/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221201.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 234
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Spence Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ABILITY RECOVERY: Brownlow-Thomas FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosi-Fulcher Suit Final Settlement Approved
ADVANCED MARKETING: Harris Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AEGEAN MARINE: Plaintiff Allowed to File Revised Class Status Bid
ALIMED INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALTRIA GROUP: January 20, 2023 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Modifies Garner Class Cert Case Deadlines
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Final Settlement in Hawaii Suits
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Joint Stipulation to Stay Manuel Suit OK'd
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lyon Stockholder Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Dinkevich Stockholder Suit Lifted
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Gantulga Stockholder Suit Lifted
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Kenna Stockholder Class Suit Lifted
AMERICAN WEMPE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Cervantes-Arnold Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMYRIS INC: $13.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit for Ct. Approval
ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek Time Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
APOLLO ASSET: Bid to Dismiss PlayAGS Class Suit Remains Pending
APOLLO ASSET: Harbinger State Action Pending in N.Y. Supreme Court
APOLLO ASSET: Loses Bid to Dismiss MPM Class Suit
APOLLO ASSET: Opposes McEvoy Bid to Alter March 10 Court Order
APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Hearing
ARCBEST CORPORATION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: Hayre Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF GARDEN CITY: Keller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Cireasa Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Kindya Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASTON CARTER IN: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BABY'S 1ST FURNITURE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BAYSTATE HEALTH: Chechile Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BIG LOTS STORES: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
BILLIARD FACTORY: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBERRY FARM: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BODY MIND & SOUL: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Jacobs Suit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fragassi Sues Over Unlawful Use of PII
CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE: Cortez Suit Removed to N.D. California
CANADA GOOSE: S.D. New York Dismisses Lin's 2nd Amended Complaint
CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Wheatley Explosion
CIRCOSTA IRON & METAL: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Seeks Certification of Class
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Decertification in Bennett Suit Reversed
CRITTER CONTROL: Gazeta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CROPTON DESIGN: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DARDEN CORPORATION: Cantu Files Suit in C.D. California
DAVITA INC: Acquitted from Violating Sherman Act
DCOR LLC: Green Suit Removed to C.D. California
DHALIWAL LABS NORTH: Bernard Sues Over BIPA Violation
DISH NETWORK: Faces Employees Class Suit Over Fiduciary Breaches
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson May File Oversize Brief Instanter
DOWNEAST CIDER HOUSE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
E.P.C.S. ELITE: Davella Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
EF EDUCATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 15, 2023
EF EDUCATION: Court Sets Hearing on Bid for Class Certification
EF INSTITUTE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 11, 2023
EF INSTITUTE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 24, 2023
EHEALTH INC: Bids Seeking Lead Plaintiff Appointment Pending
ELECTROMED INC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
ELICA HEALTH CENTERS: Supnet Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Files Bid for Class Certification
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Court Stays 8 Later-Filed Cases in Finn Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Order to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
EQUITY PROPERTY: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Inendino Suit
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Duggan Suit Transferred to D. Puerto Rico
EVERI HOLDINGS: FACTA Class Suit Closed
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Edmonston Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
FEDERAL HOME: 6th Cir. Junks Appeal on Dismissal of OPERS Suit
FEDERAL HOME: Expects Trial Schedule for Preferred Stock Suit
FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extended in Azimihashemi
FISCHER & WIESER: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FLEETCOR TECH: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Federal Action
FLEETCOR TECH: State Derivative Suit in Georgia Stayed
FLORIDA: Judge Bolito Recommends Denial of Midgett Class Cert. Bid
FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Garrison Builders Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
FULL SAIL: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
FV COM CORP: Kargar Asks Court to Proceed Collectively
GANNETT CO: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs. Stegemann
GEM CENTER USA: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Pilgrim
GENTING NEW YORK: Weitz Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GEREMIA POOLS: Robles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GKN DRIVELINE: Court Partly Reconsiders August 2 Order
GLV INC: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Mullen to 7th Cir.
GOLDEN GRAIN COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
GOLDIN AUCIONS: Sookul Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOYA FOODS: New Jersey Court Allows Herrera to Amend Complaint
GREEN DAY POWER: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
H AND S OF AUGUSTA: Clark Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
HAMMOCKS & HIGH TEA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEALTHCARE INC: Settles Consumer Suit in California Court
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Lausche Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Court Junks Kim Class Action
HP INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in So Consumer Class Suit
HUDSON HALL: Fisher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
IKEA US: Meyers Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 2
ILLINOIS DOC: Court Narrows Claims in Boone Suit
INFINITY Q: $48MM Settlement to be Heard on January 31, 2023
INLINE NETWORK: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Cline Suit
INSPIRE BRANDS: Haldeman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumers Suit
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JETSUITEX INC: McKeehan Sues Over Unpaid Wages
JOHN HANCOCK: Kroetz Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal
JOHN WETZEL: Court Tosses Cooper's Bid for Class Certification
JOSEPH A. DOORLEY: Coalition Files Suit in D. Rhode Island
JP MORGAN: Turner Files Suit in N.D. California
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Pending in S.D.N.Y.
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Smith Files Suit in D. Oregon
KELLY SERVICES: Bazine Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
KIA AMERICA: Neves Files Suit in D. South Carolina
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural Care" Baby Wipes
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Sheer, et al., Class Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Drinks' Artificial Flavoring
L'OREAL USA: Burton Sues Over Toxic Hair Straightener
LEFTIES LOGISTICS: Melgoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Bemero Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
LLOYD J. AUSTIN: Schelske Sues Over Vaccine Mandate
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Petro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
MAD MUSHROOM: Guinnup Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana
MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Putative Class Suit Dismissed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Rockford Putative Class Suit Dismissed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shenk Securities Class Suit Dismissed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Strougo Putative Securities Class Suit Closed
MAZDA MOTOR: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Sonneveldt to 9th Cir.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Issues Final Judgment in Contreras Suit
OHIO: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal Order in Ball v. Kasich
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Settlement Hearing to be Held on Jan. 20, 2023
PANDORA JEWELRY: Faces Class Action Over "Virtual Try-on" Feature
PORTOLA PHARMA: $17.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 2, 2023
REO HOLDINGS: Family Trust's Case Remanded for New Trial
RIDGE TOOL: Ciesielski Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RING LLC: Case Management Schedule Entered in Wise Class Suit
RLX TECH: Garnett Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
SANTANDER BANK: Final Approval and Judgment Issued in Tepper Suit
SCORES HOLDING: Bid for Reconsideration in De Oliveira Suit Denied
SESEN BIO: $21MM Class Settlement to be Heard on January 23, 2023
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Falls Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Black Hawk Mine Collapse Class Action Can Proceed
SUKUT CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
TARGET CORPORATION: Appeals Remand Order in Leflar Suit to 8th Cir.
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Bid to File Docs Under Seal Nixed
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
TWITTER INC: Wants Judge to Send Class Action Into Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Meal Breaks" Period
WHOLE FOODS: Hill Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery Pending Mediation
XAVIER BECERRA: Neese, et al., Seeks Entry of Class Cert Order
XTO ENERGY: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
*********
3M COMPANY: Spence Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Spence, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03462-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed blood
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Stevens, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03461-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed blood
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ABILITY RECOVERY: Brownlow-Thomas FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alfreida Brownlow-Thomas, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Ability Recovery Services,
LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. 2022-CH-08473 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Oct. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05466 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Ability Recovery Services, LLC --
https://abilityrecoveryservices.com/ -- is a debt collections
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
Michael Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1400
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 757-1880
Email: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
- and -
Michael William Drew, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 967-7220
Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James Kevin Schultz, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLP
1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 758-1891
Fax: (877) 334-0661
Email: jschultz@sessions.legal
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosi-Fulcher Suit Final Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics 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 Court
approved the final settlement of the Rosi-Fulcher consolidated
securities suit.
On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi filed a putative class
action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et
al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its executive officers.
The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA (hydrogen peroxide) topical solution,
40% (w/w) ("ESKATA") and find that the materials minimized the
risks or overstated the efficacy of the product.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20,
2019.
On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher
("Fulcher"), filed a substantially identical putative class action
complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
in the same court against the same defendants.
On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions (together, the "Consolidated Securities Action") and
appointed Fulcher "lead plaintiff" for the putative class.
On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 17, 2020.
Following briefing and oral argument on February 25, 2021, the
motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 29, 2021,
and the issues in dispute significantly narrowed.
The defendants filed an answer to the remaining aspects of the
consolidated amended complaint on April 19, 2021.
In June 2021, the defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle
the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties signed and filed a
settlement agreement in July 2021.
On August 18, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, directed that notice be given to the putative class and
scheduled the final approval settlement hearing for November 30,
2021.
Notice was subsequently given to the putative class. The court
granted final approval of the settlement on December 9, 2021.
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on July 13, 2012, is a
dermatologist-led, biopharmaceutical company. The Company is
focused on identifying, developing and commercializing
differentiated drugs for the treatment of dermatological
indications. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
ADVANCED MARKETING: Harris Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Marketing &
Processing, Inc. The case is styled as Tiffany Harris, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advanced
Marketing & Processing, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02651-KKM-SPF (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Advanced Marketing & Processing, which also operates under the name
Protect My Car -- https://protectmycar.com/ -- provides consumers
with the best extended auto warranty plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Andrew Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Fax: (305) 679-9006
Email: sbeck@bursor.com
AEGEAN MARINE: Plaintiff Allowed to File Revised Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order that
-- The Clerk of Court strike from the docket ECF Nos. 394–97
as withdrawn;
-- Lead Plaintiff is permitted to file a revised class
certification motion; and
-- Lead Plaintiff's proposed revised schedule in its letter of
November 14, 2022 is adopted.
On November 14, 2022, counsel for plaintiffs filed a letter
pursuant to the Court's Individual Practice 2.B. requesting
a pre-motion conference and seeking leave to file a revised motion
for class certification and a corresponding revision to the
briefing schedule on class certification.
Aegean provides marine support services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OuW5sUat no extra charge.[CC]
ALIMED INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alimed, Inc. The case
is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Alimed, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09818-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alimed, Inc. -- https://www.alimed.com/ -- is the largest, most
trusted online supplier of medical supplies and healthcare
products.[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
ALTRIA GROUP: January 20, 2023 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
IN RE ALTRIA GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION
Lead Case No. 3:20-cv-00772 (DJN)
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OWNED ALTRIA GROUP, INC.
COMMON STOCK AS OF OCTOBER 18, 2022, AND WHO CONTINUE TO HOLD
SUCH ALTRIA COMMON STOCK.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. This
Notice relates to a proposed settlement ("Settlement") of the
following derivative actions: In re Altria Group, Inc. Deriv.
Litig., Lead Case No. 3:20-cv-00772 (DJN) (E.D. Va.) (the "Federal
Action"), In re Altria Group, Inc. Deriv. Litig., Case No.
CL20-7051 (the "Consolidated State Action"), Cohen v. Willard, Case
No. CL20-7051, Braunstein v. Gifford, Case No. CL21-3490, Lopez v.
Casteen, Case No. CL21-4137, Dalton v. Surgner, Case No. CL21-5548,
and McCollum v. Gifford, Case No. CL21-5732, pending in the
Virginia Circuit Court of Henrico County, and Merritts v. Casteen,
et al., Case No. CL21-1093, pending in the Virginia Circuit Court
of Albemarle County (collectively, the "State Actions," and,
together with the Federal Action, the "Litigations"), as well as
certain litigation demands and demands to inspect Altria Group,
Inc.'s ("Altria" or the "Company") books and records under Virginia
law made by Altria shareholders (the "Demands," and together with
the Litigations, the "Actions"). If the Court approves the
proposed Settlement, you will be forever barred from contesting the
fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement
and from pursuing the Released Plaintiffs' Altria
Claims and the Released Plaintiffs' JLI Claims.
All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise
defined herein have the meanings provided in the Amended
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into on
October 18, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), by and among (1) Eric Gilbert
("Gilbert"); (2) Thomas Sandys ("Sandys"); (3) David Hamilton
("Hamilton"); (4) Maria Cecilia Lorca ("Lorca")
(collectively with Gilbert, Sandys, and Hamilton, the "Federal
Plaintiffs"); (5) Lawrence B. and Minda W. Cohen (the "Cohens");
(6) Edward Ashi Braunstein ("Braunstein"); (7) Eugene Lopez
("Lopez"); (8) Jerry E. Dalton ("Dalton"); (9) Portia McCollum
("McCollum"); and (10) Richard Merritts ("Merritts") (collectively
with the Cohens, Braunstein, Lopez, Dalton, and McCollum, the
"State Plaintiffs" and, collectively with the Federal Plaintiffs,
the "Plaintiffs"); (11) Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria") and all
current and former Altria officers, directors, and employees named
in any of the Actions, including Dinyar S. Devitre ("Devitre");
Debra J. Kelly-Ennis ("KellyEnnis"); W. Leo Kiely III ("Kiely");
Kathryn B. McQuade ("McQuade"); George Muñoz
("Muñoz"); John T. Casteen III ("Casteen"); Mark E. Newman
("Newman"); Nabil Y. Sakkab ("Sakkab"); Virginia E. Shanks
("Shanks"); Ellen R. Strahlman ("Strahlman"); the estate of
Thomas F. Farrell II ("Farrell"); William F. Gifford, Jr.
("Gifford"); Howard A. Willard III ("Willard"); Kevin C.
Crosthwaite, Jr. ("Crosthwaite"); W. Hildebrandt Surgner, Jr.
("Surgner"); Jody L. Begley ("Begley"); and Ivan S. Feldman
("Feldman") (collectively, the "Altria Defendants"); and (12) Juul
Labs, Inc. ("JLI"), and all current and former JLI officers,
directors, employees, and investors named in any of the Actions,
including: Adam Bowen ("Bowen"); James Monsees ("Monsees"); Kevin
Burns ("Burns"); Riaz Valani ("Valani"); Nicholas J.
Pritzker ("Pritzker"); and Hoyoung Huh ("Huh") (the "JLI
Defendants," and together with the Altria Defendants, the
"Defendants," and together with the Plaintiffs, the "Parties").
THIS NOTICE PROVIDES ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL TERMS OF
THE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASES. You can obtain more information by
reviewing the Stipulation, which is available in the "Investor
Relations" section of Altria's corporate website at
https://www.altria.com/shareholdersettlement. Because the
Settlement involves the resolution of derivative actions, which
were brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, and
shareholder litigation and books-and-records demands, the benefits
from the settlement will go to Altria. Individual Altria
shareholders will not receive any direct payment from the
Settlement.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR SHAREHOLDERS
TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT.
SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN
RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE.
I. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
1. The purpose of this Notice is to explain the Actions, the terms
of the proposed Settlement of those Actions, and how the proposed
Settlement affects Current Altria Shareholders' legal rights. This
Notice is issued pursuant to an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (the
"Court") dated October 26, 2022 ("Preliminary Approval Order"), and
further pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including Rule 23.1.
2. The Court will hold a hearing on January 20, 2023, at 11:00
a.m., in person at the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, 701 East Broad Street,
Richmond, VA 23219 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to consider whether
the Judgment, substantially in the form of Exhibit D to the
Stipulation, should be entered: (i) approving the terms of the
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of Altria and Altria's shareholders; (ii) dismissing with
prejudice the Federal Action against Defendants pursuant to the
terms of the Stipulation; and (iii) ruling upon Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award. You have a right
to participate in the Settlement Hearing.
3. This Notice describes the rights you may have in the Actions and
pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are
not required to take, in relation to the Settlement.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE SETTLING MATTERS
A. Factual Background
4. The Settlement arises out of the Actions alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty, among other claims, against certain current and
former officers and directors of Altria. The Plaintiffs alleged
that the Altria Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the multi-billion-dollar investment in JLI, and
that the JLI Defendants aided and abetted those fiduciary
breaches.
5. The Defendants deny the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in
the Actions.
B. The Federal Action
6. Between November 2019 and July 2020, Federal Plaintiffs made
pre-suit demands on Altria's Board as mandated by Virginia law.
Altria's Board responded, among other things, that it was familiar
with the history and current status of Altria's investment in JUUL,
that it was actively engaged in monitoring and overseeing that
investment, and that it believed that it was in the best interests
of Altria to defend itself in the JLI-related securities and other
litigations, which were at a very preliminary stage. Federal
Plaintiffs each waited the statutory ninety (90) days from the date
of their respective demands, and subsequently filed plenary
shareholder derivative actions asserting claims for relief on
behalf of Altria under Virginia law.
In April 2021, Federal Plaintiffs' derivative actions were
consolidated before the Court. On May 13, 2021, the Court appointed
Gilbert and Sandys as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Shuman, Glenn &
Stecker and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Co-Lead Federal
Plaintiffs' Counsel. Federal Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on July 16, 2021. In April 2021, Federal Plaintiffs
negotiated with Defendants for the production of all documents that
were produced by Defendants in the related class action litigation:
Klein, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.), and for all deposition transcripts
from fact witnesses in that action. On June 28, 2021, the Court
ordered said production. That production, which started in July
2021, occurred on a rolling basis, and resulted in the production
of over 35 million pages of documents.
C. The State Actions
7. Between October 2019 and May 2021, State Plaintiffs Cohens,
Braunstein, Dalton, McCollum and Merritts made pre-suit demands on
Altria's Board as mandated by Virginia law. Altria's Board
responded, among other things, that it was familiar with the
history and current status of Altria's investment in JUUL, that it
was actively engaged in monitoring and overseeing that investment,
and that it believed that it was in the best interests of Altria to
defend itself in the JLI-related securities and other litigations,
which were at a very preliminary stage. State Plaintiffs Cohens,
Braunstein, Dalton, McCollum and Merritts each waited the statutory
ninety (90) days from the date of their respective pre-suit
demands, and filed plenary shareholder derivative actions asserting
claims for relief on behalf of Altria under Virginia law. On July
20, 2021, the Virginia Circuit Court for Henrico County entered an
order consolidating the actions filed by Plaintiffs Cohens,
Braunstein, and Lopez into the Consolidated State Action and
appointing Hynes & Hernandez, LLC, Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. and
Gainey McKenna & Egleston as State Co-Lead Counsel. On August 2,
2021, Plaintiffs Cohens, Braunstein, and Lopez filed their
consolidated complaint in the Consolidated State Action. State
Plaintiffs Lopez and Dalton sought and obtained from Altria
non-public Board and Audit Committee meeting minutes relating to
the wrongdoing alleged in the Actions pursuant to their inspection
demands under Virginia law, and State Plaintiffs Cohens,
Braunstein, Lopez, and Dalton propounded a number of public records
requests upon federal and state agencies related to their
investigations and/or dealings with Altria and/or JLI, receiving
and reviewing productions from ten separate agencies, including the
United States Food and Drug Administration. In addition, State
Plaintiffs Cohens, Braunstein, Lopez, and Dalton began receiving
discovery materials from Klein, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.) in August 2021.
D. The Extensive Settlement Negotiations
8. Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants participated in
their first formal mediation on September 13, 2021. The mediation
was supervised by the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) and Ms. Niki
Mendoza, Esq. of Phillips ADR (the "Mediators"), each of whom are
nationally recognized neutrals with extensive experience mediating
complex derivative actions.
Before the meditation, the Parties prepared and submitted detailed
mediation statements, and also provided a framework to guide
further settlement discussions based on their assessment of
damages and corporate governance and oversight practices they
contend contributed to Altria's alleged damages.
