mixes LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Sues Over Beverages' Bacterial Contamination MARK CUBAN: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response MARTINO CARTIER: Grazioli FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Suit Removed to E.D. California MBX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Files Motion to Quash Subpoena MDL 2836: Parties Directed to Proceed with Class Discovery MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Arthur Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Atwood Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Bedell Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Clayton Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Cohen Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Duranko Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Estes Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Faszczewski MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Gignac Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Glasper Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Graifman Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Imhof Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Jobe Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Lofton Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mandel Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mesa Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mitchell Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Roth Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sheth Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Simkins Suit MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Zielinski MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Lovisa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York META PLATFORMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Klein Suit METZ CULINARY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perta Suit Alleges MG BILLING: Joint Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vandiver MICHIGAN: Sanders Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York MISSFRESH LIMITED: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit MY JOURNEY TRANSPORT: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATURAL SAPPHIRE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NELSON AND NELSON: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NEW HORIZONS: Summary Judgment in Brockington Class Suit Reversed NEW YORK, NY: WOCEJ Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Reimer Suit Alleges NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Extension of Time to File Response OK'd OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Spoto OPW FUELING COMPONENTS: Canales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PACTIV PACKAGING: Yanez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Parties File FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid PAPA JOHN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Schnur Class Suit Alleges PAPARAZZI LLC: Loses Bids to Consolidate Teske and 4 Other Suits PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Parker Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter PC CONNECTION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PETROCHEM INSULATION: Boyuk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Employees Get Conditional Certification RAPID ARMORED: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages REMINGTON ARMS: Bids in Limine in Teague Suit Granted in Part RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Seeks Certification of Two Classes ROVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Rainey Labor Class Suit RUBY'S FAST FOOD: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Suit Removed to D. Utah SAVE ADVISERS: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SIEMENS MOBILITY: Kaios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SNAP INC: Sbroglio Sues Over Failure to Provide Class Vote SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Ampt Class Suit SOPHIE RATNER: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SPACE EXPLORATION: Cornejo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SPRING HOMECARE: Rasoli Files Bid for Conditional Certification STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to March 10, 2023 STK SAN FRANCISCO: Burroughs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Fuller Sues Over Misleading Labeling STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Stock Price Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit SUNRUN INC: Dekker Seeks Certification of a Class of Customers SUTTER VALLEY: Court Resets Renewed Bid to Certify Collective SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Initially Approves Class Settlement in Lucas SYNGENTA CROP: Chuck Day Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations SYNGENTA CROP: M and M Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS: Dudley Sues Over Unprotected PII TBK BANK SSB: Luckey Files Suit in C.D. Illinois TELADOC HEALTH: Tentative Settlement in Thomas Suit Initially OK'd TEXAS CUSTOM BUILDERS: Hardin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations TIC INTERNATIONAL: Krupa Files Suit in S.D. Indiana TOP IT OFF: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOURANCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court TWITTER INC: Borodaenko Sues Over Termination of Disabled Employees U.S.A. SILO SERVICE: Knowlton Sues to Recover Compensation UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit UNITED PARCEL: Faces Labor Suits in State and Federal Courts UNITED STATES: Grimes Files Suit in U.S. Dist. Ct. UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Rojas' Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sherman Sues Over Gender-Based Discrimination VALDEZ PAINTING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VIA QUADRONNO: Court Strikes Collective Action Allegations VISION SERVICE PLAN: Vergara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VOLTA INC: Chau Sues Over WARN Act Violation VRC COMPANIES: Overcharge Medical Records' Expense, Anderson Says WALMART INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toblesky Suit Says WALMART INC: Merck FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class WALT DISNEY: Biddle Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreements WATERBEAN COFFEE: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WEXFORD HEALTH: Swearingen Seeks Health Technicians' Unpaid Wages WHAT COMES AROUND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California WILCO LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 20, 2023 WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Discrimination-Related Class Suit Ongoing WORLDWIDE COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ZEBIT INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* 66 MEAT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL PEREZ, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 66 MEAT CORP.; 50-01 MEAT CORP.; 205 MEAT CORP.; 509 MEAT CORP.; AMEED MUJALLI, and MOHAMMAD MUJALLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07003 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as a butcher. 66 MEAT CORP. owns, operates and controls grocery stores in New York, known as Urban Market and Dumbo Market. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com A-1 REALTY: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------- EDDIE SOTO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. A-1 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., JMA BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & REHAB, LLC, PETER J. ALIZIO, and PAUL ALIZIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06956 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs, and to recover economic damages and punitive damages due to Defendants' unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a laborman from May 2019. During his employment, he was stationed at various homes and residences throughout New York. The Plaintiff's employment with Defendants terminated in March 2022 after filing a worker's compensation lawsuit against Defendants. A-1 Realty Management, Inc. is real estate management company based in Mineola, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ADVOCATE AURORA: Wis. App. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Reetz Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JANET REETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC., Defendant-Respondent, Appeal No. 2021AP520 (Wis. App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirms in part and reverses in part the order dismissing Reetz's class action against Aurora with prejudice. Reetz alleged negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief for Aurora's actions related to a data breach of personal information from Aurora's systems. On Feb. 20, 2020, Aurora sent a notice of a security incident that occurred in January 2020 during which an unauthorized person gained temporary access through a phishing scheme to an Aurora human resources system that housed personal information for current and former Aurora employees. When Aurora became aware of the issue on Jan. 9, 2020, it locked out the intruder. Its internal investigation showed that the personal information of current and former Aurora employees at Wisconsin locations was at risk, including employees' Social Security numbers, bank accounts used for direct deposit, birth dates, and home addresses. Aurora discovered that sixty-three employees had their direct deposit information changed to deposit paychecks into the intruder's account(s). It offered complimentary one-year memberships in an identity theft protection service to all former and current employees whose information was contained in the affected system. Reetz, a former Aurora employee, had her personal information contained in the affected HR system; however, her account's direct deposit instructions were not among the sixty-three accounts discovered as compromised. Reetz first filed a class action suit against Aurora in March 2020, pursuing claims against Aurora for herself and as a representative of other similarly situated individuals. Aurora moved to dismiss Reetz's action in June 2020. In response, Reetz amended her complaint in July 2020. Aurora again moved to dismiss in September 2020. After argument before the circuit court in December 2020, the circuit court dismissed Reetz's action with prejudice in a written decision on Feb. 18, 2021. Reetz appeals arguing that the circuit court erred when it dismissed her complaint with prejudice. Upon review, the Court of Appeals concludes that Reetz had standing to pursue her claims, adequately pleaded sufficient damages, and adequately pleaded a cause of action for negligence. Therefore, it reverses that part of the order dismissing the negligence claim and remands the same to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. However, Reetz failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for her other four claims: invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirms the parts of the circuit court order dismissing those claims. The Court of Appeals' Decision is recommended for publication in the official reports. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/8yy6zkym from Leagle.com. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Policyholders Class Certified in Hilario Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TISHA HILARIO, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California narrows Hilario's proposed class definition and grants her motion for certification. The case is about how Allstate calculates the square footage of houses for homeowners' insurance, specifically its alleged double counting of built-in garage space due to a faulty transition to new insurance software. The dispute arises from homeowners' insurance policies covering houses in California, including the home that Hilario owns in San Francisco. In the First Amendment Complaint ("FAC"), Hilario alleges she has held homeowners' insurance through Allstate since 2004. She alleges that in 2019, she received "a purposefully vague form letter" from Allstate that her policy information might be changing. She asserts that she discovered that this change ended up double counting the square footage of her garage, causing her to pay more in insurance premiums. She says that this "double-counting" affected 43,265 people holding homeowners' insurance policies through Allstate. Allstate uses a third-party tool called Residential Component Technology ("RCT") to determine the cost to completely rebuild a home (estimated replacement cost, "ERC"). The ERC is the minimum coverage amount that Allstate will offer, but customers can elect higher coverage. Allstate agents write policies using RCT, determining square footage from sources such as inspections, appraisals, homeowners' estimates, third-party vendors, and public records, including websites like Zillow. Allstate says that "nearly every customer" has a policy that exceeds the limits provided in their initial square footage estimate. RCT 3, used before June 13, 2016, had one field for agents to input square footage. Into that field, agents inputted the Furnished Living Area ("FLA"), which is the square footage of a home without including built-in garage space. But Allstate switched to a system known as RCT4 in 2016, which used two fields -- one for FLA, and one for Total Living Area ("TLA"), which is FLA plus built-in garage square footage. As stated in the discovery documents, the square footage inputted into prior policies was transferred to the TLA field of RCT4, and the program then assumed that number was the correct TLA. That new FLA number was then carried over to policy records, making the "finished living area lower than it should have been." Allstate estimated that at least 20,000 homes had incorrect FLA due to the conversion from RCT3 to RCT4. Allstate realized the issue with RCT4 in part because of reports from agents, who noticed the repeated issue when renewing their customers' policies. In response, around March 2019 the company implemented Project UIN, which was supposed to add back the deducted 288 square feet (or relevant multiplier, depending on how many garage spaces the insured had) to policies' TLA. The problem with Project UIN, according to Hilario, is that it was applied "across the board" without confirming whether the underlying policies had already been adjusted. She asserts that in cases where the insurance policy was manually corrected, which subsequently triggered the software to process the FLA and add the 288 square feet for TLA, Project UIN unfairly double counted the garage space. And in 2019, Allstate applied Project UIN to Hilario's policy and increased both the FLA and TLA by an additional 288 square feet. Hilario allegedly paid an extra $141 for the 288 square foot increase. Hilario says that even if policy holders had the responsibility to correct square footage numbers, Project UIN was not properly communicated to the policy holders and so they could not know what to check for. Mot. 9:6-21, 10:9-11:4. Hilario filed her initial complaint and Allstate moved to dismiss, which Judge Orrick granted with leave to amend. Hilario filed her FAC on Jan. 22, 2021, alleging negligence and breach of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Allstate filed an answer on Feb. 19, 2021, and pre-certification discovery ensued. Hilario filed her motion for class certification on July 1, 2022, and after briefing was completed, Judge Orrick held a hearing on Nov. 16, 2022. Hilario seeks certification of the following class: "All Allstate California policyholders from 2019 to the present with at least one built-in garage who paid premiums for homeowners or renters insurance to Allstate." Judge Orrick states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions. Plaintiffs must make two showings to certify its purported class. First, the plaintiffs must establish there are questions of law or fact in common to the class, as well as demonstrate numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, they must show that the class fits into one of three categories" as provided in Rule 23(b). Hilario seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), as well as 23(c)(4). Judge Orrick agrees with the Defendants that the proposed class definition is overly broad for three reasons. First, Hilario does not plead facts showing that policyholders with renters' insurance were subjected to the issues caused by Project UIN. Second, she concedes that Project UIN did not negatively affect all holders of homeowners insurance policies during the relevant time period, but rather only those whose policies had already been adjusted. Third, Allstate points out that Project UIN applied to all policyholders with at least one built-in garage space as of March 2019. For those reasons, Judge Orrick narrows the class definition to the following: "All Allstate California homeowners' insurance policyholders as of March 2019, who paid premiums and had at least one built-in garage, and whose garage square footage was counted twice in calculating insured square footage and premiums." Judge Orrick then examines Allstate's remaining arguments concerning the class definition. He finds that (i) even if the ultimate number is determined to be lower than 20,000, it is certainly high enough to meet the numerosity requirement; (ii) the "common answers" about whether Allstate implemented this policy, and breached any duty or violated the UCL, will "drive the resolution of litigation" in te case; (iii) Hilario's claims are "substantially identical" to those of the other purported class members; (iv) Hilario is an adequate class representative, and she has no conflicts of interest with other class members; and (v) the lass counsel is competent and qualified, and has no conflicts of interest with any class members. Judge Orrick also finds that common questions predominate. Because the questions of law and fact are so similar for each Plaintiff, the allegations of wrongful conduct are so consistent and universal, and the relevant injuries occurred in California, the proposed class members' interests are best served by prosecuting the action together in this forum. Additionally, it does not appear there is any other litigation concerning this controversy. For those reasons, this class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). Hilario also seeks certification of her proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2). Because Hilario seeks money damages as a fundamental remedy in the case, and because she can still receive her desired injunctive relief via certification under Rule 23(b)(3), Judge Orrick declines to certify the class separately under Rule 23(b)(2). Finally, Hilario seeks certification under Rule 23(c)(4) for any issues that can be resolved on a class-wide basis. Because this class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), Hilario need not "isolate the common issues" in the case to "proceed with class treatment of these particular issues" under Rule 23(c)(4). Judge Orrick declines to certify a class under this rule. In light of the foregoing, Judge Orrick grants Hilario's motion for class certification. A Case Management Conference is set at 2 p.m. on Jan. 10, 2023, during which the remaining trial calendar will be determined. The parties' Joint Case Management Statement, which should propose dates for the remaining events and the trial, should be filed by Jan. 3, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr29hkft from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Court Compels Sleighter to Arbitration in Foreman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY P. FOREMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03902-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enters an order compelling arbitration as to Plaintiff Connor Sleighter. Sleighter agreed to arbitrate "all disputes related in any manner to his employment relationship" with Apple. He now makes various arguments why he should not be compelled to arbitrate his wage claims. However, Judge Chhabria finds those arguments meritless. Sleighter's primary argument is that his arbitration agreement contained an opt-out provision, and that he is now opting out of it. His evidence for this provision is a testimony that an Apple executive gave to Congress three years later. The executive claimed that Apple began including an opt-out provision "starting in June 2016." Sleighter signed his arbitration agreement early in June 2016, but no such provision is to be found. Presumably Apple changed its standard arbitration agreement later in the month. Or perhaps the Apple executive's testimony was inaccurate or imprecise. What one cannot conclude from the testimony, though, is that Sleighter's agreement contained a secret opt-out provision. The same goes for the argument that the agreement does not "exist" because it does not contain such a provision. Sleighter's backup argument is that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. But this theory, according to Judge Chhabria, reprises the absurd idea of an undisclosed opt-out provision. Sleighter says the unconscionability "derives primarily" from the absence of this "required" clause. In terms of substantive unconscionability, he states that the cost of arbitration would exceed the cost of filing a complaint in court. He turns to a provision that apportions arbitration fees "in accordance with applicable law." Judge Chhabria says it's hard to fathom how following applicable law could be substantive unconscionability. Judge Chhabria concludes that Sleighter's claims are compelled to arbitration. Since there is no other named plaintiff for the class action claims, those claims are dismissed. The FLSA collective action will go forward on the schedule previously set. As this litigation continues, the counsel for the Plaintiffs must be mindful of their Rule 11 obligation not to make frivolous contentions. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ae63s6z from Leagle.com. BAYER HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Sidhu Class Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PRIYA SIDHU, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part Bayer's motion to dismiss with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. Sidhu alleges that Bayer markets and sells an IUD that significantly increases the risk of breast cancer in users. As alleged in the Complaint, Bayer markets and sells the Mirena intrauterine device. Mirena is a hormonal IUD, and specifically a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Bayer markets the device as birth control. Sidhu alleges that Mirena significantly increases the risk of breast cancer in users, and that this information is not disclosed on the packaging, the list of "safety considerations" on the website, or in any other materials that Bayer distributes to doctors or consumers. She further alleges that Bayer has long known that the Product significantly increases the risk of breast cancer. The Plaintiff cites to several studies, which she alleges show a "significantly increased" risk of breast cancer. Sidhu was prescribed and used Mirena between February 2019 and February 2022 in California. She paid $50 out-of-pocket for the device. She alleges that she reviewed the patient brochure upon first using Mirena, and she further alleges that she would not have purchased Mirena, or would have "paid significantly less," if Bayer had disclosed that Mirena carried with it a significantly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. She finally alleges that Bayer never warned her or her doctor about the elevated breast cancer risk. This lawsuit was filed on March 14, 2022. The Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud; (4) negligence; (5) violation of all three prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (6) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.; and (7) violation of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq. Sidhu seeks to represent a California and nationwide class. Now before the Court is Bayer's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court held a hearing on Oct. 27, 2022. The Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of 12 exhibits. These include several scientific studies, FDA information, and several websites. The Plaintiff did not address the request. Judge Freeman denies without prejudice the Defendant's request for judicial notice. If Bayer requests judicial notice again, she orders it to identify the specific facts within the provided documents that it would like the Court to notice. Judge Freeman now turns to Bayer's motion to dismiss. In its motion, Bayer makes three arguments as to standing. First, it argues that Sidhu does not have standing because she has not suffered an injury. Sidhu counters that the Court should not get to this question at the pleading stage and further argues that her allegations make plausible that Mirena causes an increased risk of breast cancer, and that she would have found this information material. Judge Freeman holds that the Court is not in the position to evaluate the scientific evidence at the pleadings stage. But, she notes that the phrase "significantly elevated risk" is not defined in the Complaint. In an Amended Complaint, Sidhu is advised to provide more concrete allegations to support her claims regarding the undisclosed or minimized risk of breast cancer for Mirena users. So, Bayer's motion to dismiss for lack of standing based on lack of injury is denied. Second, Bayer argues that Sidhu lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of a nationwide class. Sidhu argues that it is premature to address these issues now. Judge Freeman holds that the issues that Bayer raises are properly addressed at the motion to dismiss stage. She states, courts in this district have held that, due to variances among state laws, failure to allege which state law governs a common law claim is grounds for dismissal. Sidhu did not do so. She therefore dismisses the common law claims. In amending these claims, the Plaintiff will need to address the issue whether California law can be asserted for class members outside of California. Hence, the motion to dismiss the common law claims for failure to identify which state law applies is granted with leave to amend. Third, Bayer argues that Sidhu lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief because she fails to allege an intent or willingness to purchase Mirena in the future. Sidhu does not dispute this. Hence, Bayer's motion to dismiss all claims for injunctive relief is thus granted without leave to amend. In its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Bayer raises nine arguments. First, Bayer argues that the learned intermediary doctrine bars all of Sidhu's claims. Judge Freeman holds that (i) for any claims to which the learned intermediary doctrine applies, Sidhu must make allegations as to her physician and she has not adequately done so; and (ii) the cause of action for negligence does suggest a design defect claim, but there are no factual allegations elsewhere in the Complaint to form a basis for this claim. Bayer's motion to dismiss all counts under the learned intermediary doctrine is with leave to amend. Second, Bayer argues that Sidhu's claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). Judge Freeman looks to Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., which laid out an analysis for impossibility preemption in the drug manufacturing context. The court in Holley chose not to apply preemption to design defect claims based on drug composition. Judge Freeman holds that (i) Sidhu has not alleged what information was provided to the FDA and when, and the Court therefore cannot determine whether the post-2010 studies cited by Sidhu constituted "newly acquired information"; and (ii) Sidhu has not adequately alleged a design defect claim. Bayer's motion to dismiss all failure to warn claims as preempted is granted with leave to amend. Third, as to fraud, Judge Freeman finds that (i) Sidhu has adequately pled Bayer's knowledge based on the identified scientific publications; and (ii) the learned intermediary doctrine does apply and Sidhu must therefore plead reliance as to her physician. Hence, Bayer's motion to dismiss Sidhu's common law fraud claim, as well as her claims under the fraud prong of the UCL, the CLRA, and the FAL, is granted with leave to amend. Fourth, with respect to Sidhu's claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of the UCL, Judge Freeman grants Bayer's motion to dismiss the unfair claim under the UCL with leave to amend. She determines that (i) because she dismisses the predicate claims for Sidhu's unlawful UCL claim, she grants Bayer's motion to dismiss the unlawful claim under the UCL with leave to amend; and (ii) despite Sidhu's arguments to the contrary in the Opposition, the unfair UCL claim as pled in the Complaint is based on the same conduct underlying the other two UCL claims, and it must therefore be dismissed. Fifth, Bayer argues that the unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed because Sidhu does not allege an inadequate remedy at law. Judge Freeman denies Bayer's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, rejecting its argument that the claim for unjust enrichment fails because Sidhu did not state claims under the consumer protection statutes. Sixth, Bayer argues that the Court should dismiss the claim alleging that it breached the implied warranty of merchantability. While the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability is not a model of clarity, Sidhu does allege that Mirena is "not fit for its intended purpose" and causes a "significantly elevated risk of breast cancer."Such a risk, if proven, would constitute a safety hazard. Therefore, Judge Freeman denies Bayer's motion to dismiss this claim. Seventh, Bayer argues that Sidhu's negligence claim should be dismissed under the economic loss rule. Judge Freeman finds that Sidhu does not dispute that the economic loss rule applies. Instead, she argues that an exception may apply. But Sidhu must allege facts supporting such an exception. As noted by Bayer, Sidhu has not done so. So, Bayer's motion to dismiss the negligence claim is granted with leave to amend. Eighth, Bayer argues that Sidhu does not adequately plead punitive damages because she does not plead oppression, fraud, or malice. Sidhu, noting that courts often decline to address this question at the motion to dismiss stage, also argues that she has pled oppression, fraud, or malice. Judge Freeman holds that although there is no pleading deficiency as to punitive damages, because she has dismissed the predicate fraud claims, she dismisses the request for punitive damages as well. Bayer's motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend. Last, Bayer argues that the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed because they are equitable claims, and the Plaintiff has not established that she lacks an adequate remedy at law. Sidhu argues that she has alleged that she lacks an equitable remedy at law and has no adequate remedy at law to rectify Bayer's violations of the Sherman Act. Judge Freeman grants Bayer's motion to dismiss the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims for lack of equitable jurisdiction with leave to amend. She refuses to consider the Plaintiff's arguments as to the Sherman Act, as they are not mentioned anywhere in the Complaint. In its motion to strike Bayer argues that the Court should strike the request for punitive damages. However, according to Judge Freeman, this request fails on the merits. Sidhu may be able to properly plead punitive damages in an Amended Complaint. The motion to strike the request for punitive damages is denied. Bayer also seeks to strike Sidhu's class allegations, arguing that because the learned intermediary doctrine applies, individual issues will necessarily predominate over class issues, and therefore the class allegations should be stricken. Sidhu asserts that Bayer's arguments are premature. Judge Freeman grants Sidhu leave to amend on all of her claims. She cannot say that a class action could not be maintained under the facts alleged in an Amended Complaint. Therefore, Bayer's motion to strike the class allegations is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckznmh4 from Leagle.com. BED BATH: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Munday Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JANICE MUNDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04567 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully intercepts Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant to watch and record Plaintiff's and the Class members' visits to its website, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Accordingly, the Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware, namely Quantum Metric, to intercept Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications with Defendant's website, including how they interacted with the website, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. The Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff or the Class members, the Plaintiff says. Unlike typical website analytics services that provide aggregate statistics, the session replay technology utilized by Defendant is intended to record and playback individual browsing sessions, as if someone is looking over a Class members' shoulder when visiting Defendant's website. The technology also permits companies like Defendant to view the interactions of visitors on their website in live in real-time. The Defendant's use of a session replay spyware to intercept Plaintiff's electronic communications was not instrumental or necessary to Defendant's provision of any of its goods or services. Rather, the level and detail of information surreptitiously collected by Defendant indicates that the only purpose was to gain an unlawful understanding of the habits and preferences of users to its website, and the information collected was solely for Defendant's own benefit, the suit says. Bed Bath is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Fascimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@marcuszelman.com BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PERSIAN GULF, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Persian Gulf, Inc., Plaintiff, v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-JO-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiff contends the Defendants conspired to manipulate the wholesale gasoline market in California, causing historically high wholesale prices in 2012 and 2015. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jinsook Ohta on Sept. 30, 2022. The Court also granted the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Williams and Dr. Paul Hanouna. The remaining motions to exclude expert testimony were dismissed as moot. The appellate case is captioned Persian Gulf, Inc. v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 4, 2022; -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2022; -- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. opening brief is due on February 6, 2023; -- Appellees Alon USA Energy, Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Equilon Enterprises, LLC, ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company, Phillips 66, Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC and Valero Marketing and Supply Company answering brief is due on March 7, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PERSIAN GULF, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Steven Francis Hubachek, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Defendants-Appellees BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., are represented by: Robert A. Sacks, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-6600 - and - Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - David Craig Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 - and - Kent Michael Roger, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market Street Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1140 - and - Dawn Sestito, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6352 - and - Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO, LLP 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 - and - Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq. HAWXHURST HARRIS LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 893-5151 - and - Carl Hittinger, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-2898 - and - Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Award in Franco Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MANUEL FRANCO; JOSE RIOS; and LUIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01464-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVDS1902553) and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 7, 2019. The Plaintiffs brought this class action over Defendants' alleged employment discrimination practices. On October 27, 2022, Judge Jesus G. Bernal released an Order (1) granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees; and (2) vacating the October 31, 2022 Hearing. The Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and awarded Plaintiffs $161,918.25 in attorneys' fees. The Defendants seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Manuel Franco, et al. v. Central Transport LLC, Case No. 22-56048, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Nov. 14, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Central Transport LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 21, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 12, 2022; -- Transcript is due on January 9, 2023; -- Appellant Central Transport LLC opening brief is due onm February 21, 2023; -- Appellees Manuel Franco, Jose Rios and Luis Rios answering brief is due on March 23, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC is represented by: Christian J. Keeney, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 - and - Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL FRANCO, JOSE RIOS, and LUIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Hits Overcharging for Copies of Medical Records ------------------------------------------------------------------- VAUGHN COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTSWAP, LLC; CHARLESTON RADIOLOGISTS, P.A.; and ACS PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS SOUTHEAST, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2022CP1005274 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston Cty., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that Defendants systemically charge more for copies of patients' records than is permitted by South Carolina law when patients' medical records are requested by their attorneys. The Defendant is one of the largest medical records service providers in the U.S., copying and producing patient records for most of the nation's healthcare providers. The complaint asserts that the Defendants have taken the fees that healthcare providers may charge for copies of patient records and created a multi-billion-dollar industry which primarily profits from the fees charged to third parties, such as patients' attorneys. Throughout the state of South Carolina, Defendants have taken patients' attorneys' rights to access their medical records and unlawfully profited at patients' expense, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are individuals who have suffered and/or will continue to suffer the expense of Defendants' overcharging of their attorneys' copies of their own medical records.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com DEALER LOYALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Webb Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN WEBB, et al. v. DEALER LOYALTY PROTECTION, INC. , et al. Case No. 8:22-cv-00699-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery, including discovery February 22, 2024 motions, shall be completed by: -- The parties shall have until April 22, 2024 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings: -- A pretrial conference will be June 24, 2024. held on: -- The case is set for a jury trial: July 2, 2024 -- The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 – Private Mediation: -- The parties shall have until March 7, 2024 to conduct settlement proceedings: -- Plaintiff shall have until September 25, 2023 to file and have heard any class certification motion: Dealer Loyalty is a provider of aftermarket protection products serving automotive agents, dealers, and consumers throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order ated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AyFyhLat no extra charge.[CC] DECORATIVE PANEL: Burcar Allowed to File First Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATT BURCAR AND JOHN BUREK, Plaintiffs v. DECORATIVE PANEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-12054 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs chance to file a First Amended Complaint. On Aug. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against Decorative Panel International ("DPI"). They allege, among other things, that DPI has released, and on frequent separate, distinct, and additional occasions continues to release, noxious odors onto their property, which has caused property damage by private nuisance and negligence. On No. 18, 2022, DPI filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). One of bases for dismissal is that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state viable claims under the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Without expressing any view regarding the merits of the motion to dismiss, Judge Leitman grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a FAC in order to remedy the alleged deficiencies in their allegations identified by DPI in the motion to dismiss. He does not anticipate allowing them another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that they could now include in their FAC. Simply put, this is the Plaintiffs' opportunity to amend their allegations to cure the alleged deficiencies in their claims. By Dec. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs will file a notice on the docket in this action notifying the Court and DPI whether they will amend the Complaint. If they provide notice that they will be filing a FAC, they will file that amended pleading by no later than Jan. 16, 2023. If the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will not be filing a FAC, they will respond to the motion to dismiss by no later than Jan. 16, 2023. Finally, if the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will be filing a FAC, the Court will terminate without prejudice DPI's currently-pending motion to dismiss as moot. DPI may re-file a motion to dismiss directed at the FAC if it believes that such a motion is appropriate after reviewing that pleading. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynpw2jua from Leagle.com. DEDICATED NURSING: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Fortin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amanda Fortin, V. Dedicated Nursing Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02836-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order granting the parties motion to certify a collective for settlement purposes and expect that approximately 1,300 individuals will be eligible to participate in the settlement. The total settlement amount is $250,000. From this amount, each individual settlement payment reflects: (1) a potential payment for 100% of the damages related to the alleged improper deductions for rest breaks of twenty minutes or fewer during qualifying weeks; and (2) a potential pro rata payment for the meal period claim, calculated assuming all eligible participants had one missed meal break per qualifying week. The Representative Plaintiff Ms. Fortin will receive a $5, 000 service award in addition to her individual payment; the currently opted-in plaintiffs who release their claims will receive service awards of $1, 000. 00. The parties' joint motion is granted, including its request for attorney's fees and costs, to settle Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. The settlement agreement and proposed notice and claim forms are approved. The court dismisses the case with prejudice but retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The Representative Plaintiff sued Dedicated Nursing for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous state laws. The Representative Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to properly pay her and other similarly situated healthcare employees for overtime hours worked due to its meal break policies and practices. Representative Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant improperly deducted time for rest breaks of less than twenty minutes. Dedicated Nursing Associates is a professional medical staffing and home care firm headquartered in Delmont, PA, just outside of Pittsburgh. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tIXv9Iat no extra charge.[CC] GRANDE COSMETICS: Nixon Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products ------------------------------------------------------------ BRENDA NIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case 1:22-cv-06639-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2022) is a class action arising from the Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive sale of dangerous, unapproved beauty products that are, in reality, unapproved, dangerous drugs. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and sells beauty products. Among its products are GrandeLASH-MD Lash Enhancing Serum, GrandeBROW Brow Enhancing Serum, and GrandeHAIR Enhancement Serum (hereafter, the "Enhancement Serums" or the "Products"). The Defendant deceptively sells the Enhancement Serums, without a prescription, as cosmetics, not as drugs, or so-called "serums," with no identified active drug ingredient, and with no warning of serious side effects, says the suit. The Enhancement Serums, however, contain the active ingredient isopropyl cloprostenate ("ICP"), which is in the same class of compounds as the active ingredient found in prescription drugs that grows eyelashes, like Latisse -- which the FDA has approved for use only under the supervision of a physician due to the possible adverse effects associated with its active ingredient, the suit added. GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC is a cosmetics company domiciled and headquartered in Valhalla, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Perry Sues Over Replacement Motor Parts' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURTIS PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-02920 (D. Minn., Nov. 16, 2022) is action alleging Harley-Davidson's monopolization of the repair service market for the marketing, manufacture, and/or sale of consumer products, the warranties of which include statements that condition the continued validity of the warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service and authorized replacement parts (a "tying arrangement') or "unlawful repair restriction"). According to the complaint, the Defendant's tying arrangements that condition a consumer product's warranty on the use of a specific repair service violate state and federal law. Had the Plaintiff been aware that the repair restriction was unlawful, he would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less for it. The Tying Arrangements, which condition a consumer product's warranty on the use of a specific repair service or the use of authorized parts violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Sherman Act, and Clayton Act, the suit says. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP LLC produces and sells motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight motorcycles, and other accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and - Brian Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Brian Brooks, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Email: tostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com ietheridge@srkattorneys.com HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Order Dismissing Huston Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ELIZABETH HUSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1489 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court granting Hearst's motion to dismiss. Huston, a Good Housekeeping magazine subscriber, filed a putative class action complaint alleging a media conglomerate, Hearst, violated her right of publicity by offering to sell and selling mailing lists containing her, and 9.1 million other subscribers', identifying information. As redress, Huston seeks statutory damages as provided by the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) and an injunction requiring Hearst to obtain prior written consent before selling its subscribers' information in this manner. Huston alleges Hearst violated IRPA by offering for sale and selling mailing lists that identified its magazine subscribers, including Huston, by name, address, "gender, age, ethnicity, income, political party, religion, and charitable donation history," among other personal attributes. Two mailing lists are at issue: (1) the Good Housekeeping Mailing List and (2) the Hearst Corporate Masterfile & Enhanced Mailing List. The first contains personal information for "each of the 1,715,229 active U.S. subscribers to Good Housekeeping." The other contains the same information for "all 9,108,589 active U.S. subscribers to all of Hearst's various publications." While Hearst directed its offer to sell these mailing lists to the "community at large," the intended audience was data miners, aggregators, and brokers who use this information to target subscribers with direct-mail advertisements. IRPA provides: "A person may not use an individual's identity for commercial purposes during the individual's lifetime without having obtained previous written consent." According to Huston, offering to sell and selling these mailing lists violates IRPA because it constitutes using or holding out her identity for a commercial purpose. Hearst filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege a commercial purpose and thus failed to state an IRPA claim. The district court agreed and granted Hearst's motion. Huston declined to amend her complaint, the district court entered judgment in favor of Hearst, and Huston subsequently appealed. Hearst does not dispute that the mailing lists identify her and that she did not consent to being included on the mailing lists. As a result, this appeal centers on the last element -- whether Hearst used Huston's identity for a commercial purpose. Huston offers two alternative bases for reversing the district court's decision. First, she attempts to cobble together a connection between her identifying information and her purchase of the Good Housekeeping subscription. Second, she argues Hearst's conduct also runs afoul of IRPA's second commercial use prong, which concerns advertisement or promotion. Neither argument is persuasive. In sum, the Seventh Circuit finds that Huston failed to allege that Hearst used or held out her identity to effectuate the sale of the mailing lists. Because Huston did not allege that Hearst made any portion of her information available to prospective mailing list purchasers or used her identifying information to solicit purchasers or consummate the sale, Hearst did not use or hold out her information as is required for IRPA liability. Huston also failed to allege facts to support either of her alternative theories: that Hearst held out her information in connection with her purchase of a Good Housekeeping subscription or that Hearst used her identifying information to promote its own magazines. As a result, Huston's complaint fails to state a claim under IRPA. For these reasons explained, the Seventh Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cxn7w9w from Leagle.com. HOLY SEE: Blecher Appeals Sexual Abuse Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK BLECHER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Erik Blecher, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Holy See, AKA The Apostolic See, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03545-JPO, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, 30 alleged victims of childhood clergy sexual abuse, brought a putative class action against the Defendant, seeking money damages for negligence on the ground that it mandated a policy of secrecy for its bishops and dioceses in response to allegations and reports of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy. The Plaintiffs alleged abuse in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s by local priests or deacons of the Archdiocese of New York, the Diocese of Brooklyn, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the Diocese of Syracuse, and the Diocese of Ogdensburg. The Archdiocese of New York and the Dioceses of Brooklyn, Rockville Centre, Syracuse, and Ogdensburg (collectively "the New York Corporations") were all separate corporations organized and existing under New York law during the relevant time periods. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Holy See had a "secrecy policy," set forth in a document titled Crimen sollicitationis, that "mandated that the Bishop follow a specific course of action in response to an allegation of child sexual abuse." They claimed that the Holy See "knew or should have known that its strict secrecy policy would result in children in contact with Catholic clergy being sexually abused." Based on these allegations, each Plaintiff advances a single negligence claim predicated on the failure to warn children and parents of the dangers generally posed by "Catholic clergy" and the failure to report sex abusers to law enforcement and others. On September 29, 2021, the Holy See moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), for lack of standing, for failure to state a claim, and for improper venue as to the claims of 19 named Plaintiffs. On September 28, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge J. Paul Oetken. The Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Court directed the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Holy See and to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Erik v. The Holy See, Case No. 22-2840, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 31, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ERIK BLECHER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. HERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A. 1800 N Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (305) 931-2200 Defendant-Appellee THE HOLY SEE, AKA THE APOSTOLIC SEE, is represented by: Jennifer Bruno, Esq. 4768 Soquel Drive, Suite 206 Soquel, CA 95073 Telephone: (312) 961-8056 - and - Alexis Ivar Haller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXIS HALLER 7960b Soquel Drive, Suite 130 Aptos, CA 94708 Telephone: (831) 685-4730 - and - Jeffrey Stanley Lena, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. LENA 1152 Keith Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 Telephone: (510) 847-3181 IRVINE CO: Artificially Inflates Real Estate Prices, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE K. GODFREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC, REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02082 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendants have formed a cartel to artificially inflate the price of and artificially decrease the supply and output of multifamily residential real estate leases from competitive levels. According to the complaint, until approximately 2016, and potentially earlier, many of the nation's largest Lessors priced their leases based upon their own assessments of how to best compete against other Lessors. Lessors generally priced their units competitively to maximize occupancy (that is, maximizing output). Lessors had an incentive to lower 10 their prices to attract lessees away from their competitors, until all available leases were sold. In this way, competition drove rent levels to reflect available supply of rental units and lessee demand. Lessors also independently determined when to put 13 their leases on the market, resulting in unpredictable supply levels -- a natural phenomenon in a competitive market. When supply exceeded demand, Lessors cut prices. However, beginning in approximately 2016, and potentially earlier, Lessors replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. Lessors agreed to use a common third party that collected real-time pricing and supply levels, and then used that data to make unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations. Accordingly, by staggering lease renewals to artificially smooth out natural imbalances of supply and demand, RealPage and participating Lessors also eliminate any incentive to undercut or cheat on the cartel, says the suit. The conspiracy Plaintiff challenges is unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff brings this action to recover their damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others similarly situated. Irvine is a manager of multifamily real estate in the United States, with over 63,000 units under management in five states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Ferrell Alman, Jr., Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: falman@vwlawfirm.com ISS FACILITY: N.D. Cal. Refuses Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLAUDIA GARCIA, Plaintiff v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies Garcia's motion for class Certification. Garcia brought the action on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of Defendants ISS Facility Services, Inc., ISS Facility Services California, Inc., and Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., alleging various violations of wage and hours laws. ISS Facility Services, Inc. is a "leading international facilities maintenance and staffing company" with nearly 400,000 employees worldwide. Defendant ISS Facility Services California, Inc. appears to be the California subsidiary through which it acts in this state—Garcia refers to the entities collectively as "ISS." Garcia was employed by ISS as a "janitor and custodial detailer" from approximately May of 2018 to August of 2019. Garcia was assigned to work at a facility owned and operated by defendant Broadridge in El Dorado Hills. Broadridge was a client of ISS, who contracted with it to provide janitorial services. Garcia alleges ISS and Broadridge were her "joint employers," and the complaint alleges its claims for relief against both of them. Garcia's claims fall into four categories: 1) Garcia alleges she and other employees were underpaid because of "rounding." She asserts the rounding practice resulted in both minimum wage violations and overtime pay violations. 2) Garcia states she and other employees were not compensated for time spent before their shifts clearing security and walking to their work area. Again, Garcia contends this resulted in both minimum wage and overtime violations. 3) Garcia contends she and other employees were not provided the required meal and rest breaks, particularly because they were not permitted to leave the premises during rest breaks, and therefore remained "under the control" of the employer. 4) Garcia asserts the wage statements she and other employees received failed to satisfy the requirements of Labor Code 226 because they did not show the total hours worked during each pay period. Based on those underlying claims, Garcia also advances what she calls "derivative claims" for failure to pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful business practices. Garcia first proposes simply certifying a class of "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants ISS Facility Services, Inc. and ISS Facility Services California, Inc. ("Defendants") in California at any time during the period from Oct. 24, 2015 through the date of class certification ("Class Period")." The first problem with this proposal, according to Judge Seeborg, is that it leaves uncertain the status of Broadridge, which is alleged to be "joint employer" with ISS at Broadridge's El Dorado facility, but not at any other locations where ISS provides staffing in California. Second, Garcia has not otherwise shown that she can pursue the alleged claims on behalf of employees at facilities other than Broadridge. Third, as Garcia appears to recognize in her alternative proposal to create several different classes and subclasses, defining a class of "all current and former non-exempt employees" presupposes that all the employees were subject to all four of the alleged categories of violations. While nothing in theory precludes Garcia from so alleging, it is unclear whether she is prepared to take on the burden of making such a showing. Garcia's alternative proposal for separate classes and subclasses, however, is also flawed, Judge Seeborg holds. She suggests the following definitions: 1. Minimum Wage Class: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period. a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who were not paid by Defendants based on employee clock in and clock out times. b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period. 2. Overtime Class: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long. a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who were not paid by Defendants based on employee clock in and clock out times, and worked one shift over eight hours long. b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long. 3. Rest Break Class: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours long. 4. Meal Period Class: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long. a. First Meal Break Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long. b. Second Meal Period Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees at Defendants' California facilities during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over ten hours long. 5. Wage Statement Class: all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period. As evident, the proposed 1(b) and 2(b) subclass definitions are identical to the definitions for the primary classes (1) and (2), respectively. Likewise, 4(a) is identical to the primary class (4), Judge Seeborg finds. Moreover, Class (5) is titled differently, but its definition is otherwise identical to the definition for primary class (1). The resulting ambiguity and lack of clarity is not tenable. As part of its attack on Garcia's showing as to "numerosity," ISS argues that the claims must be limited to the Broadridge facility where Garcia worked. While ISS is correct that Broadridge is not even potentially liable as a "joint employer" for what happens at facilities of other ISS clients, Judge Seeborg finds that Garcia is not arguing to the contrary. That said, Garcia has not made a sufficient showing that the commonality and predominance requirements can be satisfied with a class extending to all of ISS' client workplaces. If the class is limited to employees at Broadridge, Garcia faces a potential numerosity issue, Judge Seeborg points out. As Garcia's individual case shows, it also is possible that many or even most of the employees who originally were subject to arbitration agreements may have later signed superseding mediation agreements, without a mandatory arbitration provision. The burden of establishing numerosity lies with Garcia. In the event she brings a renewed motion for class certification, she should make an affirmative showing as to the number of potential class members who are not subject to binding arbitration provisions. Finally, Judge Seeborg holds that beyond repeatedly asserting that it can be done, Garcia has provided little information as to what actual "common proof" she proposes to use at trial to answer any of the common questions. For these reasons, Garcia's motion for class certification and her motion to strike ISS' declarations offered in opposition are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdetwep3 from Leagle.com. JOHN HIESTER: Beard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tracie Beard filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated November 9, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled TRACIE BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN HIESTER CHEVROLET, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-CV-173-D, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. The lawsuit, filed on April 14, 2021, is a putative class action asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has violated the TCPA by "using prerecorded messages to market its goods and services to individuals' cellular phone numbers without express written consent." As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank of the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, dismissed without prejudice the Defendant's motion to bifurcate or, alternatively, to stay discovery. The Defendant had argued "there are multiple flaws in the Plaintiff's individual claim, requiring dismissal of her lawsuit." It represented "a dispositive motion is forthcoming," with an anticipated filing within 30 days. The Defendant contended that class discovery should not be allowed to proceed as the anticipated motion has the potential to terminate all claims, including the class claim asserted against Defendant. On March 30, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court granted on November 9, 2022 through an order signed by District Judge James C. Dever III. The court entered judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff's action. The appellate case is captioned as Tracie Beard v. John Hiester Chevrolet, LLC, Case No. 22-2162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that opening brief and appendix is due on December 27, 2022 and response brief is due on January 23, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TRACIE BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 - and - David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq. VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street P. O. Box 7376 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Defendant-Appellee JOHN HIESTER CHEVROLET, LLC is represented by: Robert Anthony Buzzard, Esq. BUZZARD LAW FIRM 728 South Main Street P. O. Box 700 Lillington, NC 27546 Telephone: (910) 892-3900 - and - Elisa Cyre Salmon, Esq. SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP P. O. Box 185 Lillington, NC 27546 Telephone: (910) 984-1012 KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Sues Over Mislabeled Flavored Drink Mixes ------------------------------------------------------------ PEGGY TATUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY and KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07180 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2022) is a national consumer class action for violations of state consumer protection, unfair and unlawful competition, and false advertising laws including Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; common-law breach of warranties; negligent misrepresentation; and fraud by omission, arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful acts. The Defendants manufacture, label, distribute, advertise, and sell a wide variety of flavored drink mixes under the "Crystal Light" brand. The Products' front-of-package labels expressly claim that they are flavored with "Natural flavor" or "Natural flavor with other natural flavor" alongside the names and pictorial representations of fruits and berries. According to the complaint, the Products' labels omit all the required artificial-flavor disclosures. The Defendants' websites expressly as well as implicitly represent that the Products contain only natural flavors. The Defendants intend that the packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme for the Products give consumers the false impression that they are buying a premium all-natural product instead of a product that is artificially flavored, says the suit. The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products multiple times and was deceived by Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of consumers nationwide to remedy Defendants' unlawful acts. On behalf of the Class and Subclass members, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia: (1) cease packaging, distributing, advertising, and selling the Products in violation of state consumer protection laws; (2) inform consumers regarding the Products' misbranding; (3) award Plaintiff and the other Class members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages; and (4) pay all costs of suit, expenses, and attorney fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - David Elliot, Esq. Michael Dobbs, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC 2028 3rd Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 468-4865 LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Sues Over Beverages' Bacterial Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTA SINICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, TRU ASEPTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2022), alleges that negligent oversight of the Defendant led to the recall of certain beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes, and other supplements due to Cronobacter Sakazakii bacteria contamination concerns. The recalled products included in products labeled under the brands Oatly(TM), Stumptown(TM), Glucerna(TM), Intelligentsia(TM), Aloha(TM), Kate Farms(TM), and Premier Protein(TM). The Defendants state that the supplements and products that its sells are "support health", "nutritional", and often "alternatives" to other products, such as dairy. The Defendants' packing and labeling further emphasize quality and safe ingredients that are suitable for consumption by physically vulnerable persons, young children, and those who have specific dietary restrictions or seek a healthier lifestyle, the Plaintiff adds. On August 1, 2022, the Defendants recalled 53 products due to potential bacterial contamination. Particularly, the bacteria Cronobacter Sakazakii were mentioned as a possible Contaminant. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and Center for Disease Control ("CDC") have declared bacteria, particularly Cronobacter Sakazakii, to be particularly harmful to all ages of persons, particularly those seeking a health supplement and the elderly, noting that death is often possible. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that they purchased Protein, Supplements, Additives, and Drinks that were worth less than the price they paid given the risk and/or presence of harmful ingredients and that they would not have purchased at all had they known of the risk and/or presence of Cronobacter Sakazakii, and/or other ingredients that do not conform to the products' labels, packaging, advertising and statements, the suit claims. The Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and any other just and proper relief available thereunder for Defendants' failure to deliver goods conforming to their express warranties and resulting breach, the suit further alleges. Lyons Magnus LLC, is a food service corporation with its headquarters in Fresno, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com MARK CUBAN: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RPIERCE ROBERTSON, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file Response, if necessary, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class on liability issue. The Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Certify despite being fully aware of the Defendants' intention to file a case-dispositive Motion to Dismiss by the Court's November 18, 2022 deadline and equally informed of Defendants' position that any class certification motion would be premature and should not be filed or considered before this Court rules on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Alternatively, while Defendants submit that the Motion to Stay should be granted, in the event the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Stay Consideration of Class Certification Issues, Defendants respectfully request an extension of 30 days from that ruling to respond to the Motion to Certify. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EXO50xat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher E. Knight, Esq. Esther E. Galicia, Esq. Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor, 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com egalicia@fowler-white.com atifford@fowler-white.com - and - Stephen A. Best, Esq. Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 536-1755 E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com - and - Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Esq. Jessica N. Meyers, esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 11036 Telephone: (212) 209-4930 E-mail: swissner-gross@brownrudnick.com jmeyers@brownrudnick.com The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Barbara C. Lewis, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Stephen Neal Zack, Esq. Ursula Ungaro, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 S.E. 2nd St., Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail:szack@bsfllp.com uungaro@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com MARTINO CARTIER: Grazioli FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Barbara Grazioli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martino Cartier, Martino Cartier Salon, in their individual capacity and trading as MARTINO, Case No. BUR-L-59-00022 was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 4, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05868-RMB-SAK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Martino Cartier -- https://martinocartier.com/ -- is a beauty salon in Washington Township, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Gerard Masciocchi, Esq. KEAVENEY LEGAL GROUP 1000 Maplewood Drive, Suite 202, Suite G100 Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Phone: (856) 831-7119 Fax: (856) 249-0157 Email: tmasesq@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Samuel B. Fineman, Esq. COHEN FINEMAN, LLC 1999 Marlton Pike E, Suite 4 Cherry HilL, NJ 08003 Phone: (856) 304-0699 Email: sfineman@cohenfineman.com MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Kayla Smart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a Florida Corporation; SEFNCO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00328496 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 18, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-at-01198. The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Sick Time Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Fax: 925.946.9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and – Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Fax: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com MBX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MBX LLC. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBX LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09802 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MBX (formerly Memebox) -- https://us.memebox.com/ -- is a global multi-brand beauty and personal care startup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Files Motion to Quash Subpoena ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Robert Kelly, Eryn Learned, and Kerry Wano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 9:22-mc-81814-AMC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2022), Kelly files a request for judicial notice support of Defendant The McClatchy Company, LLC's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Biscayne Marketing, Inc. The complete docket and all items contained therein for JCK Legacy Company, et al. (F/KIA The McClatchy Company), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 20-10418 (MEW), including but not limited to the Asset Purchase Agreement.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vincent F. Alexander, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAA & SMITH LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-728-1280 Fax: 954-728-1282 Email: vincent.alexander@lewisbrisbois.com MDL 2836: Parties Directed to Proceed with Class Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2836), Case No. 2:18-md-02836-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Beach Smith entered an order: 1. overruling the Defendants' Objections; and 2. affirming hearing on Magistrate Judge Miller's R&R at the August 17, 2022. Accordingly, the parties are directed to proceed with discovery pursuant to Judge Miller's well-reasoned R&R. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i10HLbat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Arthur Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04382 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 17, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Arthur case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F1RefSat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Atwood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atwood v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04516 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 31, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Atwood case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V5vUvrat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Bedell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman Bedell v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04514 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Bedell case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tVdm50at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Clayton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed April 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Clayton case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VtFCYlat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Cohen Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C., Filed March 31, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Cohen case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V6QCLdat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Duranko Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021 ), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Duranko case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F1S7Feat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Estes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Estes case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GHVpymat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Faszczewski ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Faszczewski case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GGsr1Rat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Gignac Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gignac, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00419 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Gignac case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OyHbBPat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Glasper Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasper v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04393 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Glasper case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EWJrzMat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Graifman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Graifman case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AJMngGat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Imhof Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Imhof case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EZeURLat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Jobe Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Community Medical Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 5, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Jobe case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i0d0Hwat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Lofton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lofton v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04510 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Lofton case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GOyMspat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mandel Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Mandel case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AHUydlat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mesa Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mesa, et al., v. Enloe Medical Center, Case No. 3:21-cv-01872 (D.S.C., Filed June 17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Mesa case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EDSVP5at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mitchell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Mitchell case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AEBAUUat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Roth Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roth v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00053 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Roth case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gvNeuoat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sheth Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheth v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04511 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Sheth case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i0ooTOat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Simkins Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Simkins case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U4didOat no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Zielinski -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset of claims in their class certification motion: (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence; (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100, et seq.; (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.; (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.; (6) New York's General Business Law section 349. The case management order previously entered by this Court on June 2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that Massachusetts law shall apply." Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds. During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing. The Zielinski case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops tech solutions and non-profit software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U3mLCbat no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Walt Winston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Data Systems, Inc. doing business as: Medical Revenue Service, Case No. 3:22-cv-02692 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Medical Data Systems, Inc. -- https://meddatsys.com/ -- revenue cycle management services. The Company offers accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Lovisa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Lovisa, Lois Lovisa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-05933-ENV-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. Quat Law Offices 373 Winch St. Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: (508) 872-1261 Email: ken@quatlaw.com - and - Michael Robert Reese, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE RICHMAN, LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com cmoore@reesellp.com META PLATFORMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Klein Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order setting the following amended case management deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline -- Substantial completion December 19, 2022 of document production for already-served document requests: -- Relevant market tutorial: February 28, 2023 -- Fact discovery cut-off: June 23, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' class certification July 7, 2023 expert disclosures: -- Defendant's class certification August 4, 2023 expert disclosures: -- Plaintiffs' class certification September 1, 2023 reply expert disclosures: -- Last day to file class September 15, 2023 certification and class Daubert motions: -- Last day to file oppositions to Oct. 13, 2023 class certification and class Daubert motions: -- Last day to file replies to Nov. 3, 2023 class certification and class Daubert motions: -- Last day to file joint Nov. 10, 2023 submission for class certification concurrent expert proceeding: -- Class certification Dec. 5, 2023, concurrent expert proceeding: -- Class certification Dec. 14, 2023 hearing: -- Bilateral merits expert Jan. 12, 2024 disclosures: -- Bilateral merits rebuttal Feb. 9, 2024 expert disclosures: -- Merits expert discovery March 15, 2024 cut-off: -- Last day to file April 5, 2024 dispositive and merits Daubert motions: -- Last day to file May 3, 2024 oppositions to dispositive and merits Daubert motions: -- Last day to file replies to May 21, 2024 dispositive and merits Daubert motions: -- Last day to file joint May 28, 2024 submission for merits concurrent expert: Meta is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California. The company owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, among other products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ExsLNPat no extra charge.[CC] METZ CULINARY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perta Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSH PERTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT LLC. d/b/a METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT; NO LIMIT STEAKS LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE; METZ ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a T.G.I. FRIDAYS; LEHIGH VALLEY PUBS, INC. d/b/a T.G.I. FRIDAYS; and JEFFREY C. METZ, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-04595 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 16, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, unpaid wages, including overtime, due to invalid tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and (5) attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Perta was employed by the Defendants as barback. METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT LLC. own and operate franchise restaurants in Pennsylvania, known as Ruth's Chris Steak House, and T.G.I. Friday's. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MG BILLING: Joint Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vandiver -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES VANDIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MG BILLING LIMITED dba PROBILLER, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-02960-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell entered an joint proposed amended scheduling order as follows: -- Disclosure of Anticipated November 29, 2022 Fields of Expert Testimony: -- Fact Discovery Cut-off April 10, 2023 -- Expert Witness Designation April 24, 2023 -- Designate Rebuttal Experts May 24, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cut-off June 30, 2023 -- Class Certification Deadline July 31, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XjnIJoat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com The Defendant is represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. VENABLE LLP 600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 344-4220 E-mail: ANRothman@Venable.com - and - Christopher L. Limpus, Esq. LIMPUS & LIMPUS, LLC 7723 Arlington Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Telephone: (303) 731-9540 E-mail: chris@limpuslaw.com MICHIGAN: Sanders Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------- JASON L. SANDERS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Paul Scott, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Heidi Washington, as director of Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on August 11, 2022. The nature of suit was stated as prison condition. On Sept. 19, 2022, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Robert J. Jonker. The appellate case is captioned Paul Scott, et al. v. Heidi Washington, et al., Case No. 22-1979, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JASON L. SANDERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appears pro se. MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Adeel Ashraf, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINISO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, GUOFE YE, SAIYIN ZHANG, MINXIN LI, DONALD J. PUGLISI, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., and PUGLISI & ASSOCIATES, Case No. 1:22-cv-09864-ER was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York on Nov. 18, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09864 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities. MINISO Group Holding Limited -- https://www.miniso.com/ -- operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, retails home decor, small electronics, textile, accessories, beauty tools, toys, cosmetics, personal care, snacks, fragrance and perfumes, and stationery and gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MISSFRESH LIMITED: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Juan Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MISSFRESH LIMITED, ZHENG XU, JJUN WANG, YUAN SUN, ZHAOHUI LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED, ICBC INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, ABCI SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, GF SECURITIES (HONG KONG) BROKERAGE LIMITED, FUTU INC., TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED , and COGENCY GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09836-JSR was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York on Nov. 18, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09836 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities. Missfresh Limited -- https://ir.missfresh.cn/ is an innovator and leader in China's neighborhood retail industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- Mosaic Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company intends to defend itself from the Cruz class action. On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a medical monitoring program funded by the defendants. On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to dismiss that Mosaic filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with prejudice on November 15, 2021. On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is a single-source supplier of phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. MY JOURNEY TRANSPORT: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Journey Transport, et al. The case is styled as Kristine Kaestner, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. My Journey Transport, Journey Gurney LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00330013-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." My Journey Transport -- https://myjourneytransport.com/ -- is a handicapped transportation service in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-703-8985 Fax: 818-703-8984 Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com NATURAL SAPPHIRE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Natural Sapphire Company. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Natural Sapphire Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-07071 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Natural Sapphire Company -- https://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/ -- specialize in providing our customers with the first quality natural sapphires and a one of a kind jewelry experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NELSON AND NELSON: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelson and Nelson Antiques, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nelson and Nelson Antiques, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07074 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nelson and Nelson Antiques -- https://www.nelsonandnelsonantiques.com/ -- has been an antique silver dealer in NYC for over 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NEW HORIZONS: Summary Judgment in Brockington Class Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALVIN BROCKINGTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly-Situated, Appellant v. NEW HORIZONS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Respondent, Case No. SC99512 (Mo.), the Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc, reverses the circuit court's summary judgment to New Horizon. Brockington, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated employees, appeals the circuit court's entry of summary judgment for New Horizons. His class action claims New Horizons violated the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act by failing to pay its employees the prevailing wage for work performed on properties in Kansas City, Missouri. The Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas City, Missouri ("PIEA") is a public body created pursuant to an ordinance passed in 1968 by the city council of Kansas City, Missouri. PIEA's stated purpose is to promote redevelopment of designated blighted areas in Kansas City. In 2005, PIEA prepared a development plan for an area of midtown Kansas City. The city council approved the plan. As early as 2006, city officials began ongoing development discussions with The Silliman Group, an affiliate of Antheus Capital, and provided incentives for Silliman to acquire properties in the area within the amended plan. During this time, PIEA worked directly with Silliman to conceive the Commonwealth Project. The project's objective was the redevelopment of a portion of the area within the amended plan. PIEA solicited proposals from developers to complete the project, including Commonwealth-KC Corp., Inc., also an affiliate of Antheus Capital, submitted a proposal. On Feb. 28, 2011, PIEA accepted Commonwealth-KC's proposal, and the parties entered into a Redevelopment Agreement on the same date. The project was also to be financed by way of tax-exempt bonds in the amount of $38 million, state tax credits of $4.268 million, federal tax credits of $4.554 million, and Commonwealth-KC's equity of nearly $5.974 million. In addition, Commonwealth-KC was to receive a property tax abatement on the properties for 18 years, estimated to be worth more than $1.97 million. In a letter to the Kansas City mayor, PIEA touted the project as planning to provide 150 temporary construction jobs paying prevailing wages. PIEA also claimed in the letter that Commonwealth-KC would maintain 20 percent of the units as affordable units for tenants at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The parties entered into a Development Contract in December 2011. Commonwealth Holdings I, LLC, another affiliate of Antheus Capital, was also party to the contract and was referred to as "Owner" of the designated real estate in the project. The contract required Commonwealth-KC to pay or caused to be paid a prevailing wage to all crafts employed for construction work as part of the Project" including that such wages be paid by both the general contractor and all subcontractors. PIEA was to engage Strategic Workplace Solutions to monitor compliance with "among other things, the Prevailing Wage Laws." For Commonwealth-KC to acquire the property tax abatement as contemplated in the agreement, the contract required Commonwealth-KC convey title to the project upon its substantial completion to the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas City, Missouri Redevelopment Corporation ("PIEA Redevelopment"). At the time that PIEA entered into the agreement and the contract, neither PIEA nor the city owned the properties comprising the project. However, Commonwealth Holdings conveyed title for at least 10 redeveloped properties to PIEA Redevelopment on various dates in 2012 and 2013. Construction took place during 2011 through 2013. Throughout construction, Peter Cassel, Silliman's director of community development, regularly talked with PIEA's executive director about the progress being made on the project. Cassel also periodically attended PIEA board meetings to speak about the project's progress. Commonwealth-KC selected Haren Laughlin Construction as the project's general contractor. But it was Silliman that hired New Horizons to perform asbestos abatement on the project. The work orders from Silliman to New Horizons specifically excluded payment of prevailing wages. New Horizons believed its work "completely disconnected" from the project because it did not contract with PIEA, Commonwealth-KC, or Haren Laughlin Construction, and the KC grant was to cover only "masonry, window, HVAC, electrical, and plumbing costs." Brockington, along with 44 other New Horizons employees, performed construction work on the project from 2011 through 2012, including asbestos abatement and window work. New Horizons did not pay Brockington or the other employees prevailing wages. The workers complained. In July 2013, Colleen White, head of Strategic Workplace Solutions, met with PIEA's Executive Director. Three weeks later, the executive director sent White a letter on behalf of PIEA informing her that only subcontractors hired by Haren Laughlin Construction were entitled to prevailing wages. In November 2013, Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 264, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated, filed a petition in the Jackson County circuit court alleging New Horizons violated the State's prevailing wage act and minimum wage law. In January 2017, Brockington was joined as a party and substituted for the union as the class representative. Brockington's "Amended Class Action Petition" included the same allegations as the original petition. Both Brockington and New Horizons filed motions seeking summary judgment. The circuit court overruled Brockington's motion, sustained New Horizons' motion as to all Brockington's claims and entered summary judgment for New Horizons accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed. Brockington filed an application for transfer with this Court, which the Court granted pursuant to article V, section 10 of the Missouri Constitution. The Supreme Court opines that New Horizons is correct to suggest some of the facts set out in the complaint considered in isolation are insufficient to trigger application of the prevailing wage act. But these separate facts must be considered together with all the other relevant facts developed in the summary judgment record. The summary judgment record contains evidence that, taken together, creates a reasonable inference Brockington was employed "on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction." Because the circuit court entered summary judgment for New Horizons, Brockington is entitled to the benefit of this reasonable inference. While the facts contained in the summary judgment record create a reasonable inference that Brockington was employed "on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction," the Supreme Court opines that this record does not preclude a fact finder from reaching the opposite conclusion. Rather, the evidence developed in the record produced contrary inferences as to whether Brockington was employed on behalf of a public body engaged in the construction. A reasonable inference can be drawn that Brockington was employed on behalf of a public body engaged in the construction, but a reasonable inference can also be drawn that he was not. Because the summary judgment record supports two plausible but contrary inferences as to whether Brockington was employed on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction, a genuine dispute of material fact exists. Accordingly, New Horizons is not entitled to summary judgment. Ultimately, the fact finder must determine if Brockington was employed on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction of the Project. Because the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to New Horizons, the Supreme Court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. All concur. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/43vj56au from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: WOCEJ Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WOMEN OF COLOR FOR EQUAL JUSTICE, et al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' applications for a preliminary injunction; and 2. denying Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their preliminary injunction papers. The Plaintiffs are warned that any further requests for emergency or preliminary relief premised on issues that the Court has already decided will expose them to sanctions for engaging in vexatious litigation. The plaintiffs here -- an organization called Women of Color for Equal Justice and a number of current and former employees of the City of New York -- filed this lawsuit against the City, its Mayor and Commissioner of Public Health, and its Departments of Education and of Health and Mental Hygiene. Plaintiffs challenge the City's orders requiring certain employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. They have applied for a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from enforcing those requirements. Because Plaintiffs have failed to show a sufficient likelihood on the merits, those applications are denied. Between August and December 2021, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a series of nine orders requiring certain individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of various City agencies who allege they lost their jobs or were placed on unpaid leave for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, or who were "coerced" into becoming vaccinated. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages. On September 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i9jX9zat no extra charge.[CC] NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Reimer Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUHI REIMER, individually individualy and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01222 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 16, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act. NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC provides investment advisory services. The Company specializes in financial planning, analysis, asset allocation, and fund management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Extension of Time to File Response OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply as follows: -- Plaintiffs shall serve reply brief Dec. 15, 2022 to Rule 23 motion, rebuttal expert reports, oppositions to Defendants' Daubert motions, and Daubert motions as to Defendants' class certification experts by: -- Defendants shall serve oppositions to April 12, 2023 Plaintiffs' Daubert motions and replies supporting their own Daubert motions by: -- The Plaintiffs shall serve replies in May 31, 2023 support of their Daubert motions and file fully briefed Rule 23 motion and parties' Daubert motions by: The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability. Northrop Grumman is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company.[CC] OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ocugen 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 8, 2022, that the Company intends to defend itself from a stockholder derivate suit. In August 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its agents and the nominal defendant Ocugen in the Court (Case No. 2:21-cv-03876) that purported to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act, based on facts and circumstances relating to the securities class action lawsuits and seeking contribution and indemnification in connection with claims asserted in the securities class action lawsuits. In September 2021, a second stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its agents and the nominal defendant Ocugen in the Court (Case No. 2:21-cv-04169) that purported to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act, based on the same allegations as the first complaint. The parties to both stockholder derivative lawsuits have stipulated to the consolidation of the two stockholder derivative lawsuits and also have submitted to the Court in each action a proposed order requesting a stay of the litigation pending a decision on any motion to dismiss filed in the securities class action lawsuits, which the Court entered in April 2022. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Ocugen, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing a pipeline of innovative therapies that address rare and underserved eye diseases. The Company is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Spoto ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spoto v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Misrolav Rovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- Venue Motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 7.1 (a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the assigned Magistrate Judge. -- Jurisdiction motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 7.1 (a)(1) and are to be made returnable before Judge D'Agostino. -- Any motion to join any person as a to this action shall be made on or before January 3, 2023. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before January 3, 2023. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before January 30,2023. -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by December 9, 2022. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before December 29, 2023. -- No later than October 2, 2023, plaintiff(s) shall identify any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). -- Motion for conditional certification are to be filed on or before December 16, 2022. -- Motion for class certification are to be filed on or before May 31, 2023. -- Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by April 28, 2023. Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout retailers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TStgrwat no extra charge.[CC] OPW FUELING COMPONENTS: Canales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ovis Matamoros Canales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO (E.D.N.C., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against Defendant seeking statutory overtime wages and the appropriate overtime premiums for all overtime work required under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, for not fully compensating employees who work or have worked at the Defendant OPW. Despite notifying Plaintiffs of their non-exempt hourly status, overtime eligibility, hourly rates, promised bonuses, and shift differentials through an employee handbook and earning statements consistent with the NCWHA, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not always paid for all of their hours worked, (including time spent working through lunch breaks), promised bonuses, and either did not receive overtime premium at time and one-half for certain hours worked over 40 per week, and/or, did not receive the appropriate premium overtime rate because the Defendant OPW did not incorporate all bonus earnings and/or shift differentials in determining the appropriate regular-rate for overtime compensation when Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the FLSA or the NCWHA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a machine operator and welder. OPW primarily operates in the fluid-handling operations industry including to design and manufacture clean energy solutions, including loading systems, rail and transport tank truck equipment, integrated flexible piping and secondary containment pumps, valves, fittings, underground and above ground storage tank equipment, spill containers, overfill prevention devices, swivels, breakaways, and fueling nozzles for virtually all fuel types, including gasoline, diesel, alternative fuels, LPG, Hydrogen and CNG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast Producers, et al. The case is styled as Griselda Ramirez, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Pacific Coast Producers, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010664 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pacific Coast Producers -- https://pacificcoastproducers.com/ -is an agricultural cooperative.[BN]- The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J Hyun, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN 1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (949) 596-4782 Email: dh@danielhyunlaw.com PACTIV PACKAGING: Yanez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pactiv Packaging, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christina M. Yanez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Pactiv Packaging, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010477 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 15, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pactiv -- https://www.pactiv.com/ -- is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and foodservice products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets, restaurants, institutions and foodservice outlets across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Parties File FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CARDENAS on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PANADERIA CONTRERAS, INC., PANADERIA CONTRERAS No. 2, INC., and MANUEL CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00599-NYW-SKC (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to adopt their stipulation to the conditional collective action certification of Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to dissemination of the form of notice. The Court may order the defendant to provide contact information for employees that may be eligible to participate in the collective action, and may approve a form of notice to be sent to all of those individuals." In the operative First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff pleaded substantial allegations of company-wide violations of the FLSA. For example, Plaintiff pleaded that "Defendants refused to pay their employees overtime premiums for overtime hours worked" and that "Defendants failed to pay their employees at least the Colorado minimum hourly wage." Finally, the Parties have agreed that Defendants will provide Plaintiff with the names and last known email and physical addresses of all members of the putative collective action within 14 days of the Court's order conditionally certifying the collective and approving the proposed notice. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GKm7qpat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com The Defendants are represented by: Lee E. Christian, Esq. LEE CHRISTIAN LAW 415 Mason Court, Building 2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 484-0300 E-mail: lee@leechristianlaw.com PAPA JOHN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Schnur Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN SCHNUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S, Case No. 2:22-cv-01620-AJS (W.D. Pa., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant wiretaps the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Accordingly, Papa John's procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on Papa John's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Papa John's request, the Plaintiff claims. Papa John's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Papa John's website for the entire duration of their website interaction, the Plaintiff adds. In addition to the privacy invasions caused by the diversion of user communications with websites to third-party Session Replay Providers, Session Replay Code also exposes website visitors to identity theft, online scams, and other privacy threats, the lawsuit contends. The Plaintiff seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and cost. Papa John is an American pizza restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com kelly@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com elizabeth@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com PAPARAZZI LLC: Loses Bids to Consolidate Teske and 4 Other Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LORI TESKE and TERRI FRANKLIN, Plaintiffs v. PAPARAZZI, LLC; MISTY KIRBY; TRENT KIRBY; CHANTEL REEVE; and RYAN REEVE, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00035-DBB-PK (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denies the Motions to Consolidate. The action involves a multilevel-marketing company that uses a nationwide network of "Consultants" to sell jewelry and accessory items to "End Consumers." The Plaintiffs were Consultants of Paparazzi. The Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action Complaint on behalf of themselves and other Paparazzi Consultants alleging claims against Paparazzi and its founders for: (1) violation of the Lanham Act Section 43(a); (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Utah Code Ann. Section 70A-2-314; (3) breach of contract; and (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The thrust behind the Plaintiffs' claims are allegations that the Defendants misrepresented Paparazzi's products as being lead- and nickel-free. The Defendants seek to consolidate this action and four other proposed class action cases brought against Paparazzi by End Consumers of Paparazzi's products: Johnson et al. v. Paparazzi, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00439-JNP-DBP (D. Utah); Gilbert v. Paparazzi, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-484-TC-DAO (D. Utah); Burgess v. Paparazzi, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00538-BSJ (D. Utah); Hollins v. Paparazzi, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00553-JNP-DBP (D. Utah) (collectively, "End Consumer Cases"). The Plaintiffs initially opposed consolidation, but later stipulated to consolidate the cases for pretrial matters. The plaintiffs in the End Consumer Cases also do not oppose consolidation. Judge Barlow notes that the five cases for which consolidation is sought have common factual questions regarding Paparazzi's representations and the chemical makeup of Paparazzi's products. However, unlike the End Consumer Cases, he says this action involves Consultant Plaintiffs and includes claims against Paparazzi's founders. The legal questions and applicable substantive law also differ among the five cases. And consolidation is unnecessary for judicial economy or to address the parties' desire to coordinate discovery and to avoid a potential for inconsistent rulings. Rather, transferring the cases filed in the District of Utah to a single district judge will achieve these considerations and will avoid the drawbacks and unworkable aspects of the convoluted consolidation the parties propose. Therefore, Judge Barlow denies the Motions to Consolidate. He gives the parties notice of the Court's intent to transfer the End Consumer Cases to him. Any objection to such transfers must be filed (in this action) within 14 days. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8asmbb from Leagle.com. PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Parker Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON PARKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated V. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Case No. CACE-22-017019 (Fla. Cir., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving collection letter. On a date better known by the Defendant, the Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff, of which was internally dated September 19, 2022, in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Defendant identifies September 14,2022, as the itemization date of the Consumer Debt in the Collection Letter. The Represented Itemization Date is not the Last Statement Date associated with the Consumer Debt, the suit says. The Defendant violated section 1692e of the FDCPA by using the Represented Itemization Date in the Collection Letter because the Represented Itemization Date is not one of the five dates permitted by section 1006.34(b)(3)of Reg F and using the Represented Itemization Date as though it was one of the five dates permitted by section 1006.34(b)(3)of Reg F is false,deceptive,and/or otherwise misleading to the least sophisticated consumer, the suit added. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the FDCPA Class seeks to recover statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. section 1692k; costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k; and any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection law firm that targets people who have fallen behind on their consumer credit and other accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street,Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com PC CONNECTION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PC Connection, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PC Connection, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09821 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PC Connection, doing business as Connection -- https://www.connection.com/ -- provides information technology services and technology solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal PETROCHEM INSULATION: Boyuk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the current deadline for his motion for class certification from December 12, 2022 to February 3, 2022 to allow the parties to mediate this case on January 11, 2023. Counsel for the Defendant Petrochem has indicated that it concurs in the relief sought in this motion. This motion should be granted for the following reasons: 1. On February 24, 2022, the Court held a scheduling conference with the parties and entered an Initial Case Management Order, see Doc. 11, setting forth the following initial scheduling deadlines concerning Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. In early June, 2022, the Court extended certain deadlines of the Case Management Order by 90 days at the request of the parties. These included: -- Class Certification discovery shall be completed on or before October 27, 2022; -- Plaintiffs' expert and/or third-party data analyst reports as to class certification shall be filed on or before September 22, 2022. -- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts and/or third-party data analysts shall be completed on or before October 27, 2022. -- Defendant's expert reports as to class certification shall be filed on or before October 10, 2022. -- Depositions of Defendant's experts shall be completed on or before October 27, 2022. Petrochem is a construction company that provides insulation, scaffolding, and metal structuring services. A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tYvbQwat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 - and - Timothy Conboy, Esq. CONBOY LAW, LLC 733 Washington Road, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Employees Get Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN STRANGE, et al., v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Case No. 8:19-cv-02761-DLB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah L. Boardman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification as as follows: "All past or present Prince George's County, Maryland non- union-represented employees who occupied positions classified as General Schedule and non-exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act at any time from November 14, 2019 through November 14, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TUmlhuat no extra charge.[CC] RAPID ARMORED: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Manuel Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RAPID ARMORED CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-08511-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, unpaid overtime, due to an improper rounding policy, spread of hours premiums, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not compensated overtime premiums for all hours worked over forty. Instead, Defendant maintained a policy of raising the ceiling on the necessary number of hours worked before an employees' entitlement to overtime premium commenced, contrary to federal and state wage laws. The Defendant violated Plaintiff's, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs', and Class members' rights by refusing to pay at the overtime premium rate of time and one half of regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours per workweek., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as cook at the Defendants' Restaurant Victor's Cafe. RAPID ARMORED CORPORATION provides security and armored transport of valuable goods and currency on behalf of its customers throughout the tri-state area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 REMINGTON ARMS: Bids in Limine in Teague Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHARON TEAGUE and RANDALL TEAGUE, Individually, and in their official capacity as Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF MARK RANDALL TEAGUE, Plaintiffs v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, REMINGTON OUTDOOR COMPANY, INC., SPORTING GOODS PROPERTIES, INC., E.I. EU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, DOES A TO K, Defendants, Case No. CV 18-184-M-DLC (D. Mont.), Judge Dana L. Christensen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, grants in part, denies in part, and reserves ruling on all remaining parts the Defendants' Motions in Limine and the Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are strictly liable for the death of Mark Teague due to the defective, unreasonably dangerous design of the Remington Model 700 and the Defendants' conduct in failing to remedy or repair that design, failing to recall these rifles despite many decades of knowledge of its dangers, and failing to warn the consuming public of these dangers. They seek compensatory and punitive damages under Montana law. Before the Court are the Defendants' Motions in Limine and the Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine. The Defendants' Omnibus Motions in Limine are granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Opinions of Derek Watkins is denied. Watkins is an engineering consultant specializing in firearms and ammunition who offered an expert opinion as to the circumstances of Mark Teague's death and whether the subject rifle was defectively designed or manufactured. Judge Christensen finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Watkins's expert testimony is inadmissible under FED. R. EVID. 702 or Daubert. She says issues regarding the correctness of an expert's opinion go to the weight of the testimony, rather than its admissibility, and are best addressed through cross-examination and counter evidence. The Plaintiffs' Combined Motions in Limine are granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. Judge Christensen does not allow the Defendants to offer testimony, evidence, or argument that Mark Teague, or anyone else, was contributorily negligent or an intervening or superseding cause of Mark's death. They may offer testimony, evidence, or argument that rebuts the Plaintiffs' claim that a defect in the subject rifle was the cause of Mark's death or that Mark unreasonably misused the subject rifle. The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude or Limit the Expert Testimony of Dr. Sunil Prashar is denied. Dr. Prashar is a Forensic Pathologist with the Forensic Science Division of the Montana Department of Justice who performed the autopsy of Mark Teague and filed the official external examination report. His final diagnosis for cause of death states (1) "Gunshot Wound to Head" and (2) "Shot Self with .270 Caliber Rifle." Judge Christensen holds that the Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Prashar violated any rules or laws that would warrant his exclusion as an expert witness at trial. The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Non-Causally Related Defects and Conditions and Other Inadmissible Matters is granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. Judge Christensen orders that the Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence of: (1) the adjustability of the Model 700 trigger mechanism; (2) inadequate sear lift; (3) the "trick" condition; (4) the "screwdriver" test; (5) filing, stoning, or polishing the top of the connector; (6) the Model 600 rifle series recall; or (7) the Model 700 rifle series owner's manual. They may introduce evidence of: (1) build up of aged or gummed lubricants and debris on the top of the engagement screw and smashed chips; (2) use of the bolt-lock mechanism in pre-1982 Remington bolt-action rifles; and (3) the H.P. White testing results. The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Occurrences, Lawsuits, and Settlements is granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. The Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence of customer Bart D'Angelo's complaint, or the total number of customer complaints received by Remington. They may introduce evidence of customer complaints made by Renee Mclure, Charles Morgan, Ed Herlson, and Allen Thrasher. The Court reserves ruling on the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to TV, News, Internet Reports, and Class Action Litigation Regarding Remington Bolt-Action Rifles. Judge Christensen does not find it necessary, nor possible, to address the Defendants' argument that all "testimony regarding the content of written and televised news reports and programs and/or internet material discussing Remington bolt-action rifles" should be excluded. She also notes that there may be some material that is solely relevant to the Plaintiffs' claim for compensatory damages and other material that is solely relevant to their claim for punitive damages. The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Punitive Damages Evidence and to Sever Punitive Damages and Veil-Piercing Issues is granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. Judge Christensen permits the Plaintiffs to offer evidence on punitive damages. The trial will be bifurcated into two phases: phase one will be limited to the issue of liability for compensatory damages under Montana's law on strict products liability, phase two will be limited to liability for punitive damages and determining what amount, if any, of punitive damages will be awarded. The state law where the Defendants are incorporated will be applied to the issues of veil-piercing and alter-egos. Having now ruled on all pending motions in the case and reset jury trial for April 17, 2023, Judge Christensen reminds the Parties that the Magistrate Judges of the Court are available for a settlement conference, should the Parties so desire. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2n2evn from Leagle.com. RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Seeks Certification of Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for certification of two classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: -- Federal Securities Claims Class: "All persons or entities who purchased XRP from May 3, 2017 through the present and who have (a) retained the XRP, and/or (b) sold the XRP at a loss;" -- California State Securities Claims Class: "All persons or entities who purchased XRP from Defendants and/or from any person or entity selling XRP on Defendants' behalf from May 3, 2017 through the present and who have (a) retained the XRP, and/or (b) sold the XRP at a loss." Excluded from both Classes are: Defendant Bradley Garlinghouse; corporate officers, members of the boards of directors, and senior executives of Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. and XRP II, LLC; members of Defendants' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Lead Plaintiff Zakinov also requests he be appointed by the Court as the class representative and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Taylor-Copeland Law be appointed as Class Counsel. The Defendants' U.S.-based conduct specifically targeted XRP speculators and included social media posts, live interviews and speeches, and XRP market reports. In addition, Defendants made extensive efforts to get XRP listed on crypto exchanges to increase speculative trading in XRP, including by including instructions for how to purchase XRP on Ripple's website. Ripple is an American technology company which develops the Ripple payment protocol and exchange network. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TZr29Uat no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Bradley Sostack are: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com - and - James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq. TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4944 Facsimile: (619) 566-4341 E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com ROVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Rainey Labor Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Rover 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 10, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself in the Claire Rainey labor class suit. On October 26, 2021, a pet care provider filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, captioned Claire Rainey v. A Place for Rover, Inc., alleging that the Company misclassified pet care providers in California as independent contractors in violation of the California Labor Code and alleging various wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code and unfair competition claims under the Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, attorney's fees, and other forms of relief. On January 19, 2022, the Company removed the class action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 18, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On January 21, 2022, the same plaintiff filed a representative action under PAGA in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, captioned Claire Rainey v. A Place for Rover, Inc., alleging that the Company misclassified pet care providers in California as independent contractors in violation of the California Labor Code and alleging various wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code. The plaintiff is seeking civil penalties under PAGA, attorney's fees, and other forms of relief. On March 18, 2022, the Company removed the PAGA lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration. On September 1, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration, ordering arbitration of the plaintiff's individual PAGA claims and dismissing the plaintiff's representative PAGA claims. The Company has denied or intends to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in these lawsuits. The Company does not currently believe that a material loss related to these lawsuits is probable. Rover Group, Inc. operates an online platform for pet care. The Company provides applications and websites to connect dog and cat parents with loving pet sitters and dog walkers in neighborhoods. Rover Group serves customers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe.[BN] RUBY'S FAST FOOD: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maadi Ornan Martinez Miranda, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, known and unknown v. RUBY'S FAST FOOD CORP., an Illinois corporation, and NICKIE RODICA, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-05453 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2022), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance for the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff below the statutory minimum wage rates throughout his term of his employment. Additionally, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff, and other non-exempt cooks, food preparers, dishwashers and kitchen staff employees, at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff an overtime premium when he worked more than 40 hours in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant. Ruby's Fast Food Corp. is an Illinois corporation that operates the Ruby's Fast Food restaurant currently located on North Pulaski Road in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Suit Removed to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bill Merewhuader, Christopher Polite, and Tim Viane, Mark Combs, Vlad Iacob, Benjamin Northey, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SAFEMOON LLC, SAFEMOON US, LLC, SAFEMOON CONNECT, LLC, SAFEMOON LTD, SAFEMOON PROTOCOL LTD, SAFEMOON MEDIA GROUP LTD, BRADEN JOHN KARONY, JACK HAINES-DAVIES, RYAN ARRIAGA, SHAUN WITRIOL, HENRY "HANK" WYATT, JAKE PAUL, NICK CARTER, DeANDRE CORTEZ WAY, BEN PHILLIPS, and MILES PARKS McCOLLUM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01108 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Oct. 5, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00642-DBB-JCB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SafeMoon LLC -- https://safemoon.com/ -- is a cryptocurrency and blockchain company created in March 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP 22 E 100 S., Ste. 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 869-1919 Email: hatch@hatchpc.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-236-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Sean T. Masson, Esq. THE HELMSLEY BUILDING 230 Park Ave. 17th Fl. New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 519-0522 Email: smasson@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan C. Bradshaw, Esq. Brandon Scott Fuller, Esq. Trevor J. Lee, Esq. MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR PLLC 136 E SOUTH TEMPLE STE 1300 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 363-5678 Email: abradshaw@mc2b.com bfuller@mc2b.com tlee@mc2b.com - and - Michael J. Kahn, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission St., Ste. 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Phone: (415) 393-8316 Email: mjkahn@gibsondunn.com - and - Jacob U. Arber, Esq. Paul J. Collins, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1881 Page Miller Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 849-5328 Email: jarber@gibsondunn.com pcollins@gibsondunn.com Linda D. Lam, Esq. AVISO LEGAL GROUP LLP 4000 Barranca Pkwy., Ste. 250 Irvin, CA 92604 Phone: (949) 262-3272 Fax: (949) 271-4037 Email: llam@avisolegalgroup.com SAVE ADVISERS: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAVE ADVISERS, LLC. The case is styled as Rory Fitzpatrick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SAVE ADVISERS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08443 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Save Advisers, LLC -- https://joinsave.com/ -- provides investment advisory services. The Company offers wide range of investment, savings, portfolio management, and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SIEMENS MOBILITY: Kaios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siemens Mobility, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ronny Kaios, and all others similarly situated v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00329921-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 17, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Siemens Mobility -- https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en.html -- is a leading provider of sustainable and efficient transport solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 W Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: +1 310-553-3600 SNAP INC: Sbroglio Sues Over Failure to Provide Class Vote ---------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sbroglio, on behalf of herself and similarly situated v. SNAP INC., Case No. 2022-1032 (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide the statutorily required separate class vote on the Charter Amendment and to seek judicial relief to invalidate the Charter Amendment because it was not validly approved by the Class A Common Stockholders. This case shows that, while the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") is broadly enabling, when the legislature wants a stockholder power to be mandatory it knows just how to achieve that objective. Because voting rights are presumed if not otherwise limited in a charter, the only reasonable reading of the above statutory language is that even if a class of stock is typically not entitled to vote on other matters, a charter amendment adversely affecting the "powers, preferences or special rights" appurtenant to that class of stock still requires an approving vote. on August 24, 2022, Snap's controllers (thanks to their power over a class of super-voting shares) adopted an amendment to Article VI of Snap's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter"), which purports to provide exculpation from personal liability for reckless or grossly negligent conduct to the Company's officers, including the controllers themselves (the "Charter Amendment"). When public market investors acquired Snap's Class A non-voting shares, they knew they would not get voting rights for most transactions, but that they would in the specific instances when the DGCL assures such a vote. Snap failed to provide the statutorily required separate class vote on the Charter Amendment, even though it eliminated one of the core "powers, preferences or special rights" belonging to its Class A stockholders. On August 24, 2022, Snap approved the Charter Amendment and adopted it by written consent of the Class C Common Stockholders, purporting to eliminate one of the "powers, preferences or special rights" appurtenant to ownership of Class A Common Stock — the power to seek relief for reckless or grossly negligent conduct among the Company's officers. Snap disclosed that the Charter Amendment was adopted following Board approval and submission of written consents of 231,626,943 shares of Class C Common Stock, and the Company said that the Charter Amendment "has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law." Since Snap's co-founders hold all of the Company's Class C Common Stock, it follows that they voted to exculpate Company officers to the "fullest extent permitted" by Delaware law. No vote was solicited or obtained from the Class A Common Stockholders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns shares of Snap Class A Common Stock and has owned Snap Class A Common Stock. Snap is a camera company, best known for its flagship product, Snapchat. Snapchat is a mobile application that allows users to communicate with family and friends through short videos and images that are deleted by default after a fixed period of time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Sara D. Swartzwelder, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3601 SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Ampt Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Solaredge Technologies 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 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ampt LLC Class Suit. On November 3, 2022, the Company received notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, SolarEdge Technologies Ltd., the Company's CEO and the Company's CFO, by a purported stockholder of the Company, alleging violations of the Federal Securities Act in connection with complaints filed against the Company by Ampt LLC, the details for which can be found under "Note 12- Commitments and Contingent Liabilities". The Company believes the allegations contained in this new action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. 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] SOPHIE RATNER: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sophie Ratner Jewelry, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sophie Ratner Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07012 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sophie Ratner -- https://sophieratner.com/ -- is a fine jewelry designer based in New York, creating handmade 14k gold pieces for the modern day woman.[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 SPACE EXPLORATION: Cornejo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Cornejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., a Delaware Corporation dba SpaceX and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV36362 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought seeking monetary relief against the Defendants to recover, unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages among other things, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs and expenses pursuant to Labor Code. The Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 8 hours a day and/or over 40 hours in a workweek, but were not properly paid for minimum and overtime wages. The Defendant also failed to properly calculate the Plaintiff's and Class Members' regular rate of pay including but not limited to by failing to include all forms of compensation/remuneration in the regular rate including but not limited to bonuses, incentives, commissions, shift differentials, and other compensation for overtime calculation purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in March of 2017 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Test Technician. The Defendant is a spacecraft manufacturer, launcher, and a satellite communications corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com SPRING HOMECARE: Rasoli Files Bid for Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAHID RASOLI, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SPRING HOMECARE CORPORATION , et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00801-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Spring Home Care Corporation is a respite care in Annandale. A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TUBJKOat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Powers, Esq. Steven Anderson, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC 8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 Facsimile: (703) 828-0205 E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to March 10, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COOK and ELFE KUESTERS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-02458-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andrew F. Kirtley entered an order all upcoming scheduled deadlines set forth in the Court's March 11, 2022 Minute Order under the heading "Briefing schedule for Motion for Class Certification" shall be extended by 28 days, as follows: Event Current Date Extended Date -- Last day for Joint Nov. 18, 2022 Dec. 16, 2022 Rebuttal Disclosures: -- Close of Expert Discovery: Jan. 20, 2023 Feb. 17, 2022 -- Deadline to file Motion Feb. 10, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023 for Class Cert.: -- Opposition due by: Mar. 17, 2023 Apr. 14, 2023 -- Reply due by: Apr. 7, 2023 May 5, 2023 -- Hearing on Motion for Apr. 28, 2023, May 26, 2023, Class Cert.: State Farm operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XwwiVxat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Victor Jacobellis, Esq. Daniel J. Veroff, Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1925 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 851-2300 Facsimile: (415) 960-3882 E-mail: vjacobellis@merlinlawgroup.com dveroff@merlinlawgroup.com - and - Brian Danitz, Esq. Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcom Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com akirtley@cpmlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Frank Falzetta, Esq. Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com - and - Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq. Katherine C. Sample, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com ksample@sheppardmullin.com STK SAN FRANCISCO: Burroughs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STK San Francisco, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kameron Burroughs, Jaeyln Gonzales, Konstantin Howard, Trucker Truen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated and the general public v. STK San Francisco, LLC, STK Rebel San Diego, LLC, STK Rooftop San Diego, LLC, Stk Westwood, LLC, The One Group Hospitality, Inc., The One Group, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22602250 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 6, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." STK SAN FRANCISCO -- https://stksteakhouse.com/ -- is a top rated steakhouse is a high energy destination offering a chic vibe lounge plus waterfront dining on a one of a kind outside loft.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Un Kei Wu, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. 2760 Mission St 2nd floor, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: +1 415 695 1000 Fax: +1 415 695 100 STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Fuller Sues Over Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its adhesive lidocaine patches under the CareOne brand ("Product"). The front label representations include "Maximum Strength," "Lidocaine Pain Relief Patches," "4% Lidocaine/Topical Anesthetic," "Desensitizes Aggravated Nerves," "Up To 8 Hours Numbing Relief," a seal with the Rx symbol stating "Our Pharmacists Recommend," and a picture of a body with a patch applied to the lower back. The claim that the Product provide "Pain relieving ointment on a breathable adhesive pad" is misleading Consumers expect that when they are told the Product will provide "Up to 8 Hours" of relief, the patches will adhere to their bodies for no less than eight hours or even longer. However, the Product cannot adhere to the skin for more than four hours, which renders the "Up To 8 Hours" misleading, a significant disparity. The "Up To 8 Hours" claim is also inconsistent with the "Uses" disclosed on the Drug Facts which indicates it can only provide "Temporary relief" which consumers will understand as a short time, less than eight hours. The representation of "Maximum Strength" is misleading for multiple reasons. First, this statement tells consumers the Product contains and delivers the maximum amount of lidocaine available in patch form and is superior or equivalent in efficacy and results to other OTC and prescription-strength lidocaine patches. However, newly developed adhesive technology can deliver the bioequivalence of 5% lidocaine in patch form and maintain adhesion for at least eight hours under normal conditions. Second, numerous studies and reports revealed that users of adhesive lidocaine patches using the same technology used by the Product regularly peel off a user's skin within three to four hours, and sometimes in minutes, after being applied. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Had the Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product are sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than $9.79 per box of six patches, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar Product, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including Stop & Shop in New York City. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC markets, labels and sells adhesive lidocaine patches under the CareOne brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Stock Price Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Stronghold Digital Mining 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 10, 2022, that the Company faces a stock price class suit in the Southern District of New York. On April 14, 2022, the Company and certain of its current and former directors, and officers, as well as the underwriters in its initial public offering, were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to a drop in its stock price following our disclosure about the delays it experienced in the delivery of certain miners it purchased from MinerVa and other operational issues that have adversely affected the Company's results of operations. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New York. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Stronghold Digital Mining 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 10, 2022, that the Company plans to move for the dismissal of a securities class suit on December 19, 2022. On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. section 77k and Section 15 of the Securities Act, about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results, the Company's stock price fell, causing significant losses and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. On October 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making the same basic allegations as in the complaint. The defendants believe the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and intend to move for dismissal of the lawsuit on December 19, 2022. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New York. SUNRUN INC: Dekker Seeks Certification of a Class of Customers -------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022, that the plaintiff in the case captioned Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) filed a motion for class certification to a class of customers who are subject to the 2012 version of the Vivint Solar Power Purchase Agreement. In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action lawsuit captioned "Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc." (N.D. Cal.), alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee provisions. The company disputes the allegations in the complaint. On January 17, 2020, the company moved to compel arbitration with respect to nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included arbitration provisions. The court issued an order compelling eight plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration but subsequently rescinded the order as to certain plaintiffs. The court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the court's order rescinding its order compelling certain plaintiffs to arbitrate. At this time, one plaintiff's claims remain pending before the court as a class action, one plaintiff's claims are in arbitration, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims have been resolved on an individual basis. In the class action that remains pending before the court, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on March 18, 2022, the court certified a class of customers (approximately 1,000) who are subject to the 2012 version of the Vivint Solar Power Purchase Agreement. Sunrun Inc. provides solar energy and storage based in California. SUTTER VALLEY: Court Resets Renewed Bid to Certify Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00581 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller entered an order resetting Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally certify collective action as follows: -- The Motions are noticed for Dec. 9, 2022 hearing on: -- Motion Hearing is resetting for: Jan. 27, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons who are or have been employed by Sutter Valley Medical Center in the State of California since April 2, 2016, who worked as non-exempt employees and whose time and pay records show late, short, or missing meal periods;" and 2. appointing her as Class Representative and Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel. Sutter provides healthcare services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ACbxgYat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Initially Approves Class Settlement in Lucas ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANNE BEAR KING LUCAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 4:21-cv-00070-PPS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order granting Plaintiff Dianne Bear King Lucas's unopposed motion to certify class and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ey3G5gat no extra charge.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Chuck Day Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chuck Day Farms Partnership, on behalf of themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Case No. 1:22-cv-02222-JMS-MG (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022), seek to recover damages in the form of overcharges incurred by themselves and the Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws in the markets for certain crop protection products in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of: Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (collectively, "Syngenta"), BASF SE, BASF Corporation and BASF Agricultural Products Group (collectively "BASF"), and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as the "Manufacturer Defendants"); Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC; (collectively, "Distributor Defendants"); Doe Defendant Co-conspirator Distributors (referred to, together with the Distributor Defendants, as the "Co-conspirator Distributors"); and retailers that participate in the loyalty programs. All of these of entities are referred to collectively herein as "Defendants." For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate" programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers. While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs" throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the country. The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for these crucial inputs. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Chuck Day Farms Partnership is a partnership formed under the laws of Arkansas. Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636 2593 Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (501) 952-8558 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Danny Day, Jr. Farms, and Danny Day, Jr. & Son Farm Partnership, on behalf of themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02225-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022), seek to recover damages in the form of overcharges incurred by themselves and the Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws in the markets for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of: Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and BASF Agricultural Products Group, and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as the "Manufacturer Defendants"); and Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC.; (collectively, "Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants"). All of these of entities are referred to collectively herein as "Defendants." For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate" programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and participating retailers. These programs are exclusive dealing arrangements that contravene the Clayton Act. While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs" throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the country. The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for these crucial inputs. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Danny Day, Jr. Farms owns and operates farmland in Arkansas and directly purchased products at issue in this action from one or more of the alleged Co-conspirator Distributors, including Nutrien and Helena. Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636 2593 Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (501) 952-8558 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th St. St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 SYNGENTA CROP: M and M Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- M and M Farms Partnership and Brick Farms, Inc., on behalf of themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02227-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022), seek to recover damages in the form of overcharges incurred by themselves and the Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws in the markets for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of: Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and BASF Agricultural Products Group, and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as the "Manufacturer Defendants"); and Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC.; (collectively, "Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants"). All of these of entities are referred to collectively herein as "Defendants." For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate" programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and participating retailers. These programs are exclusive dealing arrangements that contravene the Clayton Act. While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs" throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the country. The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for these crucial inputs. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff M and M Farms Partnership is a partnership formed under the laws of Arkansas and M and M Farms Partnership owns and operates farmland in Arkansas. Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636 2593 Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (501) 952-8558 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us - and - Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick Clayton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 3708 Clay Street San Francisco, CA 94118 Phone: (415) 751-4193 Email: fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS: Dudley Sues Over Unprotected PII ------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Dudley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS UPSCALE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02128-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought against the Defendant as a result of the Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to PII. On April 6, 2022, Tavistock learned that highly sensitive personal data of approximately 2000 employees stored in Tavistock's computer system was compromised in a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). It is unclear how long the Data Breach carried on undetected. Tavistock's investigations revealed that hackers gained unauthorized access to employees' confidential personal identifying information, including Social Security numbers ("PII"). After Tavistock's "investigation" inexplicably dragged on for nearly six months, Defendant finally disclosed the Data Breach to impacted employees on September 29, 2022 (the "Breach Notice"). The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made consumers vulnerable to identify theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant's failure to protect its employees' PII and adequately warn them about the Data Breach violates Florida law, harming thousands of current and former Tavistock employees. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted the Defendant with their PII. But the Defendant betrayed that trust. The Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Tavistock where he worked as the Director of IT between 2015 and 2020. Tavistock owns and operates upscale restaurants in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Nevada and has employees working at those restaurant locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com TBK BANK SSB: Luckey Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TBK Bank SSB. The case is styled as Carolyn C. Luckey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. TBK Bank SSB, Case No. 1:22-cv-01337-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. TBK Bank, SSB -- https://www.tbkbank.com/ -- operates as a full-service bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Fax: (888) 505-0909 Email: chris@yourattorney.com - and - Lynn A Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 363-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Justin M. Raver, Esq. BARASH & EVERETT LLC 143 E. Main Street Galesburg, IL 61401, Suite 101 Phone: (309) 341-6010 Fax: (309) 341-1945 Email: debbie@barashlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher R Murphy, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 263-3600 Email: Chris.Murphy@hklaw.com TELADOC HEALTH: Tentative Settlement in Thomas Suit Initially OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teladoc 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 October November 2, 2022, that the court entered an order preliminarily approving the terms of a tentative settlement reached by the parties in the case captioned "Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc." and conditionally certified the settlement class. On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint captioned "Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc." was filed in the United States District court for the District of Massachusetts against the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited facsimiles to the plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipient's prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. Teladoc Health, Inc. is a healthcare company based in New York. TEXAS CUSTOM BUILDERS: Hardin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------ Tylor Hardin and Gabriel Brown on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees v. Texas Custom Builders, George Perry, JMI Contractors, LLC, Jim Smith and Mike Garcia, Case No. 6:22-cv-01172 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs regularly worked hours over 40 per week. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs for all the hours that they worked. The Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors. The Defendants further failed to pay the Plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all hours worked and an overtime premium for those hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA and the Texas Labor Code, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for at least minimum wage for all hours worked and one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs perform work for the Defendants as Laborers. Texas Custom Builders is company incorporated in the state of Texas that is doing business in Coryell County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Downey, Esq. 5308 Ashbrook Houston, TX 77081 Phone: 214-764-7279 Email: mdowney@dlawgrp.com TIC INTERNATIONAL: Krupa Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIC International Corporation. The case is styled as Rodney Krupa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIC International Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01951-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., Oct. 3, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle TIC International Corporation -- https://www.tici.com/ -- provides consulting, actuarial and administrative services to those responsible for employee benefits programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th St., Ste. 1725 Oakland, CA 94607-5009 Phone: 510-891-9800 Fax: 510-891-7030 Email: cab@colevannote.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott B. Cockrum, Esq. LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 2211 Main Street, Suite 3-2A Highland, IN 46322 Phone: (219) 440-0602 Fax: (219) 440-0601 Email: Scott.Cockrum@lewisbrisbois.com TOP IT OFF: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top It Off, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Top It Off, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09770 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Top It Off -- https://topitoffaccessories.com/ -- is a women-owned business creating fashionable clothing and accessories.[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 TOURANCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tourance, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Tourance, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09751 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tourance -- https://tourance.com/ -- is specializing in soft and luxurious goods for the home.[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 TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Tupperware Brands Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022, that the company was named defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1934. In June 2022, a putative stockholder class action was filed against the company and certain current and former officers in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that statements made in public filings between November 3, 2021, and May 3, 2022 regarding the company's earnings and sales performance and full-year 2022 guidance violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased the company's shares during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint in late November 2022. Tupperware Brands Corporation is a leading global consumer products company based in Florida. TWITTER INC: Borodaenko Sues Over Termination of Disabled Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dmitry Borodaenko, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07226 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant under the Americans With Disabilities Act on behalf of other disabled Twitter employees across the US who have been discharged or constructively discharged from their jobs during the chaotic weeks since multi-billionaire Elon Musk purchased the company. The Plaintiff brings claims of discrimination under the ADA and (for employees who worked out of California) California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), challenging the company's termination, or constructive termination, of employees with disabilities who can perform their jobs with or without reasonable accommodation but who were not permitted to continue their jobs, either through termination or forced resignation after being required to accept working under unreasonable circumstances for an employee with a disability. Shortly after Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, he immediately began laying off half of its workforce. Many of the employees who have lost their jobs since Musk's purchase of the company are disabled. Prior to Musk's purchase of the company, Twitter employees were permitted to work remotely. In fact, over the spring and summer of 2022, Twitter reassured employees that, following Musk's purchase of the company, they would be permitted to continue working remotely for at least a year. However, shortly after Musk completed the purchase of Twitter, he declared that working remotely would no longer be allowed and that all remaining employees would need to work out of a company office – with only rare exceptions for "exceptional" employees, that Musk himself would have to approve. Many disabled employees were able to perform their jobs adequately with the reasonable accommodation of working remotely, rather than from a physical Twitter office. Musk's declaration, however, that almost all employees would need to work out of physical offices made it not possible or viable for many disabled employees to continue their jobs. In addition, Musk declared that, in order to remain employed at Twitter, employees would have to "work long hours at high intensity." Any employees who did not agree to this mandate would have to resign. Many disabled employees who have, and could continue to, perform their jobs effectively have felt that, because of their disability, they will not be able to meet this new heightened standard of performance and productivity. Thus, many disabled employees have felt forced to resign, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Scotts Valley, California, where he worked for Twitter from June 2021 until November 2022. Twitter is a social media company that employs thousands of people across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com U.S.A. SILO SERVICE: Knowlton Sues to Recover Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Knowlton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S.A. SILO SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04045-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 16, 2022), is brought to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members consistently worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. The Defendant did not consider time spent traveling as hours worked for purposes of determining the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' overtime eligibility. Consequently, the Defendant failed to pay proper wages, including overtimes wages to the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. The Defendant knew that laborers were working overtime hours and hours for which they were not compensated at an overtime rate when they traveled to jobsites. The Defendant willfully deprived laborers of proper wages, including overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer by the Defendant. The Defendant is a domestic for-profit corporation registered in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A. 250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Rd., Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Phone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Under Armour 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 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class Suit. On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB ("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively). On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that, among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action. The operative complaint (the Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC") in the Consolidated Securities Action, was filed on October 14, 2020. The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier. The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to disclose that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July 2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019. Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC. On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among other things, certification of the class they are seeking to represent in the Consolidated Securities Action. On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. UNITED PARCEL: Faces Labor Suits in State and Federal Courts ------------------------------------------------------------ United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022, that the company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. One of these matters, "Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc." and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a class action in Kentucky state court. In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour claims. The plaintiffs' appeal of this decision was denied; however, in the second quarter of 2022, the plaintiffs were granted a discretionary review of these claims by the Kentucky Supreme court. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a logistics company based in Georgia. UNITED STATES: Grimes Files Suit in U.S. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of America. The case is styled as Clarissa Grimes, individually and on behalf similarly situated persons v. USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-01682-LAS (U.S. Dist. Ct., Fed. Cl., Nov. 15, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the Tucker Act. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 496-0500 Fax: (202) 496-0555 Email: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022, that it is alleged of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) when making donations to a fund so that those donations would go towards copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the company. On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC filed a class action complaint against CVC and the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the drugs. In April 2021, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District court for the Southern District of Florida. Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and United Healthcare Insurance company have informed the company that they may bring claims directly against it to recover alleged overpayments. In October 2021, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in this litigation. On that same day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. As a result of the amended complaint, the court ruled that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was moot. In December 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. On September 23, 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against the company and Smiths Medical without prejudice. On October 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking clarification or reconsideration of the court's order dismissing the complaint without prejudice and argued that the court should allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed second amended complaint. In addition to the claims previously asserted, the proposed second amended complaint adds federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states' laws. The second amended complaint also names Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Holding company, and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. On October 27, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion seeking clarification. On that same day, the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint. United Therapeutics Corporation is a biotechnology company based in Maryland. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Rojas' Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant v. ANTHONY ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellee, Case No. 1D21-3430 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reverses the portion of the trial court's order denying the University's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and affirms the rest of the order. When COVID-19 first impacted Florida in Spring 2020, the State University System Board of Governors directed Florida's public universities to commence online learning. Soon after, the University of Florida instructed its students to leave campus and closed its on-campus facilities. The University remained partially closed during the spring and summer semesters of 2020. During this time, classes were offered online, and students were advised to remain off campus. Yet students were still required to pay various fees along with their tuition (such as an activity and service fee, a health fee, a transportation access fee, and an athletic fee). This prompted graduate student Rojas to file a class action complaint against the University. On behalf of all similarly situated students, he alleged that the University's failure to offer on-campus services or refund the related fees for those impacted semesters constituted a breach of contract. Rojas attached several documents to the complaint in support of his claim, including a Spring 2020 tuition statement, a general statement of tuition and various fee estimates for the 2019-2020 academic year, and a copy of the University's financial liability agreement. Rojas asserted that these documents, in the aggregate, made up an express written contract between him and the University "for specific on-campus resources and services during the Spring and Summer 2020 terms." Rojas also alleged an unjust enrichment claim. The University moved to dismiss, arguing that both claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The trial court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. The appeal followed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, which authorizes appellate review of non-final orders that deny a motion that "asserts entitlement to sovereign immunity." The District Court of Appeal reviews the trial court's conclusion that sovereign immunity does not bar Rojas' breach of contract claim against the University of Florida Board of Trustee. Upon review, it opines that because the assorted documents attached to the complaint do not constitute an express written contract sufficient to overcome sovereign immunity, the trial court should have dismissed the claim. Because state universities and colleges across Florida are facing lawsuits like the one here, the District Court of Appeals also certifies the following question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court: "Whether sovereign immunity bars a breach of contract claim against a state university based on the university's failure to provide its students with access to on-campus services and facilities?" In sum, The District Court of Appeal cannot conclude that the University entered an express written contract with Rojas that obligated it to provide specific services at a specific time in a specific way. It therefore reverses the portion of the trial court's order denying the University's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. It affirms the rest of the order. The District Court of Appeal is sympathetic to Rojas and all other students whose on-campus experiences were clipped short and rendered non-existent by the University's response to COVID-19. And if there were a sufficient contract attached to his complaint, it would affirm the trial court without hesitation. But without such an express, written agreement (and with no indication by the University that it consents to suit, nor any express statutory waiver by the Legislature to allow students such as Rojas to proceed with these types of claims), sovereign immunity bars the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mvactex from Leagle.com. Robert J. Sniffen -- rsniffen@sniffenlaw.com -- Matthew Joseph Carson -- mcarson@sniffenlaw.com -- and Jeffrey D. Slanker -- jslanker@sniffenlaw.com -- Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, for the Appellant. Adam A. Schwartzbaum -- adams@moskowitz-law.com -- Adam Moskowitz -- adam@moskowitz-law.com -- Howard Bushman -- howard@moskowitz-law.com -- Barbara Lewis -- barbara@moskowitz-law.com -- The Moskowitz Law Firm, Coral Gables, for the Appellee. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sherman Sues Over Gender-Based Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Sherman, and others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Case No. 158495109 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 3, 2022), is brought unpaid wages and damages under the Equal Pay Act Of 1963 ("EPA"), for damages pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, to redress injuries resulting from Defendant's unlawful gender-based discriminatory treatment of and retaliation against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's workload was equal to or greater than her male counterparts that were paid significantly higher wages. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant has consistently hired women at considerably lower rates than plaintiff, a female, such that the salary structure has resulted in a substantial disparity between the male and female employees in each category, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced working for the Defendant as Lecturer for the Frost School of Music at the University of Miami on August, 2019. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Hunt, Esq. P.O. Box 565096 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-495-5593 Email: dhuntlaw@gmail.com VALDEZ PAINTING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valdez Painting, Incorporated, et al. case is styled as Juan Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Valdez Painting, Incorporated, Does 1-20, Case No. CGC22602121 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 3, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Valdez Painting -- http://valdez-painting.com/-- is a painter in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 VIA QUADRONNO: Court Strikes Collective Action Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYUNG CHENG, SHIGUANG CHEN, and MARCIANO E. ESPINAL, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VIA QUADRONNO LLC, VIA QUADRONNO 88 STREET, ANTICA BOTTEGA DEL VINO, KING CHUNG LAM a/k/a KC LAM, XIU YONG CHEN, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:20-cv-08903-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment and to strike the collective action allegations, the class action allegations, and the jury demand. This is a labor law action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1947 and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Via Quadronno closed temporarily in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and did not reopen until early May 2020. The Plaintiff Cheng worked at Antica Bottega, Via Quadronno and VQ88 as a chef, making panini and salads. Cheng worked at Antica Bottega in 2014 until sometime in September 2014. Cheng commenced working at VQ88 in September 2014 and continued working there through 2015 and 2016. In addition, starting in approximately February 2016, Cheng began working one or two days per week at Via Quadronno. Cheng began working exclusively at Via Quadronno in approximately January 2018 and continued working there until March 16, 2020. The Defendants argue that they should be granted judgment on the pleadings to the extent that the Third Amended Complaint purports to assert claims other than those for unpaid overtime and failure to deliver wage notices under the NYLL. Via Quadronno on the Upper East Side is an Italian restaurant, best known for its cappuccinos and paninis. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gq7kX1at no extra charge.[CC] VISION SERVICE PLAN: Vergara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Service Plan, et al. The case is styled as Nila Vergara, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision Service Plan, Volt Management Corp., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00329892-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." VSP Vision Care -- https://www.vsp.com/ -- is a vision care health insurance company operating in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com VOLTA INC: Chau Sues Over WARN Act Violation -------------------------------------------- Danny Chau, Hong Zhu, Jan Somers, Jessica Seto, Kenneth Heyen, Kiersten Stanton, Leah Schunk, Maureen Mcbirney, Masaya Takahashi, Saul Tooley, Talon Jones, Teena Kirchner, and Zachary Mondo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VOLTA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; VOLTA CHARGING INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-07247 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought for violations and ongoing and anticipated further violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, (the "WARN Act"), as well as the California WARN Act (the "CA WARN Act"). The Defendants have effectuated several layoffs and furloughs beginning in October 2022, including one furlough on October 21, 2022, which impacted approximately 110 employees and another furlough on October 31, 2022, which impacted approximately 30 more employees. At no time did Volta provide 60 days of advance notice of the furloughs as required under both the WARN Act and the CA WARN Act. The Plaintiffs file this action seeking damages and to ensure compliance with the law requiring the requisite notice or severance payment in connection with the furloughs and that the Defendants not solicit releases of claims of any employees without informing them of the pendency of this action and their right to pursue claims for violations of the WARN Act and CA WARN Act. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and immediate injunctive relief, precluding the Defendants from circumventing the requirements of the WARN Act and the CA WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed at Volta. Volta is in the business of building and installing charging stations for electric vehicles and placing those charging stations at locations throughout the United States where, once installed, they charge electric vehicles and generate advertising revenue through advertisements displayed on the charging apparatus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Esq. CERA LLP 201 California Street, Suite 1240 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 777-2230 Email: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com p.pfeilschiefter@cerallp.com VRC COMPANIES: Overcharge Medical Records' Expense, Anderson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VRC COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a VITALCHART; URGENT CARE GROUP, LLC d/b/a MEDCARE URGENT CARE - MT. PLEASANT; and DAVID WRIGHT, MD, Defendants, Case No. 2022CP100530 (S.C. Com. Pleas, Charleston Cty., Nov. 16, 2022) is an action against the Defendants' overcharging of expense in securing patient's medical records. According to the complaint, when patients' medical records are requested by their attorneys, the Defendants systemically charge more for copies of the patients' records than is permitted by South Carolina law. Unfortunately, individual patients typically bear the ultimate responsibility for the costs of these overcharges, says the suit. Throughout the state of South Carolina, the Defendants have allegedly taken patients' attorneys' rights to access their medical records and unlawfully profited at patients' expense. The Defendants continue to do so to this day. VRC COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a VITALCHART owns a medical record retrieval software that lets patients request records without hospital visits or follow-up calls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com WALMART INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toblesky Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM TOBLESKY, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00157-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ken., Nov. 15, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages and overtime at the statutory rate to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant Walmart, Inc. in the last three years. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked a position that was non-exempt under the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff's duties consisted primarily of unloading trucks of inventory at the Hanson, Kentucky Walmart. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com WALMART INC: Merck FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No. :20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed Class; "The 110,527 individuals to whom Sterling Infosystems applied an R3 code and sent pre-adverse action notice on Walmart’s behalf from June 3, 2015 through January 8, 2019;" 2. appointing him to serve as Class Representative; 3. appointing Berger Montague PC and Terrell Marshall Law Group, PLLC to serve as Class Counsel; and 4. directing the parties to meet and confer and to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a reasonable time. According to the complaint, Walmart did not send proposed class members a copy of the report on which the company relied when it decided not to hire them. Instead, Walmart sent a different version of the report, that omitted critical information. Walmart relied on for its decision not to hire, namely a code that purported to indicate that class members had failed to disclose their criminal histories during the application process. That supposed failure was used to automatically disqualify class members from employment with Walmart. During the Class Period, Walmart contracted with non-party consumer reporting agency Sterling Infosystems to provide Walmart with background reports on potential employees. Pursuant to that contract, Sterling not only identified and included criminal records associated with an applicant on their report, Sterling also compared the criminal records with information the applicant disclosed during the application process and made a determination as to whether the applicant had fully disclosed their criminal record to Walmart. As the Court noted, "in this case, Mr. Merck alleges that Walmart failed to provide a copy of the report that it actually relied upon before taking an adverse employment action against him. This is synonymous with providing no report at all." The Plaintiff has adequately alleged that he was deprived of the benefit afforded by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to demonstrate standing under Article III. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EmEdvzat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Erika L. Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com enusser@terrellmarshall.com - and - Michael J Boyle, Jr., Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com WALT DISNEY: Biddle Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreements -------------------------------------------------------- Heather Biddle, Jeffrey Kaplan, Zachary Roberts, and Joel Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07317 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2022), is brought as an antitrust lawsuit against Disney to remediate and recover for Disney's anticompetitive agreements with direct competitors in the market for streaming live pay television ("SLPTV")--live television streamed over the Internet to paying subscribers. The Plaintiffs bring this suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to, among other things, recover the near doubling of their subscription prices as a result of Disney's anticompetitive agreements with YouTube TV and other SLPTV providers. Disney operates these businesses (ESPN and Hulu) as a single economic entity, allowing it to negotiate horizontal, anticompetitive carriage agreements for ESPN and ESPN-related channels, which are the largest cost input to SLPTV products in the United States. Disney's carriage agreements with its SLPTV competitors contain two terms that provide Disney pricing power over the entire market. First, Disney's carriage agreements contain language requiring that base or lowest-priced bundles offered by SLPTV providers must include ESPN. Second, Disney's carriage agreements include Most Favored Nation ("MFN") clauses that put upward price pressure on every rival SLPTV product. Together, these carriage agreement mandates--which now cover all of Disney's leading competitors in the SLPTV Market--allow Disney to use ESPN and Hulu to set a price floor in the SLPTV Market and to inflate prices marketwide by raising the prices of its own products. And this is exactly what Disney has done in the past three years, since it took operational control of Hulu. Since Disney acquired operational control over Hulu in May 2019, prices across the SLPTV Market, including for YouTube TV, have doubled. This dramatic, marketwide price inflation has been led by Disney's own price hikes for Hulu + Live TV, and has directly tracked Disney's competitor-by-competitor negotiation of new SLPTV carriage agreements over this time period. As for YouTube TV, controlled by tech giant Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), Google's carriage agreements with Disney have resulted in a near-100% price increase of YouTube TV's base package, from $35 to $65. And indeed, during hard-nosed carriage agreement renegotiations in late 2021, YouTube TV publicly stated that absent its agreement with Disney, it would provide an ESPN-less base plan at $15 less than it otherwise charged for its baseline product. Disney has entered into horizontal agreements with terms that directly increase SLPTV prices, set a price floor for the entire market, reduce consumer choice, and strengthen significant barriers to entry. The Plaintiffs, who are SLPTV direct purchasers from Disney's co-conspirator and largest counterparty YouTube TV, seek damages as well as injunctive relief to halt and unwind Disney's anticompetitive practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are subscribers to YouTube TV, which is the largest provider of live television streamed over the Internet. Disney owns, operates, and controls the second largest SLPTV provider, Hulu, which provides an SLPTV product called Hulu + Live TV; and also controls ESPN, the largest cost input into every SLPTV product in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (332) 322-8835 Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (213) 462-2772 Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com WATERBEAN COFFEE: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GOLDIN AUCIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00531-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., Oct. 5, 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 Waterbean provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Waterbean.coffee (hereinafter "Waterbean.coffee" or "the website"). 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Waterbean's sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on Waterbean.coffee. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, 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 owns and operates the Waterbean Coffee Shops, which is a place of public accommodation and maintains nine Coffee Shops in the Charlotte metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Phone: (704) 814-0729 Facsimile: (704) 814-0730 Email: srg@gohillaw.com - and - Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Swearingen Seeks Health Technicians' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINNA SWEARINGEN, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03242-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges the Defendant's failure to pay all earned wages, earned overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks, and straight-time wages in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked for WHS as an hourly health technician from approximately 2010 to September 2020. Wexford Health Sources Inc. is a healthcare services company that contracts with governmental entities to provide healthcare services and staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com WHAT COMES AROUND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against What Comes Around Goes Around, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. What Comes Around Goes Around, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07075-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. What Goes Around Comes Around -- https://www.whatgoesaroundnyc.com/ -- also known as "WGACA" is the premier purveyor of the finest luxury vintage accessories and apparel from around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Arisha Byars, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2215944, was removed from the Superior Court of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 16, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02030 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Petition To Enforce INS Subpoena. Lightricks -- https://www.lightricks.com/ -- develops creativity tools that enable its users to craft and share visual content on mobile devices.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 Email: rstraus@shb.com WILCO LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 20, 2023 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM, Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR. RICHARD I. APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order that the completion of discovery and the briefing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall proceed according to the following schedule: -- Deadline to complete fact January 16, 2023 and expert discovery related to class certification motion: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to March 20, 2023 file motion for class certification: Wilco Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AwvXIeat no extra charge.[CC] WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Discrimination-Related Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial 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 8, 2022, that a discrimination-related class suit is ongoing in the Northern District Court of Illinois. On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. The Company vigorously dispute these allegations, believe them to be legally and factually meritless, and otherwise lack sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability. Wintrust Financial Corp. is a public Illinois corporation headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. Wintrust is a financial holding company that operates 15 chartered community banks in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. WORLDWIDE COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Comics, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Worldwide Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09776 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Worldwide Comics -- https://www.wwcomics.com/ -- is in the Comic Books business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Suit Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022, that on December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned "Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District court for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 19, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and on June 30, 2022, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The case is now concluded. XPO Logistics, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is a provider of freight transportation services based in Connecticut. ZEBIT INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zebit, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Zebit, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09822-JMF-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zebit, Inc. -- https://preview.zebit.com/ -- provides consumer finance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal ********* 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 ***