9. The September 13, 2021 mediation ended without a settlement.
After the formal mediation, certain Plaintiffs continued to review
and evaluate the substantial volume of documents and deposition
discovery provided by Defendants. Certain Plaintiffs reviewed tens
of thousands of internal documents produced by Defendants,
encompassing millions of pages.
These documents included, among other things: (1) minutes, agendas,
board packages, communications, and other materials relating to
regularly conducted and special meetings of the Board and
committees; (2) internal officer- and employee-level
communications, reports, and other materials regarding, among many
other things, due diligence between Altria and JLI, youth tobacco
prevention, communications with regulators, and write-downs of
Altria's investment in JLI; and (3) deposition transcripts of
Altria and JLI directors, officers, employees, and investors taken
in related litigation and inquiries.
10. While no final resolution was reached at the September 13, 2021
mediation, significant progress was made and the Parties continued
their dialogue with the ongoing assistance of the Mediators. On
December 3, 2021, a subsequent formal mediation took place. In
advance of that mediation, Plaintiffs submitted updated and revised
proposed settlement terms. Those terms were based on certain
Plaintiffs' continued review of the voluminous documents produced
by Defendants, as well as the numerous communications directly
between Plaintiffs and Defendants prior to the December 3, 2021
mediation, often with participation of the Mediators. At the
December 3, 2021 mediation, the Parties continued to work through
the substantial strengths and weaknesses of the Actions. The
Parties discussed these issues at length and responded to probing
questions posed by the Mediators. The Parties discussed Plaintiffs'
proposed remedial framework, as well as specific elements of
Plaintiffs' formal settlement
demands. The second formal mediation ended without an agreement,
but substantial progress was made toward clarifying the risks and
rewards of litigation and the contours of a remedial framework that
might yield a settlement agreement.
11. Following the second mediation session, the Parties engaged in
months of verbal and written exchanges of information, discussion,
proposals, and counterproposals under the
aegis of the Mediators. At the same time, certain Plaintiffs
continued their review of documents produced by Defendants, began
further analysis of documents, and organized the documents in the
event settlement negotiations proved unsuccessful and formal
discoverycommenced.
12. On March 2, 2022, the Parties participated in an informal
mediation conference call with the Mediators. The purpose of this
call was to further discuss the prospects of settlement, obtain a
better understanding of where the Parties stood, communicate what
additional information Plaintiffs required, and see whether
continued negotiations were worthwhile as the Parties were still
far apart on the terms of settlement. That call was productive and
the Parties continued to engage.
13. Throughout this time period, the Parties, with the aid of the
Mediators, continued to make progress. Eventually, material
progress towards a settlement was made. This included
the additional exchange of proposals and counter proposals,
numerous direct communications with Defendants, and participation
with the Mediators. Considering this progress, the Parties
agreed to conduct a third mediation in hopes that the remaining
issues could be bridged. On May 6, 2022, a third mediation took
place, resulting in an initial settlement. Over the next month, the
Parties negotiated a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") setting forth the material terms of the Settlement. The MOU
negotiations proved to be as difficult and contentious as the
settlement negotiations. The number of parties participating in the
mediation coupled with Altria's involvement in related litigation
added a layer of complexity to the negotiations.
Nevertheless, the MOU was finalized and signed on June 10, 2022.
The MOU contemplated a comprehensive and global resolution of the
Actions.
14. Throughout the settlement negotiations, Defendants' counsel and
Plaintiffs' Counsel participated in dozens of communications. These
communications were difficult with each side advocating their
views, seeking clarification, and narrowing the issues. Similarly,
Defendants' counsel and Plaintiffs' Counsel exchanged numerous
drafts of proposed settlement terms. At no time during these
negotiations or during the three formal mediations with the
Mediators was the Fee and Expense Award discussed between the
Parties.
15. On August 15, 2022, the Parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement that was consistent with the terms of the June 10, 2022
MOU. On August 16, 2022, Federal Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on the docket of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as
contemplated in the settlement.
16. After the Parties agreed on all other material terms of the
Settlement, with the assistance of the Mediators, they engaged in
good faith, arms-length negotiations to attempt to reach agreement
concerning the amount of the Fee and Expense Award for Plaintiffs'
Counsel. However, despite these efforts, the Parties were unable to
reach agreement on the Fee and
Expense Award. The Parties agreed to submit the amount of the Fee
and Expense Award to the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) for final,
non-appealable arbitral determination, subject to Court approval.
This arbitration consisted of an oral hearing, following an
exchange of briefs, which occurred on August 22, 2022. The
arbitrator determined that Plaintiffs' Counsel could seek fees and
expenses up to the amount of $17.5 million, subject to Court
approval.
17. A preliminary approval hearing was held on August 25, 2022,
before Judge David J. Novak of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia. The Court denied Federal
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and ordered the Parties
to file a joint pleading on or before October 20, 2022, indicating
whether the Parties had reached an agreement within the Court's
parameters for settlement approval, as stated from the bench during
the hearing.
18. Following the denial of preliminary approval, the Parties began
renegotiating a derivative settlement that would satisfy the
parameters provided by the Court. Counsel for Altria
and Plaintiffs' Counsel engaged in an in-person mediation session
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell on September 28,
2022. Before and after this mediation session, Defendants' counsel
and Plaintiffs' Counsel participated in dozens of communications.
19. The Parties continued to make progress following the September
28, 2022 mediation session, and narrowed the remaining issues.
Counsel for Altria and Plaintiffs' Counsel then engaged in a second
mediation session before Judge Colombell on October 13, 2022, at
which they reached agreement on the remaining issues. Following
revisions to the settlement documentation, the Parties executed a
Stipulation of Settlement on October 18, 2022.
III. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
20. In consideration of the Settlement and the releases provided
therein, and subject to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation, the Parties have agreed to the following Settlement
Consideration.
21. Altria will implement and maintain the Altria Commitments,
including certain funding, policy, and governance measures relating
to youth prevention and transaction oversight.
Unless otherwise noted, Altria agrees to keep all Altria
Commitments in place for at least five (5) years. The five-year
duration of the Policy Commitments, the Measurables, the
Independent Monitor, the Corporate Governance Commitments, and the
JLI/Altria Meetings (such duration, the "Commitment Period") shall
begin ninety (90) days following the Effective Date, provided,
however, that if there is an appeal from the Court's final judgment
and order approving the Settlement, the Commitment Period may run,
at Altria's option, from the date of final approval of the
Settlement. The five-year duration of the Funding Commitment (such
duration, the "Funding Commitment Period") shall commence with the
first calendar year following the Effective Date, provided,
however, that the first annual Funding Commitment Period may run,
at Altria's option, from January 1 of the year in which final
approval of the Settlement is obtained.
22. Altria commits to funding $117 million (the "Funding Amount")
over the course of no more than the Funding Commitment Period, with
a minimum spend of at least $20 million each fiscal year. The
Funding Amount represents a new funding commitment that has not
been previously authorized by the Board or disclosed to the public
(the "Funding Commitment"). The Funding Amount will be deployed as
set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation and will not be used for
any other purposes. There will be no responsibility on the part of
any Defendant other
than Altria to pay any portion of the Funding Amount. A description
of the Funding Commitment is attached to the Stipulation in Exhibit
A.
23. Altria commits to certain Measurables during the term of the
Commitment Period.
A detailed description of the Measurables is attached to the
Stipulation in Exhibit A.
24. Altria commits to the engagement of an Independent Monitor in
connection with certain of the Altria Commitments. A description of
the Independent Monitor's duties and responsibilities is attached
to the Stipulation in Exhibit A.
25. Altria commits to keeping in place certain Policy Commitments
for no less than the Commitment Period, including (1) the following
goals with a target date of 2025: (i) lead the
tobacco industry in preventing underage use of products for adults
21 and over, and (ii) contribute to the healthy development of
youth ages 12-18; and (2) Altria's Standards for
Underage Use Prevention (the "Standards"). A description of the
Standards is attached to the Stipulation in Exhibit A.
26. Altria commits to implementing and maintaining certain
Corporate Governance Commitments, including: (1) formalizing the
structure and composition of Altria's Underage Use Prevention
Steering Committee ("Steering Committee"); (2) scheduling an
internal audit of the Steering Committee's activities once every
two (2) years; (3) requiring the Chairperson of the Steering
Committee to make at least semi-annual presentations on the work of
the Steering Committee to the Nominating, Corporate Governance, and
Social Responsibility Committee, and
at least annual presentations to the full Board; (4) maintaining
Altria's management-level Disclosure Committee; (5) amending its
Finance Committee Charter to provide that the Finance
Committee shall have the authority and responsibility to review the
Company's strategy regarding mergers, acquisitions, investments,
and dispositions with management; and (6)
mandating that each potential investment in, or acquisition of, a
business involving a tobacco products-related business be evaluated
for legal-regulatory, financial, business and reputational risks
relating to underage use. Detailed descriptions of the Altria
Commitments are attached to the Stipulation in Exhibit A.
27. Altria and JLI each commit to the JLI/Altria Meeting
Commitments, including that, to further develop and support
evidence-based interventions to address underage use of
tobacco products, Altria and JLI shall meet semi-annually to (1)
discuss their respective company's ongoing youth tobacco prevention
initiatives, including as they relate to e-vapor use, and (2)
explore new opportunities to help prevent underage tobacco use. A
report of these meetings shall be delivered to Altria's and JLI's
respective senior management, and (with respect to Altria only) to
the Nominating, Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility
Committee of the Board and to the Steering Committee. Detailed
descriptions of the JLI/Altria Meeting Commitments are attached to
the Stipulation in Exhibit A.
IV. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
28. Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the
Actions have merit and that their investigations of the evidence
support the claims asserted. Without conceding the merit
of any of Defendants' defenses, and in light of the benefits of the
Settlement, as well as to avoid the potentially protracted time,
expense, and uncertainty associated with continued litigation,
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have concluded that it is
desirable that the Actions be fully and
finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation.
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel recognize the significant risk,
expense, and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute
the Actions against Defendants through trial(s) and through
possible appeal(s). Plaintiffs' Counsel have also taken into
account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation,
especially complex litigation such as the Litigations, the
difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation, the cost to
Altria -- on behalf of which Plaintiffs pursued the Actions -- and
distraction to management of Altria that would result from extended
litigation.
Based on their evaluation, and in light of what Plaintiffs' Counsel
believe to be the significant benefits conferred upon Altria as a
result of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have
determined that the Settlement is in the best interests of
Plaintiffs and Altria and have agreed to settle the Actions upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Stipulation.
29. Pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, the
Stipulation (including the exhibits thereto) shall in no event be
construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission or
concession by the Defendants of any infirmity in any of the claims
asserted in the Actions, or an admission or concession that any of
the Defendants' defenses to liability or damages had any merit.
30. Each Defendant has denied and continues to deny that he or she
has committed or attempted to commit, or has aided and abetted, any
violations of law, any breaches of fiduciary
duty owed to Altria, or any wrongdoing whatsoever. Each Altria
Defendant expressly maintains that at all relevant times, he or she
acted in good faith and in a manner that he or she reasonably
believed to be in the best interests of Altria and its
shareholders. Each Defendant likewise denies all of the allegations
made by Plaintiffs in the Actions. Defendants further deny that
Plaintiffs, Altria, or its shareholders suffered any damage or were
harmed as a result of any act, omission, or conduct by the
Defendants as alleged in the Actions or otherwise. Defendants
further assert, among other things, that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to litigate derivatively on behalf of Altria because
Plaintiffs cannot properly plead that demand on the Board was
wrongfully refused.
31. Altria believes that the Settlement is in the best interests of
the Company, its shareholders, and its employees. Defendants are,
therefore, entering into this Settlement for the benefit of Altria
to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, disruption, burden,
risk, and expense of further litigation. Pursuant to the terms set
forth therein, the Stipulation (including the exhibits thereto)
shall in no event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an
admission or concession by Defendants with respect to any claim of
fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damage, or any defect in the
defenses that Defendants have, or could have, asserted.
32. Altria's current Board, including each of its independent,
non-defendant directors, has unanimously approved the Settlement in
the good-faith exercise of their fiduciary duties. The
Board finds that: (i) Plaintiffs' litigation and settlement efforts
substantially and materially contributed to the Board's decision to
agree to, formalize, and/or maintain the Altria Commitments; (ii)
the Altria Commitments confer substantial benefits on Altria and
its shareholders; and (iii) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and is in Altria and its shareholders' best interests.
V. RELEASES
33. If the Settlement is approved, the Court will enter a Judgment
dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice pursuant to the terms
of the Stipulation, the State Plaintiffs will
move to dismiss each and every one of their actions with prejudice
not more than five (5) business days after the Court's approval of
the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable, all Demands will
be deemed withdrawn by operation of law, and upon the Effective
Date of the Settlement, the following releases will occur.
34. Plaintiffs and each and every other Altria shareholder, in
their capacities as such, derivatively on behalf of Altria, and on
behalf of themselves and their respective agents, spouses, heirs,
executors, administrators, personal representatives, predecessors,
successors, transferors, transferees, representatives, and assigns,
in their capacities as such ("Shareholder Releasors"), and Altria
directly, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of law and
Final Order and Judgment shall have, completely, fully, finally,
and forever compromised, settled, released, resolved, relinquished,
waived, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice the Released
Plaintiffs' Altria Claims against the Altria Releasees, which, as
detailed in the Stipulation, means any and all claims, rights,
demands, obligations, controversies, debts, disputes, damages,
losses, actions, causes of action, issues, liabilities, and charges
of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether in law or equity,
including both known claims and Unknown Claims, suspected or
unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, liquidated
or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, foreseen or
unforeseen, whether arising under federal or state statutory or
common law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether foreign
or domestic, against the Altria Releasees, that (i) were
asserted in any of the complaints filed in the Actions or in any
Demands, or (ii) could have been asserted by Altria directly, by
Plaintiffs directly, or by Plaintiffs or any other Altria
shareholder derivatively on behalf of Altria in any court,
tribunal, forum, or proceeding, arising out of, relating to, based
upon, or involving, directly or indirectly, any of the facts,
allegations, practices, events, claims, disclosures,
non-disclosures, occurrences, representations, statements, matters,
transactions, conduct, actions, failures to act, omissions, or
circumstances that were alleged or referred to in any of the
complaints filed in the Actions or in any Demands, including,
without limitation, any such claims based in whole or in part on
any allegations relating to Altria's investment in JLI or made in
any of the following actions or proceedings: (1) Klein, et al. v.
Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.),
(2) In the Matter of Altria Group, Inc., Docket No. 9393 (F.T.C.),
(3) In re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), or
(4) any government investigations, actions, or proceedings
referenced in the Actions.
35. Shareholder Releasors and Altria directly shall be deemed to
have, and by operation of law and Final Order and Judgment shall
have, completely, fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled,
released, resolved, relinquished, waived, discharged, and dismissed
with prejudice the Released Plaintiffs' JLI Claims against the JLI
Releasees, which, as detailed in the
Stipulation, means any and all claims or demands, whether in law or
equity, and whether arising under federal or state statutory or
common law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether foreign
or domestic, against the JLI Releasees, that: (i) were asserted on
behalf of Altria in any of the complaints filed in the Actions or
in any Demands (except claims for contribution or indemnification
as provided in the Stipulation) or (ii) are for aiding, abetting,
or otherwise facilitating the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the Altria Releasees set forth in any of the complaints filed in
the Litigations or any Demands.
36. The Released Defendants shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of law and Final Order and Judgment shall have, fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the
Released Defendants' Claims against the Released Plaintiffs, and
shall be forever enjoined from prosecuting the Released Defendants'
Claims, excluding claims relating to the
enforcement or effectuation of the Settlement or Final Order and
Judgment, which as detailed in the Stipulation, means any and all
manner of claims, demands, rights, liabilities, losses,
obligations, duties, damages, costs, debts, expenses, interest,
penalties, sanctions, fees, attorneys' fees, actions, potential
actions, causes of action, suits, judgments, defenses,
counterclaims, offsets, decrees, matters, issues, and controversies
of any kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or
unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, accrued or unaccrued, apparent
or not apparent, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or not matured,
suspected or unsuspected, liquidated or not liquidated, fixed or
contingent, including Unknown Claims, which were or which could
have been asserted by any of the Defendants in any court, tribunal,
forum, or proceeding, whether based on state, local, foreign,
federal, statutory, regulatory, common, or other law or rule, and
which are based upon, arise out of, relate in any way to, or
involve, directly or indirectly, the commencement, prosecution,
defense, mediation, or settlement of the Actions, including, but
not limited to, discovery produced in the Actions. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Released Defendants' Claims shall not
include any claims to enforce the Settlement, Final Order and
Judgment, or any other document memorializing the Settlement of the
Actions and shall not include claims, if any, that any Party may
have against its insurer with respect to any payment obligations
under this
Settlement.
37. By Order of the Court, pending the Effective Date, the Parties
agree that all aspects of the Actions between them will remain
stayed except for activities related to the
approval or enforcement of the Settlement.
38. By Order of the Court, pending final determination of whether
the Settlement is approved, Plaintiffs and all other Altria
shareholders are barred and enjoined from asserting,
commencing, instituting, or prosecuting any and all Released
Plaintiffs' Altria Claims and any and all Released Plaintiffs' JLI
Claims against any of the Altria Releasees or the JLI Releasees.
39. Shareholder Releasors shall be forever enjoined from pursuing
or prosecuting against the Altria Releasees or the JLI Releasees
any and all Released Plaintiffs' Altria Claims and any and all
Released Plaintiffs' JLI Claims, and any other derivative
litigation or demands, including books-and-records demands, arising
out of or relating to any of the facts, allegations, practices,
events, claims, disclosures, non-disclosures, occurrences,
representations, statements, matters, transactions, conduct,
actions, failures to act, omissions, or circumstances that were
alleged or referred to in any of the complaints filed in the
Actions or in any Demands.
40. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RELEASES IS A SUMMARY.
The complete terms, including the definitions of the Effective
Date, Released Defendant Claims, Released Defendants, Released
Plaintiffs' Altria Claims, Released Plaintiffs' JLI Claims,
Released Plaintiffs, and Unknown Claims, are set forth in the
Stipulation, which is available in the "Investor Relations" section
of Altria's corporate website, at
https://www.altria.com/shareholdersettlement
VI. PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S APPLICATION FOR A FEE AND EXPENSE AWARD
41. Altria agrees that counsel for Plaintiffs are entitled to an
award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for their role in
creating the Settlement's substantial benefits for the Company and
its shareholders, reflective of the Board's determination that
Plaintiffs' litigation and settlement efforts substantially and
materially contributed to the Board's approval of the Settlement.
After the Parties agreed on all other material terms of the
Settlement, with the assistance of the Mediators, they engaged in
good faith, arms-length negotiations to attempt to reach agreement
concerning the amount of the Fee and Expense Award for Plaintiffs'
Counsel. However, despite these efforts, the Parties were unable to
reach agreement on the Fee and Expense Award. The Parties agreed to
submit the amount of the Fee and Expense Award to the Hon. Layn R.
Phillips (Ret.) for final, non-appealable arbitral determination,
subject to Court approval. This arbitration occurred on August 22,
2022. Plaintiffs' Counsel will seek fees and expenses up to the
amount of $17.5 million, subject to Court approval.
42. The amount of the arbitrated Fee and Expense Award shall be
subject to the Court's approval. Any changes by the Court (or upon
appeal from the Final Order and Judgment) to the arbitrated Fee and
Expense Award will not affect the finality of the Settlement.
The amount of any Court determined Fee and Expense Award or any
changes to that award upon appeal from the Final Order and Judgment
will not affect the finality of the Settlement. The
Settlement is not contingent on an agreement as to the amount of a
Fee and Expense Award.
43. Federal Co-lead Counsel may apply to the Court for service
awards of up to $15,000 for each of Plaintiffs, to be paid upon
Court approval, in recognition of their participation and efforts
in the creation of the benefits of the Settlement. Any Service
Awards to Plaintiffs shall be paid from any Fee and Expense Award
ordered by the Court.
44. Altria shall, within twenty (20) business days after the later
of (i) the Court's entry of an order awarding fees and expenses,
notwithstanding any objection thereto, appeal
therefrom, or collateral attack on the Settlement; or (ii) Altria's
receipt of payment instructions, cause the Fee and Expense award to
be paid into an escrow account established and controlled by
Federal Co-Lead Counsel, subject to the several obligation to
refund fees and expenses in the event the approval of the
Settlement is reversed or in accordance with any subsequent order
reducing the Fee and Expense award. No Defendant other than Altria
shall have any responsibility with respect to the Fee and Expense
award.
VII. SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR AND OBJECT
45. The Court has scheduled a Settlement Hearing, to be held on
January 20, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in person at the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 701
East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219 (the "Settlement Hearing"),
to consider whether the Judgment, substantially in the form of
Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered: (i)
approving the terms of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of Altria and Altria's
stockholders; (ii) dismissing with prejudice the Federal Action
against Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation; and
(iii) ruling upon Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and
Expense Award.
46. Please Note: The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may
change without further written notice to Current Altria
Shareholders. In order to determine whether the date
and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Current
Altria Shareholders must or may participate by telephone or video,
it is important that you monitor the Court's
docket before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates
regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be
posted to the Court's docket.
47. Any Person who owned Altria stock as of October 18, 2022 and
continues to hold such Altria common stock as of the date of the
Settlement Hearing may appear at the Settlement Hearing to show
cause why the proposed Settlement should not be approved; why the
Judgment should not be entered thereon; or why Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award should not be
granted; provided, however, that no such Person shall be heard or
entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
proposed Settlement, the Judgment to be entered approving the same,
or the application for the Fee and Expense Award, unless such
Person has filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, 701 East Broad Street,
Richmond, VA 23219, and served (by hand, first-class mail or
express service) on Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants,
a written and signed notice of objection that includes: (i) the
objector's name, address, and telephone number (and if represented,
that of his, her, or its counsel), along with a representation as
to whether the objector intends to appear at the Settlement
Hearing; (ii) proof that the objector owned shares of Altria common
stock as of October 18, 2022, and continues to hold such common
stock; (iii) a statement of the objections to any matters before
the Court, the grounds for the objections or the reasons for the
objector's desiring to appear and be heard, as well as all
documents or writings the objector desires the Court to consider,
including any legal and evidentiary support; and (iv) if the
objector has indicated that he, she or it intends to appear at the
Settlement Hearing, the identities of any witnesses the objector
may call to testify and any exhibits the objector intends to
introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. Any such
objection must be filed with the Court and received by the
below-noted counsel by no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days
prior to the Settlement Hearing:
Office of the Clerk
Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr.,
Federal Courthouse 701 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Kip B. Shuman
SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: (303) 861-3003
Fax: (303) 536-7849
kip@shumanlawfirm.com
Geoffrey M. Johnson
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
12434 Cedar Road
Cleveland, OH 44106
Tel.: (216) 229-6088
Fax: (216) 229-6092
gjohnson@scott-scott.com
Stephen R. DiPrima
Jacob Miller
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 403-1000
Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
SRDiPrima@wlrk.com
JMiller@wlrk.com
48. Documentation establishing ownership of Altria common stock
must consist of copies of monthly brokerage account statements, or
an authorized statement from the objector's broker containing the
information found in an account statement.
49. Unless the Court otherwise directs, no Person shall be entitled
to object to the approval of the Settlement, the Judgment to be
entered approving the Settlement, the application
for a Fee and Expense Award, or otherwise be heard, except by
serving and filing a written objection and supporting papers as
prescribed above. Any Person who fails to object in the
manner described above shall be deemed to have waived the right to
object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement and the Fee and
Expense Award (including any right of appeal or collateral
attack); be forever barred and foreclosed from objecting to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, the
Judgment to be entered approving the Settlement, or the Fee and
Expense Award; and be deemed to have waived and forever barred and
foreclosed from being heard, in this or any other proceeding with
respect to any matters concerning the Settlement or the Fee and
Expense Award.
VIII. ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
50. The Parties will jointly request at the Settlement Hearing that
the Court determine and enter the Judgment concluding that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in
the best interests of Altria and Altria's shareholders. The
Judgment shall, among other things:
a. Determine that the requirements of Rule 23.1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil
Procedure and due process have been satisfied in connection with
the Notice;
b. Approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in
the best interests
of Altria and Altria's shareholders;
c. Dismiss the Federal Action with prejudice on the merits, as
against any and all
Defendants, without costs except as provided in the Stipulation;
and
d. Rule upon Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for the Fee and
Expense Award and
Service Awards.
IX. SCOPE OF THIS NOTICE
51. This Notice does not purport to be a comprehensive description
of the Actions, the terms of the Settlement, or the Settlement
Hearing. For the full details of the Federal Action
and the Actions, Current Altria Shareholders may inspect the
pleadings, the Stipulation, and the orders entered by the Court and
are referred to the office of the Clerk of Court, 701 East Broad
Street, Richmond, VA 23219. The Stipulation is also available in
the "Investor Relations" section of Altria's corporate website at
ttps://www.altria.com/shareholdersettlement.
52. If you have questions regarding the Settlement, you may call
the following counsel for Plaintiffs:
Kip B. Shuman
SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: (303) 861-3003
Fax: (303) 536-7849
kip@shumanlawfirm.com
Geoffrey M. Johnson
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
12434 Cedar Road
Cleveland, OH 44106
Tel.: (216) 229-6088
Fax: (216) 229-6092
gjohnson@scott-scott.com
Form and substance approved by Court Order dated October 26, 2022.
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Modifies Garner Class Cert Case Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
15 LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order extending the deadline for the close of fact
discovery and subsequent case deadlines as follows:
Event Former Operative
Deadline Deadline
-- Fact discovery Dec. 16, 2022 Aug. 16, 2023
cut-off
-- Last day to file Jan. 26, 2023 Oct. 10, 2023
motion for class
certification
(including expert
report in support
of class
certification)
-- Last day to file Mar. 24, 2023 Dec. 8, 2023
opposition to class
certification
(including expert
report in opposition
to class
certification)
-- Last day to file reply Apr. 28, 2023 Jan. 11, 2024
in support of class
certification
(including reply
class certification
expert report limited
to any new subjects
introduced in opposition
report)
On November 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint against Defendants.
On February 18, 2022, the Court issued an Order Setting Discovery
And Pretrial Dates that set the close of fact discovery on December
16, 2022.
The parties have engaged in discovery, including document requests,
interrogatories, and discovery conferences, as well as
discovery-related motion practice.
Amazon.com. is an American multinational technology company
focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising,
digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ExrXINat no extra charge.[CC]
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Final Settlement in Hawaii Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
court issued final settlement approval and dismissed the Hawaii
securities class suits.
On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the
Hawaii Action, the “Actions”), respectively, were filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Actions, which name certain of the Company’s
officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the
underwriters of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public
offering, as defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") with
respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for the secondary public offering and in
certain other public disclosures.
On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions. On January 22,
2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.
On September 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part.
On March 2, 2020, plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class.
On March 30, 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the
class.
On September 2, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the Actions for $18.0 million. The Company agreed to the
settlement and the payment of the settlement amount to eliminate
the distraction, burden, expense, and uncertainty of further
litigation.
The Company and the other defendants continue to expressly deny any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the
Actions.
On November 1, 2021, the parties to the Actions signed a
stipulation of settlement, which memorialized the terms of the
agreement in principle, and which the plaintiffs filed with the
court.
Also on November 1, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to
preliminarily approve the settlement.
On November 8, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement, approved the form of notice to be disseminated to class
members, and scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement
for February 10, 2022.
On February 14, 2022, the court issued a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the action.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Joint Stipulation to Stay Manuel Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
Court approved the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Manuel
stockholder derivative suit.
On March 20, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned
Manuel v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02456-AJN (the "Manuel
Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The Manuel Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 21D, and
29(b) of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty based
on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga
Action, and the Kenna Action.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the
court granted on May 18, 2020.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lyon Stockholder Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
defendants' bid to dismiss the Lyon stockholder derivative suit is
pending.
On September 23, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint,
captioned Lyon v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07940-AJN (the
"Lyon Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors.
The Lyon Action asserts claims for contribution and indemnification
under the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, and unjust enrichment/constructive trust based on
allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga
Action, the Kenna Action, the Manuel Action, and the Dinkevich
Action.
On January 14, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Dinkevich Stockholder Suit Lifted
------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
Court lifted the stay on the Dinkevich stockholder derivative suit
on January 11, 2022.
On April 7, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned
Dinkevich v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02870-AJN (the
"Dinkevich Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The Dinkevich Action asserts the same claims as the Manuel Action
based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the
Gantulga Action, the Kenna Action, and the Manuel Action.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which was
granted on June 25, 2020.
On January 11, 2022, the court lifted the stay.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Gantulga Stockholder Suit Lifted
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
court lifted the stay on the Gantulga stockholder suit on February
9, 2022.
On May 21, 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned
Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02262-JAR-TJJ (the
"Gantulga Action"), was filed against certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas. The Gantulga Action, which was filed on behalf of the
Company, asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on
allegations substantially similar to the Actions.
On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which the court granted on October 15, 2018. When the
action was transferred to the Southern District of New York, it was
re-captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10007-AJN.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the
court granted on December 17, 2018.
The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stay on Kenna Stockholder Class Suit Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings 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
Court lifted the stay on the Kenna stockholder class suit on
February 9, 2022.
On October 2, 2019, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned
Kenna v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09148-AJN (the "Kenna
Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the
court granted on October 17, 2019.
On April 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
Kenna Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of
the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the
Actions and the Gantulga Action.
The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its
subsidiaries, is in the theatrical exhibition business in the U.S.
The Leawood, Kansas-based Company currently operates over 1,009
theatres with approximately 11,083 screens globally.
AMERICAN WEMPE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Wempe
Corporation. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. American Wempe
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07073 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Wempe Corporation, doing business as Wempe --
https://www.wempe.com/en-int/ -- is a watch store in New York
City.[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
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Cervantes-Arnold Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alejandro Javier Cervantes-Arnold, on behalf of
himself and similarly CLASS ACTION situated employees v. AMTRUST
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV33034 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 18,
2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08451.
The Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint which sets
forth the following causes of action: Declaratory Relief; Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Authorize Meal Periods; Failure
to Authorize Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employment-Related
Losses and Expenditures; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During
Employment; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final
Paychecks Due At Time of Separation of Employment; and Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicky Jatana, Esq.
Andrea F. Oxman, Esq.
Kishaniah Dhamodaran, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, California 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
Andrea.Oxman@jacksonlewis.com
Kishaniah.Dhamo@jacksonlewis.com
AMYRIS INC: $13.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit for Ct. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris 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 a $13.5 million
settlement for a securities class suit is for court approval.
On April 3, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and our CEO, John G. Melo, and former CFO, Kathleen
Valiasek, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class that would comprise all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between March 15,
2018 and March 19, 2019.
The complaint, which was amended by the lead plaintiff on September
13, 2019, alleges securities law violations based on statements and
omissions made by the Company during such period.
On October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
securities class action complaint, which was denied by the court on
October 5, 2020.
The Company filed its answer to the securities class action
complaint on October 26, 2020.
In early 2021, the parties attended court-ordered mediation, but as
the case did not settle, the parties commenced discovery.
On July 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification and the Company filed its opposition on September 24,
2021; after briefing and argument, it was granted in part on
December 8, 2021.
On December 22, 2021, the Company filed a petition seeking
interlocutory review of that order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which was fully briefed on January 14, 2022.
On February 4, 2022, the parties reached a tentative settlement of
the securities class action, which requires the court's review and
approval.
On March 24, 2022, the parties submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the Court.
A slightly revised proposed settlement agreement and supporting
documents were filed on July 21, 2022.
On July 22, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement and set the hearing date for final approval on November
8, 2022.
Upon approval of the settlement by the Court, the settlement amount
of approximately $13.5 million will be covered by the Company's
director's and officer's insurance policy.
Amyris Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its
industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily
yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable
ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California.
ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek Time Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA and MARK
SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(D. Nev.), the parties seek an Order of this Court extending the
class certification deadlines as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Last Day to Move to Nov. 29, 2022 Dec. 6, 2022
Certify Class:
-- Last Day to Oppose Jan. 10, 2023 Jan. 17, 2023
Motion to Certify
Class:
-- Last Day to File Reply Feb.7, 2023 Feb. 14, 2023
Supporting Motion to
Certify Class:
On May 16, 2022, the Court approved the parties' Amended Joint
Discovery Plan setting the close of fact discovery for October 25,
2022 and the last day to move to certify a class as November 29,
2022.
Ancestry began its production of documents collected using the
agreed upon custodians and search terms on November 11, 2022, but
will not be able to complete its production until November 17,
2022.
Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tThfHDat no extra
charge.[CC]
Th Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
E-mail: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San
Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
E-mail: MRam@forthepeople.com
MAppel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: Ben@benosbornlaw.com
Counsel for ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., ANCESTRY.COM INC., and
ANCESTRY.COM LLC are:
Shon Morgan, Esq.
John W. Baumann, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5000
E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone : (702) 823-2500
Facsimile : (702) 823-3400
E-mail: sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com
ANGIE'S LIST: Pro Water Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Pro Water Solutions, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Angie's List, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08704-ODW-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central 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 for the County of Los Angeles, arises from the
Plaintiff's efforts to market its services through the use of
advertising and lead generation services provided by Angie's List
and non-party HomeAdvisor, Inc., respectively. The Plaintiff
asserts five causes of action, on behalf of itself and a putative
class and subclasses, against Angie's List and Angi for: (1) breach
of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17210
("UCL"); and (5) declaratory relief.
On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Otis D.
Wright, II on Oct. 17, 2022. Judge Wright ruled that the motion
fails on the commonality requirement because (1) variations among
Class members change the outcome of the "unfair" analysis; (2) the
Subclass is uniquely positioned and shares no common questions with
the Class; and (3) Pro Water's claim is unmeritorious as a matter
of law.
The appellate case is captioned Pro Water Solutions, Inc. v.
Angie's List, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80126, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
19360 Rinaldi Street, Suite 647
Porter Ranch, CA 91326
Telephone: (818) 360-2529
Defendants-Respondents ANGIE'S LIST, INC., et al., are represented
by:
Joseph Duffy, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-2508
- and -
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
One Market Street
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
APOLLO ASSET: Bid to Dismiss PlayAGS Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management 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
motion to dismiss the PlayAGS Class Suit remains pending in the
District Court of Nevada.
On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of
directors (including three directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC
(these last four parties, together, the “Apollo Defendants”).
The complaint asserts claims against all defendants arising under
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary
offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019,
alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with
those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges
facing PlayAGS.
The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the
director defendants (including the directors affiliated with
Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain
misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on January 11, 2021 and again
on March 25, 2021.
On May 24, 2021, the Apollo Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint, which motion remains pending.
Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
On January 1, 2022, Apollo Global Management, Inc. completed the
previously announced merger transactions with Athene (the
"Mergers"). Upon the closing of the Mergers, Apollo Global
Management, Inc. was renamed Apollo Asset Management, Inc. ("AAM")
and became a subsidiary of Tango Holdings, Inc., and Tango
Holdings, Inc. was renamed Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("AGM").
APOLLO ASSET: Harbinger State Action Pending in N.Y. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management 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
Harbinger State Action is pending in the New York Supreme Court.
On December 21, 2017, several entities referred to collectively as
"Harbinger" commenced an action in New York Supreme Court captioned
Harbinger Capital Partners II LP et al. v. Apollo Global Management
LLC, et al. (No. 657515/2017). The complaint named as defendants
AAM, and funds managed by Apollo that invested in SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. ("SkyTerra"), among others.
The complaint alleged that during the period of Harbinger's various
equity and debt investments in SkyTerra from 2004 to 2010, the
defendants concealed from Harbinger material defects in SkyTerra
technology. The complaint further alleged that Harbinger would not
have made investments in SkyTerra totaling approximately $1.9
billion had it known of the defects, and that the public disclosure
of these defects ultimately led to SkyTerra filing for bankruptcy
in 2012 (after it had been renamed LightSquared). The complaint
sought $1.9 billion in damages, as well as punitive damages,
interest, costs, and fees.
On June 12, 2019, Harbinger voluntarily discontinued the state
action without prejudice.
On June 8, 2020, Harbinger refiled its litigation in New York
Supreme Court, captioned Harbinger Capital Partners II, LP et al.
v. Apollo Global Management, LLC et al. (No. 652342/2020).
The complaint adds eight new defendants and three new claims
relating to Harbinger's contention that the new defendants induced
Harbinger to buy CCTV One Four Holdings, LLC ("CCTV") to support
SkyTerra's network even though they allegedly knew that the network
had material defects.
On November 23, 2020, Defendants refiled a bankruptcy motion, and
on November 24, 2020, filed in the state court a motion to stay the
state court proceedings pending a ruling by the bankruptcy court on
the bankruptcy motion.
On February 1, 2021, the bankruptcy court denied the bankruptcy
motion.
On March 31, 2021, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
New York Supreme Court action. Hearings were held on the motions to
dismiss on February 15, 2022 and February 18, 2022, and the motions
remain pending.
Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
On January 1, 2022, Apollo Global Management, Inc. completed the
previously announced merger transactions with Athene (the
"Mergers"). Upon the closing of the Mergers, Apollo Global
Management, Inc. was renamed Apollo Asset Management, Inc. ("AAM")
and became a subsidiary of Tango Holdings, Inc., and Tango
Holdings, Inc. was renamed Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("AGM").
APOLLO ASSET: Loses Bid to Dismiss MPM Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management 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
Delaware Chancery Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
MPM Class Suit.
In March 2020, Frank Funds, which claims to be a former shareholder
of MPM Holdings, Inc. ("MPM"), commenced an action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned Frank Funds v. Apollo Global
Management, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0130, against AAM, certain
former MPM directors (including three Apollo officers and
employees), and members of the consortium that acquired MPM in a
May 2019 merger.
The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of former MPM
shareholders, a claim against Apollo for breach of its fiduciary
duties as MPM’s alleged controlling shareholder in connection
with the May 2019 merger.
Frank Funds seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
On July 23, 2019, a group of former MPM shareholders filed an
appraisal petition in Delaware Chancery Court seeking the fair
value of their MPM shares that were purchased through MPM's May 15,
2019 merger, in an action captioned In re Appraisal of MPM
Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0519 (Del. Ch.). On June 3, 2020,
petitioners moved for leave to file a verified amended appraisal
petition and class-action complaint that included claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty against AAM, the Apollo-affiliated fund that owned MPM's
shares before the merger, certain former MPM directors (including
three Apollo employees), and members of the consortium that
acquired MPM, based on alleged actions related to the May 2019
merger.
The petitioners also sought to consolidate their appraisal
proceeding with the Frank Funds action.
On November 13, 2020, the Chancery Court granted the parties'
stipulated order to consolidate the two matters, and on December
21, 2020, the Chancery Court granted petitioners' motion for leave
to file the proposed amended complaint. This new consolidated
action is captioned In Re MPM Holdings Inc. Appraisal and
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0519 (Del Ch.).
On January 13, 2022, the Chancery Court denied Apollo's motion to
dismiss.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.
Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
On January 1, 2022, Apollo Global Management, Inc. completed the
previously announced merger transactions with Athene (the
"Mergers"). Upon the closing of the Mergers, Apollo Global
Management, Inc. was renamed Apollo Asset Management, Inc. ("AAM")
and became a subsidiary of Tango Holdings, Inc., and Tango
Holdings, Inc. was renamed Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("AGM").
APOLLO ASSET: Opposes McEvoy Bid to Alter March 10 Court Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management 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 Apollo
Global along with other Defendants opposed the motion filed by
plaintiffs, to alter the March 10, 2022 court order, on April 28,
2022.
The defendants, including Apollo, opposed that motion on April 28,
2022.
On August 3, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AAM, a
senior partner of Apollo and a former principal of Apollo by
Michael McEvoy on behalf of a purported class of employees of
subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased shares
in CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of
CEVA Group. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them
to purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt
restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not
receive a recovery. McEvoy subsequently revised his complaint to
attempt to assert claims that do not belong to CIL.
The amended complaint no longer named any individual defendants,
but Apollo Management VI, L.P. and CEVA Group were added as
defendants. The amended complaint sought damages of approximately
€30 million and asserts, among other things, claims for
violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, breach of
fiduciary duties, and breach of contract.
On December 7, 2018, McEvoy filed his amended complaint in the
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On January 6, 2020, the Florida court granted in part Apollo's
motion to dismiss, dismissing McEvoy's Investment Advisers Act
claim with prejudice, and denying without prejudice Apollo's motion
with respect to the remaining claims, and directing the parties to
conduct limited discovery, and submit new briefing, solely with
respect to the statute of limitations.
On July 30, 2020, Apollo and CEVA filed a joint motion for summary
judgment on statute of limitations grounds.
On June 29, 2021, the district court issued a decision denying the
defendants' joint motion for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds, and set deadlines on July 23, 2021 for the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint and August 20, 2021 for
defendants to answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on July 23, 2021 which
added alleged grounds for tolling the statute of limitations.
Also on July 23, 2021, the defendants filed a joint motion for
reconsideration with respect to aspects of the district court's
June 29, 2021 decision.
On March 10, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion for
reconsideration and granted Apollo's motion for summary judgment.
On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the
court's order of March 10.
The defendants, including Apollo, opposed that motion on April 28,
2022.
The court denied Plaintiff's motion on May 26, 2022. Plaintiff has
appealed the court's decisions to the Eleventh Circuit.
Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
On January 1, 2022, Apollo Global Management, Inc. completed the
previously announced merger transactions with Athene (the
"Mergers"). Upon the closing of the Mergers, Apollo Global
Management, Inc. was renamed Apollo Asset Management, Inc. ("AAM")
and became a subsidiary of Tango Holdings, Inc., and Tango
Holdings, Inc. was renamed Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("AGM").
APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL ORSHAN, CHRISTOPHER
ENDARA, DAVID HENDERSON, and STEVEN NEOCLEOUS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and request
that the Court continue the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, and Defendant's Objection to and Motion to Strike
Reply Declaration of Dr. Andreas Groehn.
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on March 15,
2022. The Defendant filed a response to the Motion for Class
Certification on March 17, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed a response to the Motion to Strike on June 29,
2022. The Defendant filed a reply in support of the Motion to
Strike on July 14, 2022.
On March 15, 2022, the Court initially scheduled a hearing on the
Motion for Class Certification on July 14, 2022
On September 30, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the
Motion for Class Certification and the Motion to Strike to October
27, 2022.
Apple is an American multinational corporation that designs and
manufactures consumer electronics and software products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EtYHTbat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
Michael McShane, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
E-mail: lkuang@audetlaw.com
kkessler@audetlaw.com
mmcshane@audetlaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
Nicholas Jackson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
33 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (347) 480-1030); (347) 826-1308
E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com
njacksonhfajustice.com
- and -
Robert Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ, Esq.
9100 S. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1704
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-0101
E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
- and -
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. are:
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
Andrew J. Weisberg, Esq.
Victoria C. Hargis, Esq.
O' MELVENY & M YERS , LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone.: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
aweisberg@omm.com
vhargis@omm.com
ARCBEST CORPORATION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcbest Corporation.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Arcbest Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-09819 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ArcBest Corporation -- https://arcb.com/ -- is an American holding
company for truckload and less-than-truckload freight, freight
brokerage, household good moving, and transportation management
companies.[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
ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: Hayre Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Floral Park, et al. The case is styled as Jaswinder
Hayre, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Floral
Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Floral Park,
Respondents, Case No. 616006/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov.
17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Floral Park -- https://fpvillage.org/ -- is an incorporated village
in Nassau County, New York, United States, on Long Island.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASSESSOR OF GARDEN CITY: Keller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Garden City, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Keller,
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Garden City, The Board
of Assessment Review of the Village of Garden City, Respondents,
Case No. 616001/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Assessor of the Village of Garden City --
https://www.gardencityny.net/ -- issues property tax assessments
and exemptions .[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Cireasa Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as
Viviana Cireasa, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Incorporated Village of
Malverne, The Board of Assessment Review of the Incorporated
Village of Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 616004/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Malverne -- https://www.malvernevillage.org/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York,
United States.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Kindya Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Robert Kindya, all
other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A v.
The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The Board of Assessment
Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents, Case No. 616003/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the
county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United
States.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASTON CARTER IN: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aston Carter In., et
al. The case is styled as Kia Janae Brown, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aston Carter In., Guidant Global,
Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00329962-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Aston Carter -- https://www.astoncarter.com/ -- delivers
world-class professional talent, staffing services, workforce
solutions and consulting to help business tackle today's
challenges.[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
BABY'S 1ST FURNITURE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baby's 1st Furniture,
Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Baby's 1st Furniture, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09788 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Baby's 1st Furniture, Inc. -- https://babys1st.com/ -- provides
high-quality furniture for infants and toddlers.[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
BARNES & NOBLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07072 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barnes & Noble Booksellers -- https://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/ --
is an American bookseller.[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
BAYSTATE HEALTH: Chechile Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chechile and Sonia Lopez, individually, and as
Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the
Baystate Heath, Inc. Retirement Plan v. BAYSTATE HEALTH, INC. and
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BAYSTATE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-30155
(D. Mass., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act against the Defendant breached their fiduciary
duties.
Under the ERISA, plan fiduciaries must discharge their duty of
prudence "with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the
circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like
capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of
an enterprise of a like character and with like aims." The
Defendants are ERISA fiduciaries as they exercise discretionary
authority or discretionary control over the 403(b) defined
contribution pension plan – known as Baystate Health, Inc.
Retirement Plan (the "Plan" or "Baystate Plan") – that it
sponsors and provides to its employees.
The Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duty of
prudence they owed to the Plan by requiring the Plan to "pay
excessive recordkeeping fees," and by failing to timely remove
their high-cost record-keepers, Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance
d/b/a Empower Retirement and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company ("Mass Mutual") (collectively "Em-power"). These
objectively unreasonable recordkeeping and administration ("RKA")
fees cannot be contextually justified and do not fall within "the
range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her
experience and expertise."
The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by causing
the Plan participants to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping and
administration ("RKA") services. Defendants unreasonably failed to
leverage the size of the Plan to pay reasonable fees for Plan RKA
fees services. The unreasonable RKA fees paid inferentially tells
the plausible story that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty
of prudence under ERISA. The Defendants followed a fiduciary
process that was done ineffectively given the objectively
unreasonable RKA fees it paid to Empower, and in light of the level
and quality of recordkeeper services it received.
The fees paid by the Plan for virtually the same package of
services are much higher than those of plans with comparable, and
in many cases smaller, participant counts. Based on fees paid by
other large plans during the Class Period receiving materially
identical RKA services, it is clear and more than reasonable to
infer that Defendants failed to follow a prudent process to ensure
that the Plan was paying only reasonable fees. To remedy these
fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
the Plan under the ERISA to enforce the Defendants' liability under
the ERISA to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from these
breaches of the duty of prudence, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan under ERISA.
Baystate Health, Inc. is a not-for-profit integrated health system
headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 357-9700
Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
BIG LOTS STORES: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Evaristo Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals v. BIG LOTS STORES, LLC, an Ohio
limited liability company; AVDC, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2218453 was
removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court for the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Nov. 18, 2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02056.
The Plaintiff files causes of action for: failure to provide
lawful rest periods pursuant to California Labor Code; failure to
pay reporting time wages pursuant to California Labor Code; failure
to include all required information on the wage statements it
provided to non-exempt employees and thus failed to provide
accurate wage statements in violation of California law; and
failure to timely pay wages due at separation, pursuant to
California Labor Code.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Burns King, Esq.
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Brent R. Boos, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring St, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Email: julian@kingsiegel.com
elliot@kingsiegel.com
brent@kingsiegel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 383-2385
Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com
jmhoffman@vorys.com
BILLIARD FACTORY: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Billiard Factory,
Ltd. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Billiard Factory, Ltd., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09795 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Billiard Factory Limited -- https://billiardfactory.com/ --
operates as a home furnishings company, providing pool tables, bar
stools, theater seating, game entertainment devices, and home
furnishings.[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
BLACKBERRY FARM: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackberry Farm, LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Blackberry Farm, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09799 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blackberry Farm -- https://www.blackberryfarm.com/ -- is a luxury
hotel and resort situated on a pastoral 4200-acre estate in the
Great Smoky Mountains.[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
BODY MIND & SOUL: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Body, Mind & Soul
Books, Incorporated. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Body, Mind &
Soul Books, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-09790 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Body, Mind & Soul Books, Inc. is a metaphysical supply store in
Houston, Texas.[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
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Jacobs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EUWEEKA TONDIA JACOBS v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "A" (5), Case No. 17-3300 (E.D.
La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP
America Production Company, and BP p.l.c., and joined by defendants
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc.
Pending before the Court are: Motion in Limine to Exclude the
Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff opposes the
motions. The motions, submitted for consideration on Nov. 9, 2022,
are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
The captioned case is a B3 lawsuit that was allotted to this
section from Judge Carl Barbier's MDL 2179 pertaining to the
Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in
2010. The B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due to
oil or chemical exposure during the disaster response (In re Oil
Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April
20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1,
2021)). B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or
were not members of the settlement class.
The Plaintiff in the captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.
Judge Milazzo notes that from the inception of the severed B3
cases, it has been understood that to prevail "B3 plaintiffs must
prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response."
Because causation had proved to be the critical element in the BELO
cases, it was predicted to be the "make-or-break" issue for many B3
cases, as well. A B3 plaintiff must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the oil spill response. The issue of causation will
require an individualized inquiry.
The Plaintiff's burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort
case involves proof of both general causation and specific
causation. General causation is whether a substance is capable of
causing a particular injury or condition in the general population.
Specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular
individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's injury. If the
Plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of producing admissible
evidence as to general causation, then the issue of specific
causation is rendered moot, Judge Milazzo explains.
In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the Plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district, Judge Milazzo says.
The motion in limine in the captioned case pertains to the
Plaintiff's use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on various
grounds, including the principles espoused in Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Again, Judge
Milazzo notes, Dr. Cook's report has been rejected under Daubert by
the judges of this district.
If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from trial, then the Defendants
argue that their motion for summary judgment must be granted
because the Plaintiff in this case will have no expert medical
causation evidence, which would constitute a complete failure of
proof on an essential element of the case.
The Court has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district, who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, the
Court grants the Defendants' motion in limine in the captioned
case. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
likewise granted.
The Court notes that the Plaintiff has filed a 1434-page motion
requesting that Dr. Cook's report be accepted as a sanction against
the Defendants due to issues of spoliation. Although that motion
was not scheduled for submission until Nov. 23, 2022, the Court is
persuaded that it should be denied.
Accordingly, Judge Milazzo ordered that the Motion in Limine to
Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald
Cook filed by the defendants, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP
America Production Company, and BP p.l.c., and joined by defendants
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc., is granted.
It is further ordered that the Motion for Admission of Expert
Opinions Because of Spoliation filed by the Plaintiff is denied.
It is further ordered that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
the defendants, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America
Production Company, and BP p.l.c., and joined by defendants
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc., is granted. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed
with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckkrdvp from Leagle.com.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fragassi Sues Over Unlawful Use of PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fragassi on behalf of himself and all others in similarly
situated v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05867
(D.N.J., Oct. 4, 2022), is brought in relation to the Defendant
disclosing the Plaintiff's personal identifiable information
("PII") without the Plaintiff's consent in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").
The plaintiff is a subscriber of the Defendant's website,
www.cesarcasino.com ("the Website"), which offers a wide array of
video content, namely video games. When the plaintiff played video
games on the Defendants website, the Plaintiff's PII was shared
with Facebook without first notifying Plaintiff and without his
Consent. The Defendant violated the VPPA each time it knowingly
disclosed the Plaintiff's PII to Facebook without consent, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a subscriber of the Defendant's website and
accessed video content on the Website.
The Defendant developed, owns, and/or operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas, a Coulson, Esq.
Lance Spitzig, Esq.
LITTLE SHEETS, COLSON P.C.
975 E Jefferson Ave.
Detroit, MI, 48207-3101
Phone: (313) 392-0015
Email: ncoulson@lscounsel.com
lspitzig@lscounsel.com
CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE: Cortez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alberto C. Cortez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE
SERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV02316 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, for the County of Butte, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Nov. 18, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07332.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Meal Period
Violations; Rest Break Violations; Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll
Records; Violations of Labor Codes; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure
to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Derek S Sachs, Esq.
Elaine M McCormick, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
Email: Derek.Sachs@lewisbrisbois.com
Elaine.McCormick@lewisbrisbois.com
CANADA GOOSE: S.D. New York Dismisses Lin's 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned JIA WANG LIN, Plaintiff v. CANADA GOOSE US, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21 Civ. 7614 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Case No. 21 Civ.
7614 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Jia Wang Lin, individually and purportedly on behalf of
all others similarly situated, brings this action alleging
Defendant Canada Goose US, Inc., engaged in a campaign of deceptive
marketing practices to sell their down-filled jackets. The Second
Amended Complaint (the "SAC") alleges: (1) violations of New York
General Business Law ("NY GBL") Section 349, (2) violations of
similar state consumer fraud laws, (3) unjust enrichment, (4)
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade Commission
Improvement Act, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (7) breach of implied warranty
of fitness, and (8) breach of express warranty.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the SAC for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of performance luxury apparel and
manufactures winter clothing products, the majority of which
contain down. In 2019, the Plaintiff purchased three of the
Defendant's down jackets, two for himself, a "Borden Bomber" and a
"Wyndham Parka," and one for his wife, a "Rossclair Parka." Each
jacket cost approximately $1,050 and was purchased at either Canada
Goose's New York store at 101 Wooster Street, in New York City, NY
10012, or Saks Fifth Avenue at 611 5th Avenue, in New York City, NY
10022.
The Plaintiff points to several of the Defendant's statements that
allegedly misled him about the quality of its jackets, all related
to either the "fill power" of the jackets or the origin of the down
used, including the misrepresentation of the nature of its
'extreme' luxury product by suggesting that their jackets had a
superior fill power as a result of containing or being comprised
solely of Hutterite down.
The Plaintiff asserts that the undue emphasis on the Hutterite
origin of the down is materially misleading because the origin of
the down in fact has no relationship to the down's fill power or
thermal performance. The Plaintiff claims that this is not the
first time that Canada Goose was fined for bogus claims about the
nature of the Hutterite origin of its down, citing a January 2021
Administrative Penalty Decision Letter issued by a Chinese
regulator to the Shanghai subsidiary of Canada Goose.
As a result of these representations, the Plaintiff and the
purported other class members paid substantial premiums of over
$800 per jacket based on the false impression created by the
Defendant's advertising.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on Sept. 12, 2021. On Dec. 6,
2021, the Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. On Jan. 3, 2022,
the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of a motion
to dismiss identifying several alleged deficiencies in the Amended
Complaint, including the Plaintiff's failure to identify whether he
saw the allegedly misleading statements prior to purchasing the
Defendant's product. On Jan. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff responded to
the pre-motion letter seeking leave to amend and responding to the
Defendant's arguments. On Jan. 11, 2022, the Court granted leave to
amend.
On Feb. 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the SAC seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's allegedly
false marketing and sale of its down jackets. On March 9, 2022, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the SAC in its entirety.
The Defendant asserts that, because the Plaintiff lacks standing,
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Schofield finds that the Defendant's challenge to standing
fails in light of the SAC's allegations that the Plaintiff
purchased the Defendant's products in reliance on the alleged
misrepresentations and that he "and the class members, paid
substantial premiums of over $800 per jacket based on the false
impression created by Defendant's advertising."
Allegations that a plaintiff suffered a financial injury by paying
a premium for a product bearing an allegedly misleading label are
sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact, Judge Schofield points
out, citing Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 897
F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2018). The Plaintiff, therefore, has
adequately alleged an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III
standing.
Judge Schofield also finds that the SAC's allegation of a violation
of NY GBL Section 349 fails to state a claim because the alleged
misrepresentations would not mislead a reasonable consumer as a
matter of law, and the SAC does not allege the Plaintiff was
injured "as a result" of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.
The SAC does not contest that the jackets contain some amount of
Hutterite down, but asserts that "the undue emphasis on the
Hutterite origin of the down is materially misleading because the
origin of the down in fact has no relationship to the down's fill
power or thermal performance." Judge Schofield holds that this
argument fails, because the alleged undue emphasis, comprised
solely of the statement that the use of certain down enables the
Defendant to manufacture higher quality products, is not materially
misleading.
Judge Schofield also finds, among other things, that the SAC fails
to allege that any of the statements at-issue would materially
mislead a reasonable consumer.
Accordingly, Judge Schofield dismisses the NY GBL Section 349
claim, the unjust enrichment claim, the negligent misrepresentation
claims, the breach of warranty claims, breach of express warranty
claim, the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
the implied warranty of fitness claims, and the claims for express
and implied warranty.
The Plaintiff already has twice amended the complaint, did not
request leave to replead in response to the Defendant's pre-motion
letter outlining its arguments, did not respond to the Defendant's
motion by saying how any deficiencies could be remedied, but
nevertheless asked in a summary fashion for a third opportunity to
amend, Judge Schofield notes.
The Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend, and it does not
appear that any cause of action could be repleaded to remedy all of
the deficiencies sufficient for the claim to survive, Judge
Schofield says. Hence, application for leave to replead is denied.
For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 30
and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 14,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vprsaas from
Leagle.com.
CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Wheatley Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that residents and businesses impacted by the 2021
explosion that rocked the small community of Wheatley, Ont., are
seeking a total of $100 million in damages in a proposed class
action against Chatham-Kent and a company hired by the municipality
to source a gas leak linked to the blast.
Windsor law firm Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP filed a statement of
claim in the Chatham Superior Court of Justice on Nov. 18, seeking
the class action lawsuit against the Corporation of the
Municipality of Chatham-Kent and HSE Integrated Ltd.
The claims and allegations in the proposed lawsuit haven't been
argued or proven in court. In order to proceed, the proposed suit
must be certified by a judge.
A lawyer for Chatham-Kent said the municipality isn't in a position
to comment, but is concentrating on getting the scene back to
normal. HSE has not responded to a request for comment from CBC
News.
Strosberg Sasso Sutts represents six residents and business owners,
as well as anybody else impacted by the Aug. 26, 2021, blast,
claiming it "was caused by the negligence" of the defendants. The
explosion levelled two buildings and injured many people in the
town of about 3,000 east of Leamington.
Here's a breakdown of the damages being sought:
$60,000,000 in general damages.
$20,000,000 in special damages.
$10,000,000 in aggravated damages.
$10,000,000 in punitive damages.
'People just want our town back'
Stephen Ingram, one of the residents named in the proposed class
action, said he "lost eight months of his life" after he and his
wife Barbara were evacuated from their home near the blast site.
He said they remained out of their home until April this year, and
have been dealing with up to $30,000 in repairs to their property,
though their insurance company is involved.
"I think more than the lawsuit, I think people just want our town
back. That's the main thing," Ingram said. "I mean, this is not any
kind of a cash or money grab. . . . we want things back the way
they were."
Ingram is critical of the handling of the explosion and the
recovery efforts.
"I feel very strongly about it. . . . there's been pain and
anguish, and we're what? Fifteen months in, and the town looks a
disgrace. Nothing's been done hardly in the last three months apart
from opening a couple of roads," he said.
"Not everyone is back home by a long shot."
More needed to be done to prevent blast: lawyer
According to the statement of claim for the proposed lawsuit, the
defendants allege the municipality and the company were "high
handed, intentional, outrageous, reckless, wanton, entirely without
care and grossly negligent" in their handling of the explosion and
events around it, and that they "disregarded the safety and rights"
of the plaintiffs.
They allege officials were "motivated by economic considerations,"
and said the those affected deserve to be compensated.
Harvey Strosberg, a senior partner at the law firm, said they
allege that before the explosion, the municipality or the company
should have done more to prevent it at the property of 15 Erie St.
N., where a gas leak was detected.
"I was told that they didn't ventilate the basement, didn't turn
off the power, and if you have gas, you have to have a source of
ignition. If there's no spark, there's no explosion," he told CBC
News. "Why didn't they turn off the power and gas, and vent the
basement? That's a question we ask; we don't know the answer yet."
Strosberg said the municipality also should have "properly" dealt
with the properties that were under their control, following the
explosion and evacuation.
"They should have had a system to inspect each property and dealt
with the refrigerator. They didn't empty the refrigerators for
months, for example. We suggest they were liable on that basis
also."
Earlier this month, the municipality reduced the size of the
evacuation zone in Wheatley's town centre, saying drilling in the
area is complete and they were able to open the roadway again. [GN]
CIRCOSTA IRON & METAL: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circosta Iron & Metal
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alfredo Abarca, on
behalf of himself and all, others similarly situated v. Circosta
Iron & Metal Company, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CGC22602245 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 6, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Circosta Iron and Metal Company, Inc. --
https://www.circostametals.com/ -- operates as a scrap metal
company. The Company offers scrap metal, aluminum cans, and plastic
recycling services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
11846 Ventura Blvd., Suite 100
Studio City, CA 91604
Phone: 213-493-6300
Fax: 424-292-2355
Email: tuvia@abramsonlabor.com
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA OAKLEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP., and PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order for certification of a class defined as follows:
"All persons with a West Virginia address to whom Defendants
sent, or directed to be sent, collection letters between
April 2, 2016 through the date of certification ("Class
Period"), which:
(1) stated that "as of the date of this letter, you owe the
balance indicated above" and
(2) that included a summary table in which the amount of
"Fees & Costs" incorporated into the "Current Balance"
reflected an amount of Fees & Costs that the consumer did
not owe on the date of the letter and would not owe if
the consumer paid anything less than the full amount of
principal and interest on the debt.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants Coast and
Performant sent collection letters to the Plaintiff and Class
Members which represented that the maximum amount of fees and costs
possible on their defaulted federal student loan debt was due and
unavoidable when in fact the fees and costs due were not yet
determined and would change depending on the amount actually paid
by a consumer.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' conduct violated West
Virginia Code section 46A-2-127(d), which prohibits: "any false
representation or implication of the character, extent or amount of
a claim against a consumer, or its status in any legal proceeding."
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' conduct violated West
Virginia Code section 46A- -127(h), which prohibits "any false
representation or false impression about the status or true nature
of or the services rendered by the debt collector or his
business."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EvsATaat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 facsimile
E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
BROADWATER LAW GROUP, PLLC
P. O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840
Telephone: 304-574-2727
Facsimile: (304) 574-3709
E-mail: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Decertification in Bennett Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PRESTON BENNETT, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
Defendants-Respondents Case No. 22-8016 (7th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverses the class
decertification order.
Plaintiff-Petitioner Bennett contends that Division 10 of Cook
County Jail does not satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Rehabilitation Act because it lacks the grab bars and other
fixtures that disabled inmates may need in order to use showers and
toilets safely. When seeking certification of a class action,
Bennett tried to simplify the case by relying on a regulation
providing that as of March 7, 1988, construction or alteration of
buildings must comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFAS or the Standards).
The Standards require accessible toilets to have grab bars nearby,
and accessible showers to have mounted seats. Division 10 was
constructed in 1992 and so, Bennett insists, must comply with these
standards.
The district court declined to certify the requested class, ruling
that to do so would entail a premature adjudication of the merits,
which the judge equated to one-way intervention. The Court of
Appeals reversed, 953 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2020), holding that class
certification would not entail resolution of the merits. Because a
class may lose, as well as win, all certification could do would be
to tee up the merits for decision. The Court of Appeals remarked:
"Bennett proposes a class that will win if the Standards apply (and
were violated, to detainees' detriment) and otherwise will lose.
That's how class actions should proceed."
On remand the district court certified a class. Although the class
as certified presents what appears to be a straightforward question
about whether Division 10 complies with the Standards, the case
languished in the district court.
Then, in September 2022, more than two and a half years after the
Court of Appeals' decision, the judge decertified the class. The
judge's principal reason is that some class members, although using
aids, such as wheelchairs, may not be disabled within the meaning
of the federal statutes--either because they are malingering or
because they can get around without assistance for short distances.
Differences among class members would make the case too complex,
the judge stated.
The Plaintiffs have requested a second interlocutory review under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). Once again, the Court of Appeals grants the
petition and reverses.
According to the Court of Appeals, the district judge did not
mention Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4), which provides: "When
appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class
action with respect to particular issues." The Court of Appeals'
decision in 2020 identified such an issue, one relevant to every
detainee in Division 10. A class certified under Rule 23(c)(4)
resolves the issue, not the whole case. Class members would receive
the benefit of a declaratory judgment (if the class prevails) on
the issue but would need to proceed in individual suits to seek
damages; by contrast, if the class loses, every detainee would be
bound through the doctrine of issue preclusion.
The Court of Appeals does not see--and the district judge did not
explain--why application of the Standards cannot be determined
class-wide, while leaving to the future any particular inmate's
claim to other relief.
The Court of Appeals holds that this "case is more than four years
old. It should be resolved with dispatch on remand. The petition
for leave to appeal is granted, and the class-decertification order
is reversed."
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2hzfjfef from Leagle.com.
CRITTER CONTROL: Gazeta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Critter Control
Operations Inc., et al. The case is styled as Frank Gazeta, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Critter Control Operations Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00330071-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Critter Control -- https://www.crittercontrol.com/ -- provides
humane wildlife removal services for nuisance wildlife like
raccoons, bats, rats, mice, skunks, squirrels, opossums, gophers,
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
CROPTON DESIGN: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cropton Design, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Cropton Design, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09820 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Crompton -- http://www.cromptonusa.com/-- offer products with a
wide range of process control equipment designed specifically to
operate in demanding environments.[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
DARDEN CORPORATION: Cantu Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Jesse Cantu, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Darden Corporation, Does
1 through 25, Case No. 2:22-cv-08489 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Darden -- https://www.darden.com/ -- is the premier full-service
dining company, operating over 1800 locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
DAVITA INC: Acquitted from Violating Sherman Act
------------------------------------------------
DaVita 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 31, 2022, that in July 14, 2021, an
indictment was returned by a grand jury in the U.S. District court,
District of Colorado against the company and its former chief
executive officer in the matter of "U.S. v. DaVita Inc., et al."
alleging that purported agreements entered into by DaVita's former
chief executive officer not to solicit senior-level employees
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In April 15, 2022, a jury returned a verdict in the company's
favor, acquitting both the company and its former chief executive
officer on all counts. In April 20, 2022, the court entered
judgments of acquittal and closed the case. On August 9, 2021,
DaVita and its former chief executive officer were added as
defendants in a consolidated putative class action complaint in the
matter of In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust
Litigation in the U.S. District court, Northern District of
Illinois. This class action complaint asserts that the defendants
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeks to bring an action
on behalf of certain groups of individuals employed by the company
between February 1, 2012 and January 5, 2021. On September 26,
2022, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.
Davita Inc. provides dialysis and related lab services to patients
based in Colorado.
DCOR LLC: Green Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kevin Green, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DCOR, LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
56-2022-00569980-CU-OE-VTA was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Nov. 18, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08447.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims solely under state
law, including a single cause of action for Civil Penalties Under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff's
PAGA cause of action is founded on alleged underlying violations of
the California Labor Code, including that: DCOR failed to pay all
minimum wages; failed to pay overtime premium wages; failed to
provide legally compliant meal periods and pay meal period premium
pay; failed to authorize and permit legally compliant rest periods
and to pay rest period premium pay; failed to maintain accurate
records; failed to reimburse for employment-related expenses;
failed to timely pay final wages at termination; and failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chandra A. Beaton, Esq.
Kathleen M. Fellows, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 383-2385
Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com
jmhoffman@vorys.com
DHALIWAL LABS NORTH: Bernard Sues Over BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Trenisean Bernard and Carolyn Bernard, individually and on behalf
of all other Illinois citizens similarly situated v. DHALIWAL LABS
NORTH, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06418 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 16, 2022), is
brought asserting that the Defendant's use of its so-called
Biometric Time Clock system violated their rights as codified by
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Defendant violated the BIPA because it collected the
Plaintiffs' biometric information without first obtaining informed
written consent from the Plaintiffs. The Defendant violated the
BIPA by failing to obtain a written release executed by Plaintiffs
and putative class members before the Defendant collected and/or
used their "biometric identifiers" and/or "biometric information".
The Defendant's collection, use, modification, monetization and/or
storage of the Plaintiff and putative class members' "biometric
identifiers" and/or "biometric information" --without their
informed written consent--has violated the BIPA. In summary, the
Defendant violated BIPA by collecting, using, modifying and/or
storing the "biometric identifiers" and/or "biometric information"
of the Plaintiffs and putative class members without their informed
written consent, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant.
The Defendant operates a Bedford Park, Illinois manufacturing plant
and maintains a headquarters in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave. Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: 630-581-5456
Fax: 630-575-8188
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
DISH NETWORK: Faces Employees Class Suit Over Fiduciary Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 on December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against the company, its Board of Directors,
and its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches
arising from the management of its 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company based in Colorado.
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson May File Oversize Brief Instanter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Oversize Brief Instanter in the lawsuit entitled ADRIENNE BENSON
and MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, INTERNATIONAL GAME
TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, and IGT, a Nevada corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-525-RSL (W.D. Wash.).
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik holds that the Plaintiffs may file
up to a 35-page Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2rnfd4rb from Leagle.com.
DOWNEAST CIDER HOUSE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Downeast Cider House,
LLC. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Downeast Cider House,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09801 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Downeast Cider House -- https://downeastcider.com/ -- is an
American craft hard cider company based in Boston,
Massachusetts.[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
E MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E Mortgage Capital,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paul Sapan, Steven Waterbury,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E
Mortgage Capital, Inc., Joseph Nagib Shalaby, Case No.
8:22-cv-01831-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Emortgage Capital -- https://www.emortgagecapital.com/ -- offers
competitive mortgage and refinancing options.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
PRATO AND REICHMAN APC
8555 Aero Drive Suite 303
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (619) 683-7971
Email: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
- and -
Justin Prato, Esq.
PRATO AND REICHMAN APC
3675 Ruffin Road Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (619) 886-0252
Fax: (619) 241-8309
Email: justinp@prato-reichman.com
E.P.C.S. ELITE: Davella Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.P.C.S. Elite
Professional Collection Services, LLC. The case is styled as
Bernard Davella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-06679-KM-JRA
(D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
EPCS -- https://eliteprocollections.site123.me/ -- is a reputable,
professional collection agency licensed and bonded by the State of
New Jersey since 2004.[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
EF EDUCATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 15, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karila v. EF Education
First International, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10643 (D.
Mass), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting
mMotion for extension of time as follows:
-- Fact discovery to be completed by: April 7, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures May 8, 2023
due by:
-- Defendants' expert disclosures June 6, 2023
due by:
-- Expert discovery to be completed July 7, 2023
by:
-- Class certification motion to Sept. 15, 2023
be filed by:
with opposition due: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Status Conference set for: April 10, 2023
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Breach of Contract.
EF is an international education company offering study abroad,
language learning, cultural exchange and academic programs around
the world.[CC]
EF EDUCATION: Court Sets Hearing on Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karila v. EF Education
First International, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10643 (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order setting
hearing on motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Breach of Contract.
EF is an international education company offering study abroad,
language learning, cultural exchange and academic programs around
the world.[CC]
EF INSTITUTE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 11, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting
motion for extension of time:
-- Fact discovery to be completed by: Feb. 27, 2023
-- The Plaintiffs' expert April 7, 2023
disclosures due by:
-- The Defendants' expert May 12, 2023
disclosures due by:
-- Expert discovery to be June 16, 2023
completed by:
-- Class certification motion Aug. 11, 2023
to be filed by:
with opposition due: Oct. 6, 2023
-- Status Conference set for: March 6, 2023
EF is an international education company offering study abroad,
language learning, cultural exchange and academic programs around
the world
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Contract Dispute.[CC]
EF INSTITUTE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 24, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order setting
hearing on motion for class certification for Nov. 24, 2023.
The nature of suit states diversity -- contract dispute.
EF is an international education company offering study abroad,
language learning, cultural exchange and academic programs around
the world[CC]
EHEALTH INC: Bids Seeking Lead Plaintiff Appointment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth 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 motions filed by
class members seeking lead plaintiff appointment are pending in
court.
On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then-chief executive
officer, Scott N. Flanders, its then-chief financial officer, Derek
N. Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.).
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding the Company's accounting and modeling
assumptions, rate of member churn and the Company's profitability
during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020.
The complaints allege that we and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and
Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit)
punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court deems proper.
On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced
matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master
File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Court also appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. An
Amended Complaint was filed on August 25, 2020, which Defendants
moved to dismiss on October 23, 2020.
Defendants' motion, which Plaintiff opposed, was granted in part
and denied in part on August 12, 2021.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims to the extent premised upon
alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to churn, but
denied Defendants' motion with respect to alleged misstatements
regarding purported operating costs.
On October 1, 2021, the Company filed an Answer denying in part and
admitting in part the remaining allegations, and denying any
wrongdoing.
On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a suggestion of
death with respect to the lead plaintiff Billy White.
The parties stipulated to a schedule for the lead plaintiff process
to be re-opened, which was so-ordered by the Court on January 10,
2022.
Plaintiff's counsel published notice regarding the appointment of a
new lead plaintiff on January 17, 2022. On March 18, 2022, several
motions were filed by class members seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff motions are pending with the court.
eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.
ELECTROMED INC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Electromed 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 will
continue to defend itself from a data breach class suit.
On September 8, 2021, a state court putative class action lawsuit
was filed in Minnesota against the Company asserting injury
resulting from the previously announced data breach that impacted
the Company's customer-protected health information and employee
personal information and seeking compensatory damages, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 6, 2021, the proceeding was removed to the District of
Minnesota. The Company believes the plaintiff was not injured as a
result of the data privacy incident and, as a result, the claims
are without merit.
Accordingly, on November 11, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the parties agreed
in principle to settle the case. The parties have executed a
settlement agreement and submitted a motion to settle the class
action in the near future.
If the court does not grant the motion for settlement, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Electromed Inc. is based in Minnesota, and develops, manufactures
and markets innovative airway clearance products.
ELICA HEALTH CENTERS: Supnet Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elica Health Centers,
et al. The case is styled as Nokalai Supnet, and other similarly
situated non-exempt former and current employees v. Pactiv
Packaging, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00329843-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 15, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Elica Health Centers -- https://www.elicahealth.org/ -- provide
quality, affordable health care through the operation of
professional and compassionate health homes for underserved
populations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC
15303 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 900
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: +1 818-380-3051
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class defined as
follows:
"All people paying Defendant, in whole or in part, personally
and/or on behalf of others, for tuition, fees, and/or room
board for in-person instruction and use of campus facilities,
but who were denied use of and/or access to in-person
instruction and/or campus facilities by Defendant for the
spring 2020 academic term."
The Plaintiff also moves the Court for for the appointment of his
lawyers as Class Counsel and for his appointment as Class
Representative under Rule 23(g).
Emory is a private research university in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Xjmf5Qat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E_mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Andrew S. Levetown, Esq.
IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (703) 618-2264
E-mail: asl@iveylevetown.com
- and -
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB , KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-0773
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
- and -
Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 205-5029
E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
- and -
Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 376-8450
E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com
ecoleman@lewissaul.com
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Court Stays 8 Later-Filed Cases in Finn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOHN FINN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPRESS AMBULANCE SERVICES,
INC., d/b/a EMPRESS EMS, Defendant, Case Nos. 22-CV-8101 (KMK),
22-CV-8584 (KMK), 22-CV-8590 (KMK), 22-CV-08603 (KMK), 22-CV-8663
(KMK), 22-CV-08679 (KMK), 22-CV-8777 (KMK), 22-CV-9318 (KMK),
22-CV-9322 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Defendant's motion for the Court to stay proceedings.
The Defendant moved for the Court to stay proceedings in eight
later-filed cases against it to allow a scheduled mediation to
proceed in Finn v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC, No. 22-CV-8101
(the "Finn Action").
The later-filed cases include Egan v. Empress Ambulance Service
LLC, No. 22-CV-8584; Normand v. Empress Ambulance Services, Inc.,
No. 22-CV-8590; Cardwell v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC, No.
22-CV-8603; Castaldo v. Empress Ambulance Services, LLC, No.
22-CV-8663; Ford v. Empress Ambulance Service LLC, No. 22-CV-8679;
Saunders v. Empress Ambulance Service LLC, No. 22-CV-8777;
Contristano v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC, No. 22-CV-9318; and
Colon v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC, No. 22-CV-9322
(collectively, the "Later-Filed Actions" and with the Finn Action,
the "Empress Actions").
The Defendant's request to stay was made in multiple, largely
identical letters filed on dockets in several of the Later-Filed
Actions. The Defendant reiterated its request in a conference that
the Court held with all Parties in the Empress Actions on Nov. 10,
2022.
The Defendant became aware of a breach of its computer systems that
resulted in the loss of customer information on July 14, 2022. On
Sept. 9, 2022, it began providing notice of the breach to affected
customers. All of the Empress Actions were filed after the
Defendant provided notice, and the Finn Action is the earliest
filed case.
When determining whether to stay an action, courts analyze five
factors: (1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the
prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests
of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts;
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest (Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout
Unlimited, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 630 F.Supp.2d 295, 304 (S.D.N.Y.
2009)).
Judge Karas finds that all of these factors weigh in favor of
staying the Later-Filed Actions to allow mediation to proceed in
the Finn Action. While the Plaintiffs in the Later-Filed Actions
will experience delay as a result of a stay, the Court is mindful
that the Finn Action was filed as a class action on behalf of all
similarly situated plaintiffs; a class-wide settlement resulting
from the pending mediation would potentially provide relief to all
the Plaintiffs in short order, vitiating any prejudice resulting
from the delay.
The Defendant, the Court, and the public have a considerable
interest in reducing unnecessary litigation that would result if
the Court ordered briefing on consolidation of these actions.
Delaying mediation of the underlying dispute in favor of counsel
for the various Plaintiffs arguing over who should be negotiating
at that mediation would interfere with the proceedings, delay
rather than expedite the disposition of these cases and increase
expense to the Parties, Judge Karas opines.
Therefore, until further Order of the Court, the Defendant's motion
for a stay of proceedings in the Later-Filed Actions is granted.
The Court directs the Parties in the Finn Action to submit joint
status reports to the public docket providing updates on the
progress of negotiations every 14 days.
The Plaintiffs in all Later-Filed Actions are to file any
correspondence concerning this stay or any other matters related to
this litigation to the public docket of the Finn Action.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this Order in
22-CV-8584, 22-CV-8590, 22-CV-08603, 22-CV-8663, 22-CV-08679,
22-CV-8777, 22-CV-9318, 22-CV-9322.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yjck8vv6 from Leagle.com.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Order to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE HISE f/k/a
MACKENZIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00317-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modify the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, filed on October 21, 2022, as follows:
a. ERC requests an extension of time through and including
Friday, November 25, 2022 to file its response in
opposition to the Motion.
b. Plaintiff requests an extension of time through and
including Friday, December 2, 2022to file its reply in
support of the Motion.
On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff, MacKenzie Hise, filed Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, requesting that the Court certify
this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, appoint Plaintiff as class representative, and appoint
Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
ERC's deadline to respond to the Motion is presently set for
November 21, 2022.
The Plaintiff's deadline to reply to the Motion is presently set
for November 28, 2022.
Due to the respective professional obligations of counsel and the
upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, the parties jointly request
additional time to complete the briefing on the Motion.
Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and
reporting services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Vpi8DHat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian M. Jones, Esq.
Scott S. Gallagher, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: 904-598-6111
Facsimile: 904-598-6211
E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com
- and -
David T. Butsch, Esq.
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-863-5700
Facsimile: 314-863-5700
E-mail: dbutsch@butschroberts.com
croberts@butschroberts.com
EQUITY PROPERTY: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Inendino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL INENDINO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
EQUITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, and BENSENVILLE EQUITY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 2-21-0447 (Ill. App.), the
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirms the trial
court's ruling that the Defendants did not willfully violate the
Security Deposit Interest Act.
Justice Ann B. Jorgensen delivered the judgment of the Appellate
Court, with opinion. Justices Hudson and Birkett concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
The Plaintiff appeals the trial court's ruling after a bench trial
that Defendants Equity Property Management, LLC (EPM), and
Bensenville Equity Associates, LLC (BEA), did not willfully violate
the Security Deposit Interest Act (Act) (765 ILCS 715/0.01, et seq.
(West 2014)).
The Plaintiff rented an apartment at 950 West Irving Park Road in
Bensenville. BEA owned the apartment building, and EPM managed the
rental unit. On Dec. 9, 2016, he, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed an amended class action complaint,
alleging that the Defendants violated the Act when they did not pay
interest on security deposits in the manner and time frame provided
by the statute.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants willfully failed to
comply with the Act, because he had completed three, 12-month
tenancy periods in his apartment but did not receive interest on
his $880 security deposit within 30 days after the end of each
12-month period. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendants
utilized property management accounting software but their standard
practice was not to account for or pay interest within 30 days of
the end of each 12-month lease.
Various motions and pleadings followed. Ultimately, on Feb. 21,
2019, the trial court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Further, on Dec. 10, 2019, the trial court denied
the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
On April 26, 2021, the case proceeded to a bench trial and evidence
was received. On July 28, 2021, the trial court issued a written
memorandum, ruling in the Defendants' favor. The court noted that
the essence of the claim against the Defendants was that they
failed to pay yearly interest on security deposits and that the
parties agreed that the statute required a penalty upon a willful
violation of the Act's yearly interest provision.
The trial court found that the Plaintiff's reliance on Gittleman v.
Create, Inc., 189 Ill.App.3d 199, 204 (1989), is misplaced because
the landlord in that case was aware of the legal obligation to pay
interest and specifically sought to circumvent the Act by modifying
the lease to avoid doing so. As such, the appellate court had found
the manipulation of lease terms reflected a willful attempt to
circumvent the statute.
In contrast, the trial court here found the facts and evidence at
trial were "completely the opposite--EPM was simply unaware of the
requirement to credit the interest monthly [sic] and was in no way
intending to avoid the statute." The court entered judgment in the
Defendants' favor and against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
appeals.
On appeal, the Plaintiff's primary argument is that the trial court
erred in finding that the Defendants' violation of the Act was not
willful. He argues that the court wrongly interpreted the Act to
require him to prove that the Defendants were motivated by a bad
purpose or an intent to retain monies wrongfully.
Relying on Gittleman, the Plaintiff argues that the Act does not
require proof of bad intent or damages, but requires proof only
that a landlord act willfully, which, the Plaintiff asserts, means
"voluntarily and intentionally, not because of mistake or
accident." Here, he contends, the Defendants voluntarily and
intentionally, pursuant to a consistent business procedure, did not
pay interest on the tenants' security deposits within 30 days after
each 12-month rental period.
Further, the Plaintiff argues, among other things, that the trial
court erred in considering as an important element of its decision
the amount of actual damages resulting from the Defendants'
conduct.
Overall, the Plaintiff's position may be summarized by his
assessment that, "if the failure to pay Plaintiff interest had been
a mistake, then Defendants would not be liable for the statutory
damages. But such is the opposite of the facts of the case; rather,
the failure to pay Plaintiff security deposit interest within 30
days after each 12-month rental period *** was not a mistake, it
was intentional and voluntary, i.e., willful, as required by
Defendants' standard process and practice to only pay a tenant
security deposit interest when the tenant moved out."
For the reasons in this Opinion, the Appellate Court disagrees.
The Appellate Court agrees with Gittleman that section 2 of the Act
is unambiguous, and therefore, the Appellate Court considers the
ordinary definition of "willful." Although the Act does not define
the term, Judge Jorgensen notes that Black's Law Dictionary
provides several general definitions.
These definitions convince the Panel that, while the trial court
here did not expressly define "willful," it implicitly and
correctly found that, to trigger a section 2 penalty, the conduct
must rise to more than a mistaken procedure, Judge Jorgensen
opines.
To the extent that the trial court determined that "willful"
failure or refusal required more than a mistake, Judge Jorgensen
holds that trial court did not err in its interpretation of the
Act.
The Appellate Court also agrees with the trial court that the
Plaintiff's reliance on Gittleman is misplaced and that Gittleman's
reasoning is consistent with Black's Law Dictionary's definitions
and interpretation.
The Appellate Court note that the Plaintiff's reliance on Wang v.
Williams, 343 Ill.App.3d 495, 499 (2003), is also misplaced.
Here, the trial court found that the Defendants' procedure of
paying security deposit interest at move-out, instead of annually,
did not reflect willful intent to circumvent the Act's mandates.
There is ample evidence to support the court's finding, and the
Appellate Court cannot find it or the court's credibility
determinations unreasonable.
The Plaintiff acknowledges that a mistake does not trigger the
penalty, but he essentially argues that a mistaken procedure does
because procedures are selected voluntarily and are, therefore,
intentional.
The Appellate Court disagrees. It believes that a willful refusal
or failure to pay must include, as a component of intent, a
purposeful evasion of known obligations under the Act. Judge
Jorgensen opines that the trial court listened to the witness
testimony and found credible that the Defendants did not willfully
violate the Act. The court's finding was supported by the
evidence.
Judge Jorgensen briefly notes that the Appellate Court disagrees
with the Plaintiff's argument that the trial court improperly
required proof of significant damages for the Plaintiff to succeed
on his claim. Rather, it appears that the court considered damages
to assess whether the Defendants profited from their violation of
the Act, and, ultimately, the absence of profit informed its
overall assessment of whether the Defendants' conduct was willful.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Du
Page County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/467wbbvj from Leagle.com.
Jeffrey Sobek, of JS Law, and Samuel A. Shelist, of Shelist & Pena,
LLC, both of Chicago, for the Appellant.
Christopher D. Oakes -- cdoakes@coxattorneys.com -- of Cox, Oakes &
Associates, Ltd., of Schaumburg, for the Appellees.
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Duggan Suit Transferred to D. Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dana Duggan, individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff; Monique Martinez, Petitioner
v. Eventide Credit Acquisition, LLC, Matt Martorello, Case No.
18-12277, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico on Nov. 17, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-mc-00665-ADC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case for MOTION
to Quash Subpoena.
Eventide Credit Acquisitions LLC filed for voluntary Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection January 28, 2020, in the Northern District of
Texas.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Roberto A. Camara-Fuertes, Esq.
FERRAIUOLI, LLC
PO Box 195168
San Juan, PR 00919-5168
Phone: (787) 766-7000
Fax: (787) 766-7001
Email: rcamara@ferraiuoli.com
EVERI HOLDINGS: FACTA Class Suit Closed
----------------------------------------
Everi Holdings 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 FACTA class
cuit is now closed.
Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi Payments Inc., et al.
("Donahue:) is a putative class action matter filed on December 12,
2018, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County
Division, Chancery Division.
The original defendant was dismissed and Everi Holdings and FinTech
(the "Defendants") were substituted as the defendants on April 22,
2019.
The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Holdings and Everi FinTech (i) have violated
certain provisions of FACTA by their failure, as agent to the
original defendant, to properly truncate patron credit card numbers
when printing financial access receipts as required under FACTA,
and (ii) have been unjustly enriched through the charging of
service fees for transactions conducted at the original defendant's
facilities. The plaintiff sought an award of statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
The parties settled this matter on a nationwide class basis.
On December 3, 2020, the court entered the Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing all claims asserted against
the Defendants with prejudice.
Everi Holdings and Everi FinTech have paid all funds required
pursuant to the settlement.
Distributions were made to class members and remaining unclaimed
funds were distributed to nonprofit charitable organizations in
compliance with the court's October 4, 2021 approval, and this
matter is now closed.
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc. The Company operates
through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video
and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions,
integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency
software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Edmonston Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Amy Edmonston, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fairway Independent Mortgage
Corporation, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-04574-JMG to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Fairway Independent Mortgage Corp. --
https://www.fairwayindependentmc.com/ -- is dedicated to serving
borrowers with some of the best options possible to secure a
mortgage in today's market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Fax: 215-525-021
Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawer.com
FEDERAL HOME: 6th Cir. Junks Appeal on Dismissal of OPERS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage 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 the
Sixth Circuit denied the plaintiff's notice of appeal related to
the dismissal of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
(OPERS) suit.
The Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuit: Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al.
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie
Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on
behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1,
2006 through November 20, 2007.
FHFA later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its
complaint on several occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements concerning our business,
risk management, and the procedures we put into place to protect
the company from problems in the mortgage industry.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.
In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.
In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In July 2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.
In August 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and in January 2019, the Sixth Circuit
denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal that decision.
On September 17, 2020, the District Court granted a request from
the plaintiff for summary judgment and entered final judgment in
favor of Freddie Mac and the other defendants.
On October 9, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
Sixth Circuit.
On January 27, 2021, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal, which the Sixth Circuit denied on January 6, 2022.
Federal National Mortgage Association (OTCQB: FNMA), commonly known
as Fannie Mae -- http://www.FannieMae.com/-- is a
government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that was chartered by U.S.
Congress in 1938 to support liquidity, stability and affordability
in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related
assets are purchased and sold.
FEDERAL HOME: Expects Trial Schedule for Preferred Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage 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 the
Company expects the Court to schedule a trial for the preferred
stock purchase deal class suit.
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations.
The consolidated class action lawsuit filed by private individual
and institutional investors (collectively, "Class Plaintiffs")
against FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Fairholme Funds, Inc.,
et al. v. FHFA, et al.
This is an individual plaintiffs' lawsuit filed by certain
institutional investors ("Individual Plaintiffs") against FHFA and
its Director, Treasury, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
Plaintiffs in each of the District of Columbia lawsuits filed an
amended complaint on November 1, 2017 alleging claims for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, and violation of Delaware and
Virginia corporate law.
Additionally, the Class Plaintiffs brought derivative claims
against FHFA for breach of fiduciary duties and the Individual
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Both sets of claims are generally based on allegations that the net
worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that
were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified
certain of the shareholders' rights, including the rights to
receive dividends and a liquidation preference. Class Plaintiffs
and Individual Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.
On January 10, 2018, FHFA and its Director, Fannie Mae, and Freddie
Mac moved to dismiss the amended complaints.
On September 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed all of the
claims except those for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
On December 7, 2021, the District Court certified three classes in
the In Re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations based on share type, including a
"Freddie Preferred Class" for holders of Freddie Mac junior
preferred stock and a "Freddie Common Class" for holders of Freddie
Mac common stock.
To be included in one of these classes, shareholders must have held
their shares as of December 7, 2021 or acquired their shares after
December 7, 2021 and before any final judgment is entered or
settlement is reached in the lawsuit.
The parties filed motions for summary judgment on March 21, 2022 in
both the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations and the Fairholme Funds
lawsuit.
On September 23 and October 11, 2022, the District Court ruled on
the motions for summary judgment and related matters.
The rulings limited the Plaintiffs' remaining damages theories to
those based on the decline in Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae's
share value after the Third Amendment.
The Plaintiffs have asserted losses based on the decline in value
of Freddie Mac's common and junior preferred stock from August 16
to August 17, 2012.
During the trial, the Plaintiffs requested that the jury award $832
million plus pre-judgment interest as damages against Freddie Mac.
The trial ran from October 17, 2022 through November 1, 2022, after
which the jury began deliberations.
The jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict and on November
7, 2022 the judge declared a mistrial.
The Company expect the court to set a new trial date.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a federally chartered
corporation created by Congress with the mission of making
homeownership throughout the United States more affordable for
middle to low-income individuals.
FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extended in Azimihashemi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSOUD AZIMIHASHEMI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. FIRST TRANSIT SERVICES, INC., an unknown
business entity; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an unknown business entity;
FIRST GROUP AMERICA, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-00780-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting stipulation to
further extend class certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- The Motion for Class Certification July 28, 2023
shall be filed and served by:
-- The Opposition to Motion for Class November 3, 2023
Certification shall be filed and
served by:
-- The Reply to Motion for Class December 1, 2023
Certification shall be filed and
served by:
-- The hearing on Motion for Class December 22, 2023
Certification is setting for:
First Transit supplies precision, efficiency, innovation, and
all-around expertise to both public and private transportation
systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UXiYrwat no extra charge.[CC]
FISCHER & WIESER: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fischer & Wieser
Specialty Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fischer &
Wieser Specialty Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09791 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fischer & Wieser Specialty Foods -- https://jelly.com/ -- inspires
your culinary adventure with award-winning sauces, mustards, jelly,
preserves, pasta sauces, salsas and wine.[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
FLEETCOR TECH: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Federal Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetcor 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
Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia's ruling dismissing a Federal
Derivative Action in a July 27, 2022 order.
On July 10, 2017, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia ("Federal Derivative Action") seeking recovery
from the Company.
The Federal Derivative Action alleges that the defendants issued a
false and misleading proxy statement in violation of the federal
securities laws; that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
causing or permitting the Company to make allegedly false and
misleading public statements concerning the Company's fee charges
and financial and business prospects; and that certain defendants
breached their fiduciary duties through allegedly improper sales of
stock.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages from the Company,
corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of profits, benefits and
compensation by the defendants, restitution, costs, and attorneys'
and experts' fees.
On September 20, 2018, the court entered an order deferring the
Federal Derivative Action pending a ruling on motions for summary
judgment in the then-pending shareholder class action, notice a
settlement has been reached in the shareholder class action, or
until otherwise agreed to by the parties.
After preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the
shareholder class action was granted, the stay on the Federal
Derivative Action was lifted. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on
February 22, 2020.
FLEETCOR filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
Federal Derivative Action on April 17, 2020, which the Court
granted without leave to amend on October 21, 2020. Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit on November 18, 2020.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling
dismissing the case in an order issued on July 27, 2022.
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: FLT) provides digital payment
solutions for businesses to control purchases and make payments. It
offers corporate payments solutions, such as accounts payable
automation; Virtual Card, which provides a single-use card number
for a specific amount usable within a defined timeframe;
Cross-Border is used by its customers to pay international
suppliers, foreign office and personnel expenses, capital
expenditures, and profit repatriation and dividends; and purchasing
cards and travel and entertainment cards for its customers to
analyze and manage their corporate spending. The company was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
FLEETCOR TECH: State Derivative Suit in Georgia Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Fleetcor 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 faces a shareholder derivative suit (State Derivative
Action) in Georgia. The suit is currently stayed.
On January 9, 2019, a similar shareholder derivative complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia ("State
Derivative Action"), which was stayed pending a ruling on motions
for summary judgment in the shareholder class action, notice a
settlement has been reached in the shareholder class action, or
until otherwise agreed by the parties.
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: FLT) provides digital payment
solutions for businesses to control purchases and make payments. It
offers corporate payments solutions, such as accounts payable
automation; Virtual Card, which provides a single-use card number
for a specific amount usable within a defined timeframe;
Cross-Border that is used by its customers to pay international
suppliers, foreign office and personnel expenses, capital
expenditures, and profit repatriation and dividends; and purchasing
cards and travel and entertainment cards for its customers to
analyse and manage their corporate spending. The company was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
FLORIDA: Judge Bolito Recommends Denial of Midgett Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. MIDGETT, v.
FLORIDA, Case No. 3:22-cv-10378-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Zachary C. Bolitho recommends that Plaintiff's "motion to certify
class" be denied.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 that includes "any person that has had any local,
state, federal, or constitutional right, privilege, rule,
procedure, [or] practice violated," "any individual that was the
subject to the execution of an unlawful order or act," and "any
individual with damages for actions or lack of action either
unethical or unlawful that are not codified or expressly written."
Florida is the southeasternmost U.S. state, with the Atlantic on
one side and the Gulf of Mexico on the other.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tUUwLgat no
extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Garrison Builders Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Garrison Builders, LLC, Sanderson Services,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-03664-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La., Oct. 5,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Motor
Vehicle Product Liability.
Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E Lillis, Esq.
LILLIS LAW FIRM, LLC
338 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 858-5173
Email: michael@lillislegal.com
- and -
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
MARTZELL & BICKFORD
338 Lafayette St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 581-9065
Email: lcentola@mbfirm.com
FULL SAIL: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Full Sail, LLC,
Case No. 6:22-cv-01932 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron
entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff
and defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Full Sail offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level
curriculum.[CC]
FV COM CORP: Kargar Asks Court to Proceed Collectively
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINA KARGAR, SERGIO
PEREZ DIAZ, and SHAINA FOSTER, in their individual capacities and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UMITJON KAMOLOV, an
individual, FARIDA GABBASSOVA -RICCIARDELLI, an individual, FV COM
CORPORATION, d/b/a Farida's, UMKA PUFF PIES, and FARIDA ONLINE
KITCHEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00664-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order to proceed collectively, requiring
Defendants to provide complete contact information for similarly
situated individuals, issuing judicial notice of this action, and
for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VimaxHat no extra charge.[CC]
GANNETT CO: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs. Stegemann
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA STEGEMANN, on
behalf of GANNETT CO., INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and all other
similarly situated v. GANNETT CO., INC. et al, Case No.
1:18-cv-00325-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Trenga
entered an order:
1. denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;
2. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and certifying the following class:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Gannett Co., Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan at any time from
July 1, 2016, inclusive, and whose Plan accounts included
investments in the TEGNA Stock Fund;"
3. appointing Gregory Y. Porter and Mark G. Boyko of Bailey &
Glasser LLP and Robert A. Izard and Douglas P. Needham of
Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP. As class counsel; and
4. appointing Christina Stegemann as the representative for
the class.
Gannett is an American mass media holding company headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gl6n23at no extra charge.[CC]
GEM CENTER USA: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gem Center U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Gem Center U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09793-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gem Center USA Inc. -- https://gemcenterwholesale.com/ -- is a
family owned and operated business who have been supplying the
world with geodes, jasper, agates, calcite, cabochons, minerals,
crystals, gemstone jewelry and other rough materials since
1967.[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
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Pilgrim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF WILLIAM D.
PILGRIM, et. al., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10562-TGB-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered a stipulated
order for extension of deadlines to serve expert disclosures and
deadlines for class certification briefing as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline New Deadline
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline To Nov. 18, 2022 Dec. 2, 2022
Serve Rule 26(A)(2)
Expert Disclosures:
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline To Nov. 18, 2022 Dec. 2, 2022
File Class Certification
Motion:
-- GM's Deadline To Serve Jan. 20, 2023 Feb. 10, 2023
Rule 26(A)(2) Expert
Disclosures
-- GM's Deadline To File Its Jan. 20, 2023 Feb. 10, 2023
Response To Plaintiffs'
Class Certification
Motion:
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline To Feb. 17, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023
File Any Reply In
Support Of laintiffs'
Class Certification
Motion:
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Eq8B8pat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
Michael D. Carr, Esq.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Telephone: (818) 547-5000
E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
mdc@kpclegal.com
- and -
Kenneth R. Chadwell
David M. Honigman
MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48083
Telephone: (248) 457-9200
Facsimile: (248) 457-9200
E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
kchadwell@manteselaw.com
Counsel for General Motors LLC are:
Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
April N. Ross, Esq.
Andrew Holmer, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 624-2500
Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
E-mail: ksooy@crowell.com
aross@crowell.com
aholmer@crowell.com
GENTING NEW YORK: Weitz Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Weitz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Genting New York LLC, Case No.
22-016202-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Oct. 3, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-23209-BB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Genting New York LLC owns and operates casino. The Company offers
restaurant, luxurious hotels, slots, lottery and electronic games,
and entertainment services, as well as dining facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
1547 Brooksbend Drive
Wesley Chapel, FL 33432-33543
Phone: (561) 789-4413
Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Olga M. Vieira, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (561) 213-5635
Email: olgavieira@quinnemanuel.com
GEREMIA POOLS: Robles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geremia Pools, et al.
The case is styled as Jesse Robles, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Geremia Pools, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00329920-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Geremia Pools -- https://geremiapools.com/ -- is a swimming pool
contractor in Sacramento, California and has been building swimming
pools in Sacramento since 1922.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY LAWYERS
16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
GKN DRIVELINE: Court Partly Reconsiders August 2 Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEBANE, ET AL. V. GKN
DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:18CV892
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration as follows:
-- The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks
reconsideration of its Order dated August 2, 2022.
-- The motion is denied to the extent that it requests that
the Court vacate the August 2, 2022, Order.
-- The Plaintiffs shall submit supplemental briefing proposing
a new class definition of the Automatic Deduction Class
consistent with this Memorandum and Order within 14 days of
the entry of this Order.
-- The Defendant shall have 14 days from the filing of
Plaintiffs' proposed redefinition to file a response. Both
parties' briefs shall not exceed 3,125 words.
The Court said, "The Automatic Deduction Class defines the class in
part as "Individuals who were not compensated all promised, earned,
and accrued wages for hours worked during unpaid meals due to
Defendant's automatic deduction policy." This appears problematic
because the class is defined so that "the class members either win
or are not in the class. The Court cannot enter an adverse judgment
against the class." In re AutoZone, 289 F.R.D. at 545–46 (quoting
Genenbacher v. CenturyTel Fiber Co. II, 244 F.R.D. 485, 488 (C.D.
Ill. 2007)). Thus, the Court finds that modification of the
Automatic Deduction Class definition is necessary to avoid it being
an impermissible fail-safe class."
In light of Plaintiffs' reliance on the Court's Order certifying
the Automatic Deduction Class, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to
file supplemental briefing proposing a new class definition to
address the impermissible fail-safe issue, the Court adds.
On November 5, 2020, the Federal Court conditionally certified
Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and
certified the following North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA")
class under Rule 23:
"Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant
GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in
non-managerial positions, were not compensated all promised,
earned, and accrued wages due to Defendant's rounding policy,
including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours
worked up to 40 in a week and for hours worked above forty 40
in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this
action, through the present."
GKN manufactures automotive parts. The Company offers light
vehicles, agricultural and construction equipment, aircraft, and
aero engines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EqxfFUat no extra charge.[CC]
GLV INC: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Mullen to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY BUTLER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Laura Mullen, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLV, Inc. et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01465, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
GLV is a youth volleyball business that offers coaching, training
programs, and camps; it is known for placing its participants in
competitive college sports programs. Mullen sued GLV and its
owners, Rick and Cheryl Butler, in a class action alleging fraud,
fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. Mullen alleges that the Defendants wrongfully concealed
from parents of GLV's program participants that in the 1980s, Rick
raped and sexually abused several underage women. In the decision,
the Court will refer to the Butlers by their first names for the
sake of simplicity.
In January 2019, the Court certified a Plaintiff class consisting
of persons who paid for youth volleyball instruction through GLV's
Sports Performance programs in Illinois between Feb. 27, 2013 and
Jan. 10, 2018. In February 2019, after getting input from both
sides, the Court approved a class notice, which included a brief
description of the case, informed the class members about their
options to either stay in the suit or opt out of the class, and
explained the legal implications of both options. The notice also
advised that class members choosing to opt out had to do so via
mail by April 19, 2019.
Mullen moved for sanctions against the Defendants for improperly
interfering with the class notice process. Mullen has also moved
for sanctions against the Defendants' counsel, alleging that she
violated her ethical responsibilities by communicating directly
with represented parties and knowingly misrepresenting to the Court
her clients' conduct during the opt-out period. The Defendants have
separately moved for summary judgment.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 4, 2020, Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Mullen's motion to
sanction the Defendants. Judge Kennelly found that the Defendants
intentionally interfered with the class notice and opt-out process
and therefore granted Mullen's motion for sanctions against them.
The Court, in a separate decision, also largely granted summary
judgment against the Defendants.
Plaintiff Laura Mullen took an appeal from the Court's ruling. That
appellate case was captioned as Laura Mullen v. GLV, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 20-3021, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.
On July 15, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
District Court.
On September 28, 2022, Judge Kennelly issued a memorandum opinion
and order denying the Defendants' motion for sanctions filed
against the Plaintiff and her attorneys on June 3, 2020. The Court
also ruled on the Plaintiff's sanctions fee petition.
The appellate case is captioned Laura Mullen v. Ricky Butler, et
al., Case No. 22-2944, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet was due on November 14, 2022;
and
-- Appellants Cheryl Butler, Ricky Butler and GLV, Inc.'s brief
is due on or before December 7, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
Jay Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
- and -
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 242-0859
Defendants-Appellants RICKY BUTLER, et al., are represented by:
Danielle D'Ambrose, Esq.
D'AMBROSE, PC
205 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 396-4121
GOLDEN GRAIN COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brendan Abbott, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Golden Grain Company, Case No.
22SL-CC04451, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Nov. 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01240-SRC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Golden Grains -- https://www.goldengrainpasta.com/ -- has been
providing high-quality rice products at affordable prices for more
than 30 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath
HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
St. Louis, MO 63119
Phone: (314) 550-3717
Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan T. Barton, Esq.
STANTON BARTON LLC
8000 Maryland Avenue, Suite 450
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 455-6502
Fax: (314) 455-6525
Email: jbarton@stantonbarton.com
GOLDIN AUCIONS: Sookul Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOLDIN AUCIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09780 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 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 GOLDIN AUCTIONS provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.Goldin.co (hereinafter "Goldin.co" or "the
website"). The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(the "ADA").
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. GOLDIN AUCTIONS'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 Goldin.co. 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.
GOLDIN AUCTIONS provides to the public a website known as Goldin.co
which provides consumers with access to various articles of comic
books, as well as other books, art, and related supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Fax (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GOYA FOODS: New Jersey Court Allows Herrera to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend complaint in the lawsuit captioned MADELINE HERRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GOYA FOODS, INC. and A.N.E. SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-11628-ES-AME (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a), to add a claim under the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"). The Defendants oppose the
motion.
Plaintiff Herrera filed this putative class action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Essex County, on May 13, 2021, seeking relief
for the alleged failure to receive appropriate compensation in
connection with her work as a sales representative for Defendants
Goya Foods, Inc. ("Goya Foods") and A.N.E. Services, Inc. ("ANE")
(collectively "Defendants"). The Plaintiff is domiciled in
Connecticut, and Defendants are both Delaware corporations with
their principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey. The
Defendants removed the action to this Court on May 21, 2021, on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
The Complaint states that from approximately 2010 to June 2020, the
Plaintiff worked selling Goya Foods products to businesses and
facilities under a "Broker Agreement" she entered into with ANE.
The Broker Agreement, which referred to the Plaintiff as a "sales
broker," established the terms of her sales work for the
Defendants, including her compensation and the geographic area of
her sales route. She operated a sales route for customers located
in Connecticut.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff as an independent contractor, even though she was
functionally acting as their employee "under the Connecticut
employment relationship test." It further alleges the Defendants
deprived her of the protections of Connecticut's wage payment laws.
In particular, the Complaint avers that the Defendants violated the
wage laws by making impermissible deductions from her
compensation.
The Plaintiff also claims the Defendants breached the Broker
Agreement by terminating her employment at time when she was on
medical leave. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff took
medical leave in January 2020 to undergo treatment for
endometriosis, substantiating her need for the leave of absence
with documentation. However, the Complaint alleges the Defendants
located photos, on social media, suggesting she was on vacation and
accused her of providing false information and misusing her leave.
It further alleges that, although the Plaintiff clarified the
photos were from the previous year, the Defendants nevertheless
determined she had violated the Broker Agreement's provision that
she use her "best efforts" to fulfill her obligations. The
Complaint states the Plaintiff was terminated on June 12, 2020.
Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts two causes of
action: (1) a claim for violation of the Connecticut Wage and Hour
Laws, and (2) a claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiff brings
the Connecticut statutory claim on behalf of herself and a putative
class consisting of "all persons who worked, on a full-time basis,
for Defendants in the State of Connecticut during the Class period,
as sales representatives and signed a Broker Agreement, directly or
on behalf of a business entity (the "Proposed Class")."
At the parties' request and upon their representation that private
negotiations were underway, the Court conducted a settlement
conference, on June 7, 2022. However, the parties failed to reach a
negotiated resolution of their claims during that conference. On
June 9, 2022, the Court entered an order directing the parties to
file a joint schedule proposing updated deadlines for the
completion of any remaining discovery. A schedule was not
submitted.
Instead, days later, on June 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a letter
seeking leave to file a motion to amend the Complaint and attaching
a proposed Amended Complaint. The Court recognized the submission
as her motion to amend, without expressing any view on the merits
thereof.
The proposed Amended Complaint seeks to add a claim for violation
of the NJLAD, alleging that the Plaintiff's termination by the
Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her medical
disability.
The Plaintiff argues there is good cause to permit this motion,
though filed after the Sept. 17, 2021 deadline set in the Pretrial
Scheduling Order, because facts indicating the Defendants may have
violated the NJLAD were not discovered until the first half of
2022. The Plaintiff states the information was revealed during
depositions in two separate but similar misclassification lawsuits
brought by other Goya sales brokers for alleged wage and hour
violations. In those actions, Kenneth Milstrey, Goya's designee
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), testified, in
relevant part, as to Goya's procedures for termination.
The Defendants, in opposition, argue Plaintiff's motion should be
denied for falling far short of Rule 16(b)(4)'s good cause
standard.
Although the Plaintiff has brought this motion almost nine months
after the deadline set in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, Judge
Espinosa finds she makes a sufficient showing that information
concerning the allegedly pretextual nature of her termination did
not come to light until the Milstrey depositions. These were
conducted in similar, pending lawsuits many months after that
deadline had expired.
The Plaintiff argues that upon assessing this information, she
acted promptly to add the NJLAD claim for unlawfully discriminatory
termination.
While the Plaintiff may have raised the possibility of bringing a
motion to amend the Complaint sooner than June 2022, the Court
cannot conclude that her conduct here was dilatory or lacked the
requisite diligence required to meet the Rule 16(b)(4) standard.
Rather, in the interest of assessing her merits arguments for leave
to add an NJLAD claim to this action, the Court, in its discretion,
excuses any untimeliness of this motion. Accordingly, the Court
finds the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause pursuant to Rule
16(b)(4).
The Defendants argue that leave to amend must be denied on grounds
of undue delay, bad faith, and futility.
Judge Espinosa holds that the factual allegations of the proposed
Amended Complaint establish a sufficient connection to New Jersey
to persuade the Court that the Plaintiff's motion to add an NJLAD
claim does not fail on grounds of futility. Judge Espinosa also
holds that none of the Defendants' remaining arguments in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion justify denying her leave to
amend.
Judge Espinosa opines that whether the Plaintiff will ultimately be
able to satisfy that requirement does not impact the question of
whether she may state a plausible NJLAD claim, under the pleading
standards of Rule 8(a) and Rule 15(a)(2). Judge Espinosa finds that
there has been no undue delay in bringing this motion. While the
timing of this motion is not ideal, and seeking to add the NJLAD
claim prior to engaging in a settlement conference would have
likely made the conference more productive for all involved, the
Court cannot conclude on this record that the Plaintiff has acted
in bad faith in seeking to amend the Complaint.
Finally, insofar as the parties have raised the possibility that
the Plaintiff's NJLAD claim might be time-barred, Judge Espinosa
holds that the Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the
claim would relate back to the filing date of the original
Complaint by operation of Rule 15(c). Under the circumstances,
Judge Espinosa holds the Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient
notice to the Defendants of her new claim to avail herself of the
relation back rule.
For these reasons, the Court finds, in its discretion, that leave
to file an amended complaint to assert an NJLAD claim is warranted
under Rules 15(a)(2) and Rule 15(b)(4). Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is
granted, She will file her Amended Complaint within seven days of
this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 14,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuhccwj3 from
Leagle.com.
GREEN DAY POWER: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Day Power
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Adam Gonzalez, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Green Day Power Corporation, Green Day Power LLC, Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2022-00327862-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Oct. 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Green Day Power Corporation -- https://greendaypower.com/ -- are
partners and licensed installers of Generac Home Generators, the #1
selling home standby generator brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
H AND S OF AUGUSTA: Clark Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Clark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. H AND S OF AUGUSTA INC. d.b.a. MIYAKO SUSHI AND
STEAKHOUSE, and WEI LIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00147-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.,
Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, costs, expenses of litigation, and attorneys'
fees.
The Defendants improperly withheld Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated employees' tips in violation of the FLSA and Defendants'
failure to properly calculate and pay Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated employees' minimum wages. The Defendants
improperly required the Plaintiff and other Servers to pay the
credit card fees for the Restaurant's gross sales, rather than just
the credit card fees applicable to the Plaintiff and other Servers'
tips. Merchants are not allowed to charge more than 4% of each
transaction as a credit card processing fee. The Defendants
improperly required Plaintiff and other Servers to pay excessive
credit card fees (over 4%). The Defendants willfully and/or
deliberately withheld Plaintiff's and other Servers' tips in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Miyako as a server at the
Restaurant.
The Defendants own and operate Miyako Sushi and Steakhouse
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
Grace A. Starling, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
Email: gordon@hallandlampros.com
grace@hallandlampros.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA
RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed to
set briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
as follows:
a. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 6, 2023
Certification shall be due on
or before:
b. Defendant's Opposition to the May 26, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
shall be due on or before:
c. Plaintiffs' Reply in support June 29, 2023
of their Motion for Class
Certification shall be due on
or before:
d. The hearing on Plaintiffs' July 13, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
shall take place on:
Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is
natural foods and botanically-based personal care products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tJLKzKat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-2262
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
- and-
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 923-2765
Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
HAMMOCKS & HIGH TEA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hammocks & High Tea
Inc. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hammocks & High Tea
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09800 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hammocks & High Tea Inc. is an environmentally conscious company
offering organic textiles & home goods.[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
HEALTHCARE INC: Settles Consumer Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare, 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 motion for final approval of a class action settlement was
granted. There was no appeal filed. Currently, a compliance hearing
is scheduled for March 2, 2023.
In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the company in the Superior court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the court, alleging that the
company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF, in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.
Following certain trial court proceedings and certain appeals,
arbitration proceedings, and court-ordered mediation proceedings,
in June 2021, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement and
request for a stay before the appellate court in light of reaching
a settlement in principle. The parties later executed a class
action settlement agreement and release effective June 30, 2021,
which requires trial court approval.
A preliminary class settlement approval hearing was scheduled to
take place in August 2021, but the trial court requested a
supplemental briefing and vacated the previously scheduled hearing.
The plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief and supporting
documents on October 12, 2021. The trial court granted the motion
for preliminary approval on November 12, 2021. Pursuant to the
terms of the settlement and the trial court's order, the class
notice phase took place in late February 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement was held on July 25,
2022. On July 26, 2022, the court granted the motion for final
approval of the class action settlement. No appeals were filed. A
compliance hearing is currently scheduled for March 2, 2023.
Healthcare, Inc. is a membership-based primary care platform based
in California.
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Lausche Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Lausche, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Horizon Actuarial Services,
LLC, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08238, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on Nov. 17, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04580-MLB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Court Junks Kim Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M.F. KIM, et al., v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00655-DKC (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order that:
1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Board of
Education of Howard County is granted.
2. The complaint is dismissed.
3. The motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs is
denied as moot
4. The clerk will transmit copies of the Memorandum Opinion and
this Order to Counsel for the parties and close this case.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V20Yfyat no extra charge.[CC]
HP INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in So Consumer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entitled HENRY SO, Plaintiff v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-02327-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
In this case, Plaintiff Henry So alleges that Defendant HP, Inc.,
remotely transmits firmware updates to HP printers that make
third-party ink and toner supply cartridges incompatible with those
HP printers. He brings common law and state and federal statutory
claims, and he seeks to represent both a California and a
nationwide class of consumers, who purchased the identified HP
printers.
Now before the Court is HP's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). So opposes the motion. The Court held a hearing on
the motion on Oct. 27, 2022. The Court denies in part the motion to
dismiss and grants in part the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend in part and without leave to amend in part.
As alleged in the Complaint, HP sells both printers and associated
HP-branded ink and toner cartridges for use in its printers. For a
cartridge to be compatible with a printer, both the hardware and
the software must align. Each model of HP printer is compatible
only with the associated cartridge model. HP has competitors in the
market for cartridges, as consumers can choose to buy cartridges
from HP ("HP cartridges") or a different company ("third-party
cartridges"). Third-party cartridges can be 25%-75% less expensive
than HP cartridges.
Mr. So alleges that HP periodically pushes out firmware updates to
its printers that prevent consumers from using third-party
cartridges. He claims that the firmware also causes the printer to
"display a (false) error message" stating there is a "supply
problem, cartridge communication error, or cartridge problem."
Further, So alleges that HP installs technology in its printers
that records data about the consumer's printing habits and
transmits it back to HP without the consumer's knowledge or
consent. He asserts that this happens with "all models of HP
printers that use ink supply cartridges," and he provides a
"non-exhaustive list" of models that he alleges were affected
("Class Printers").
Mr. So purchased a new HP OfficeJet Pro 6978 All-in-One Printer on
Nov. 22, 2018, and he purchased a new HP ENVY 7885 All-in-One
Printer on April 10, 2021, both in California. He had previously
owned an HP OfficeJet 6962 All-in-One Printer, with which he used
both HP cartridges and third-party cartridges. He alleges that HP
sent out a firmware update in December 2020, and on Dec. 16, 2021,
his OfficeJet Pro 6978 stopped working with third-party cartridges,
so he had to purchase an HP cartridge for the printer to function.
The lawsuit was filed on April 14, 2022. The Complaint asserts
claims for violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
("CFAA"), (Count 1); violation of the California Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CCDAFA") (Count 2); violation
of all three prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") (Counts 3-5); violation of the California False Advertising
Law ("FAL") (Count 6); fraud by omission (Count 7); and violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").
Mr. So seeks to represent three classes: (1) a nationwide class of
all persons and entities who own a Class Printer or similar HP
InkJet Printer (the "device owner class"); (2) a nationwide class
of all persons and entities who own a Class Printer that displayed
a diagnostic error due to HP's transmission of a firmware update
(the "damages subclass"); and (3) a class of all persons and
entities residing in California and states with similar consumer
protection statutes who own a Class Printer that displayed a
diagnostic error due to HP's transmission of a firmware update (the
"state consumer subclass").
HP argues that the fraud-based claims should be dismissed because
So does not plead an affirmative consumer-facing misrepresentation
with particularity as required by Rule 9(b), and he does not plead
reliance on any alleged misrepresentations. The Court agrees.
As discussed at the hearing, Judge Freeman says So does not allege
an affirmative misrepresentation made to consumers. The alleged
misrepresentations identified in the Complaint, in which HP
indicated printer owners could use HP cartridges or third-party
cartridges, were in investor materials and a strategic plan. And So
does not plead reliance on an affirmative misrepresentation, as he
does not allege that he saw any of the alleged misrepresentations.
Mr. So alleges that he "rightfully believed" he could use a
third-party cartridge based on his experience with another HP
printer but this does not constitute a misrepresentation by HP.
Further, the parties agree that So cannot allege reliance on the
printer error messages as they did not appear until after purchase.
The Court agrees that because the error messages appeared after So
purchased the printer, there is no reliance.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss any fraud-based claims based on an
affirmative misrepresentation is granted with leave to amend.
HP further argues that any fraud claims based on omission also fail
because So does not allege HP concealed a defect central to the
printers' function.
The Court agrees with the recent decision in Hammerling v. Google
LLC, No. 21-cv-09004-CRB, 2022 WL 2812188, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July
18, 2022) as to the appropriate test. So must allege that HP's
omission "either (1) relates to an unreasonable safety hazard or
(2) is material, 'central to the product's function,' and meets one
of the four LiMandri factors." The LiMandri factors are (1) the
defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2)
the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known
to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant actively conceals a material
fact from the plaintiff; or (4) the defendant makes partial
representations but also suppresses some material facts (citing
LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336 (1997)).
There are no allegations about a safety hazard here, so the
Plaintiff must allege that the inability to use a third-party
cartridge is "material, central to the product's function, and
meets one of the four LiMandri factors," Judge Freeman holds. The
Plaintiff must also allege facts showing that HP intended to send
the firmware updates at the time of purchase. Judge Freeman points
out that the Plaintiff has not done so.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss any fraud-based claims based on
omission is granted with leave to amend.
HP's motion to dismiss the fraud-based claims brought under the
fraud prong of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as the common law,
is, thus, granted with leave to amend.
HP argues that the California CCDAFA Fraud Claim should fail
because So "fails to plead the underlying fraudulent conduct with
requisite particularity" required by Rule 9(b). Because the claim
sounds in fraud, Rule 9(b) applies. And the Court agrees that, for
the reasons discussed, the Plaintiff has not pled fraud with
particularity.
Hence, Judge Freeman rules that the motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims under Cal. Penal Code Section (c)(1 is granted
with leave to amend, and the motion to dismiss the unfair claim
under the UCL as to allegations that sound in fraud is granted with
leave to amend.
The Plaintiff also brings a claim under the unlawful prong of the
UCL. HP does not seek to dismiss this claim.
HP also seeks to dismiss the CLRA claim for lack of notice. Here,
the Plaintiff provided notice to HP on March 28, 2022, and he filed
his Complaint just 17 days later, seeking both injunctive relief
and damages under the CLRA.
HP argues that the Court should dismiss the CLRA claims for damages
on this basis without leave to amend. The Plaintiff admits that the
original request for damages under the CLRA did not comply with the
notice provisions, but because over 30 days have passed since he
provided notice, he asks for leave to amend his CLRA claim to seek
damages.
The Court agrees that the original claim for damages under the CLRA
did not comply with notice requirements and, therefore, it should
be dismissed. But because the statute specifically allows for
amendment, the Court will grant leave to amend. The motion to
dismiss the CLRA for lack of notice is granted wth leave to amend.
Mr. So brings a claim under the CFAA. HP argues that the CFAA
claims should be dismissed because So does not allege the required
statutory damages of $5,000. The CFAA requires So to allege $5,000
in damages. Judge Freeman finds he did not do so.
Judge Freeman says So may plead aggregated damages as long as they
stem from a single act by HP. Hence, the motion to dismiss the CFAA
claim for failure to plead statutory damages is granted with leave
to amend. The motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under Section
1030(a)(4) is also granted with leave to amend.
HP argues that So does not have standing to assert consumer
protection and fraud claims on behalf of out of state class
members.
The Plaintiff asserts his UCL and FAL claims on behalf of the
"device owner class," which is a nationwide class. He asserts his
CLRA claim on behalf of the "state consumer subclass," which
includes "[a]ll persons and entities residing in California and
States with a similar consumer protection statute to [the CLRA],"
Finally, Plaintiff brings his fraud by omission claim "on behalf of
the Device Owner Class under California law or, alternatively, the
State Consumer Subclass(es) under the law of the state in which
each respective Plaintiff purchased a Class Printer."
Because the Plaintiff resides in and was injured in California, he
does not have standing to assert claims under the laws of any other
states, Judge Freeman holds. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot bring
his fraud by omission claim under the common law of any state other
than California.
The Court agrees that under Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. 666
F.3d 581, 596 (9th Cir. 2012), choice of law issues might
ultimately preclude a nationwide class. But as Mazza demonstrates,
a detailed and fact-intensive inquiry is necessary to determine the
substantive law applicable to class members' claims. Accordingly,
the Court will not decide this issue at this stage of the case.
The motion to dismiss for lack of standing on behalf of classes
bringing claims under the laws of states other than California is
granted without leave to amend and the motion to dismiss for lack
of standing on behalf of a nationwide class under California law is
denied without prejudice, Judge Freeman holds.
HP argues that So does not have standing for printers he did not
purchase. The Court takes the "substantially similar" approach to
analyzing standing challenges, under which "a plaintiff may have
standing to assert claims for unnamed class members based on
products he or she did not purchase so long as the products and
alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar," citing
Romero v. HP, Inc., No. 16-cv-05415-LHK, 2017 WL 386237, at *7
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017).
Here, So simply provides a list of Class Printers and conclusory
allegations that the misrepresentations are the same for all of
them. Judge Freeman finds this is not sufficient. She points out
that the Plaintiff must provide more specific factual allegations,
such as facts that indicate what misrepresentations or omissions
were made with respect to each printer, and whether the
misrepresentations were false or omissions were required to be
disclosed as to each printer. Therefore, the motion to dismiss
claims for other printers is granted with leave to amend.
HP also argues that So lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief.
The Court agrees with the approach in Parziale v. HP 445 F.Supp.3d
435 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff has
standing to seek injunctive relief because he could be harmed by
future firmware updates from HP. While the Plaintiff has purchased
HP cartridges, he alleges he would like to use third-party
cartridges again in the future.
HP's motion to dismiss So's claims for injunctive relief for lack
of standing is, thus, denied.
For these reasons, Judge Freeman rules that HP's motion to dismiss
is:
1. granted with leave to amend, as to the fraud-based claims
(Count 5-8) for failure to state a claim;
2. granted with leave to amend, as to the claim under
Cal. Penal Code Section 502(c)(1) (Count 2, CCDAFA) for
failure to state a claim;
3. granted with leave to amend, as to the unfair claim under
the UCL (Count 4) for failure to state a claim;
4. granted with leave to amend, as to damages under the CLRA
claim (Count 8) for lack of notice;
5. granted with leave to amend, as to the CFAA claim (Count 1)
for failure to allege statutory damages and failure to
state a claim;
6. granted without leave to amend, as to standing to assert
claims under the laws of states other than California;
7. denied, as to standing on behalf of a nationwide class
without prejudice;
8. granted with leave to amend, as to claims for non-purchased
Class Printers; and
9. denied, as to standing to bring a claim for injunctive
relief.
The Plaintiff will file an amended complaint within 60 days of this
order. Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or
failure to cure the deficiencies identified on the record or in
this order will result in a dismissal of the deficient claims with
prejudice. The Plaintiff's amendments will not exceed the scope
allowed by the Court in this order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56zj5tm2 from Leagle.com.
HUDSON HALL: Fisher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Fisher, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
HUDSON HALL LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, and THINK FOOD GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09737 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 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
overtime compensation; unpaid wages for off-the-clock work;
statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff was required by Defendants to perform unpaid off-the
clock work, resulting in unpaid wages and overtime premium. The
Defendants willfully violated the Plaintiff's and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs' rights by failing to pay them wages in the lawful
amount for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours
worked each week, due to time-shaving, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Dishwasher
and Porter.
The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the trade name
"MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN."[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
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. THE
HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00204-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Richard A, Lanzillo entered an order granting final
approval of class action settlement.
The Court preliminary certified the following Settlement Class:
"A national class including all Blind or Visually Disabled
individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate
digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access,
or been deterred from attempting to access, or who may
access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to
access, The Hundreds is Huge, Inc.'s Digital Properties
including its Website at http://www/thehundreds.comand/or
Mobile App from the United States."
The Court also entered an order:
1. appointing the Plaintiff Murphy as representative of the
Settlement Class; and
2. appointing Kevin Tucker, Kevin Abramowicz, Chandler
Steiger, and Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group LLC
and Lawrence H. Fisher as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Vav8Neat no extra charge.[CC]
IKEA US: Meyers Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA DUKICH and JOHN
DUKICH, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC and IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey
Bartle, III entered an order granting the Plaintiff Samantha
Meyers's uncontested motion for extension of time to file reply in
support of motion for class certification
The Plaintiff shall file her Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification on or before December 2, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GBBzVxat no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS DOC: Court Narrows Claims in Boone Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN BOONE, BRANDON
HESTER, LINDSEY QUISENBERRY, TAMMY PARKHILL, and SUSAN CHRISTNER,
v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and JAY
R. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:21-cv-03229-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge James E. Shadid entered an order granting in part and denying
in part motion to dismiss as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' request for a TRO and preliminary
injunction as to the allegations of the Second Amended
Complaint is denied.
2. The Count I - Title VII claim is dismissed without
prejudice to Plaintiffs' reasserting after exhausting
their administrative remedies.
3. The Count II - Emergency Use Authorization claim is
dismissed with prejudice.
4. Lindsey Quissenberry is dismissed as a party Plaintiff.
5. IDPH is dismissed as a party Defendant.
6. The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Counts III, IV and V on
the merits are denied.
The Plaintiffs note the provision that HCRCA safeguards extend to
those who refuse to participate in a "particular form of health
care services contrary to his or her conscience."
They plead that the Public Act 102-667 amendment contradicts the
stated public policy of the HCRCA and violates the IRFRA as it
forces them to choose between their religious and conscientious
beliefs and their employment.
The Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs cannot proceed on a claim
that the amendment extinguished an existing right under the HCRCA
to refuse COVID-19-related measures.
The Plaintiffs have affirmatively pled that the amendment served to
repeal the HCRCA, something not clear from the record.
Plaintiffs have pled, however, that the amendment violates the
IRFRA, an issue which Defendants do not address.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GFUYETat no extra charge.[CC]
INFINITY Q: $48MM Settlement to be Heard on January 31, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott Attorneys at
Law LLP, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP regarding the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund Securities
Litigation:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
In re INFINITY Q DIVERSIFIED ALPHA
FUND SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
The Consolidated Action
DOMINUS MULTIMANAGER FUND, LTD.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Index No. 652906/2022
CLASS ACTION
Part 53: Justice Andrew S. Borrok
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT EITHER: (I) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED INVESTOR SHARES (TICKER SYMBOL IQDAX) AND/OR INSTITUTIONAL
SHARES (TICKER SYMBOL IQDNX) IN INFINITY Q DIVERSIFIED ALPHA FUND
BETWEEN FEBRUARY 22, 2016 AND FEBRUARY 22, 2021, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"); AND/OR (II) INVESTED THROUGH EITHER
THE INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA FUND, L.P., OR THE INFINITY Q
VOLATILITY ALPHA OFFSHORE FUND, LTD. DURING THE CLASS PERIOD
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
January 31, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Andrew Y.
Borrok, J.S.C., Supreme Court of New York, County of New York:
Commercial Division, 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 238, New York, NY
10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement of the
above-captioned consolidated actions (the "State Action"), along
with In re Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund and Infinity Q
Volatility Alpha Fund Securities Litigation (formerly known as Yang
v. Trust for Advised Portfolios, et al.), Case No.
1:21-cv-01047-FB-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Federal
Action") (the State Action and Federal Action together referred to
as, the "Litigation"), as set forth in the Amended Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation") dated September 7, 2022, for up to
$48,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, including consideration of any objections
or opt-outs submitted by Class Members; (2) the Judgment, as
provided under the Stipulation, should be entered; (3) to award
Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), as discussed below), and, if
so, in what amount; (4) to award Lead Plaintiffs for representing
the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount;
(5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (6) to consider any opt-outs or
objections received by the Court.
The Litigation collectively refers to the State Action and the
Federal Action brought on behalf of persons who invested in the
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, the Infinity Q Volatility Alpha
Fund, L.P., or the Infinity Q Volatility Alpha Offshore Fund, Ltd.
(the "Funds") during the Class Period, against parties associated
with the Funds for allegedly misstating and omitting material facts
from the Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in statements made by
certain Defendants during the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs allege
that these purportedly false and misleading statements resulted in
overstated valuations of the assets held by the Funds, and that the
Class Members suffered damages when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiffs' allegations.
IF YOU INVESTED IN THE INFINITY Q DIVERSIFIED ALPHA FUND, THE
INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA FUND, L.P., OR THE INFINITY Q
VOLATILITY ALPHA OFFSHORE FUND, LTD. BETWEEN FEBRUARY 22, 2016 AND
FEBRUARY 22, 2021, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THE LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than February
6, 2023) or electronically (no later than 11:59 p.m. on February 6,
2023 at www.InfinityQSecuritiesSettlement.com). Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by February 6, 2023, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of the Litigation. If you are a
Member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at
www.InfinityQSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to:
Infinity Q Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Defendants, Court, or Clerk
of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a
Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
SCOTT+SCOTT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Thomas Laughlin
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
(212) 223-6444
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 686-1060
Lead Counsel in the State Action
ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Samuel Rudman
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 367-7100
Lead Counsel in the Federal Action
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JANUARY 10,
2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL
BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR AWARD TO LEAD
PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTION MUST BE FILED
WITH THE COURT AND MAILED TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED, BY JANUARY 10, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: October 17, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
THE HONORABLE ANDREW S. BORROK, J.S.C.
INLINE NETWORK: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Cline Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRELL CLINE and EDWARD
JEPSON, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
v. INLINE NETWORK INTEGRATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01711-K (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order as follows:
1. All motions requesting leave to July 31, 2023
join parties or to amend pleadings
shall be filed by:
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Nov. 30, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
by:
3. Responses to the Motion for Jan. 30, 2024
Class Certification are due no
later than:
4. Replies is support of the Feb. 20, 2024
Motion for Class
Certification are due no
later than:
5. Discovery related to Class Nov. 1, 2023
Certification ONLY, may begin
immediately, but this discovery
closes:
6. Defendant shall file a written Sept. 1, 2023
designation of the name and
address of each expert witness
who will testify at trial and
shall otherwise comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or
before:
Inline Network delivers professional IT solutions and support,
managed IT services and IT consulting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tQcVciat no extra charge.[CC]
INSPIRE BRANDS: Haldeman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspire Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Mike Haldeman, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Inspire Brands, Inc. doing
business as: Sonic Drive-In, Case No. 1:22-cv-00155-GNS (W.D. Ky.,
Nov. 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Inspire Brands, Inc. -- https://inspirebrands.com/ -- is an
American holding company and the owner and franchisor of the
Arby's, Buffalo Wild Wings, Sonic Drive-In, Jimmy John's, Rusty
Taco, Mister Donut, Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurant
chains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-863-5700
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
MEHR FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 225-3731
Fax: (859) 225-3830
Email: edp@austinmehr.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers 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 8, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a consumer suit in
Connecticut.
On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported
class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the
computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions
in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The
complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend.
On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence.
On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint
on January 11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.
On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss.
The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020.
The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18,
2022. The motion is now fully briefed. The Court has not yet set a
date for oral argument.
On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to
amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022.
The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022.
The Company's answer was filed on July 28, 2022.
The Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in
connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential
claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case
may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercontinental
Hotels Group Resources, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Keily
Villeda, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, Sky
Hotels, Inc., Robert Marin, Maria Martinez, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0009028 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 5,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
IHG Hotels & Resorts -- https://www.ihgplc.com/en -- is a global
hospitality company, with a purpose to provide True Hospitality for
Good.[BN]-
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: 424-529-2080
Email: jb@jbilslaw.com
JETSUITEX INC: McKeehan Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Jacob McKeehan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JETSUITEX, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV32816 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2022),
is brought against the Defendants to recover, among other things,
unpaid wages, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic
pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which
contribute to the Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The
Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that the
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to
authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in
lieu thereof; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failing to pay wages timely during employment; and failing to pay
all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for the
Defendants.
The Defendants provide services or goods throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 3 79-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
JOHN HANCOCK: Kroetz Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILVINA KROETZ and others
similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.)
and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to file under
seal portions of certain documents and references therefrom
designated as "Confidential" and/or "Highly Confidential" by
Defendant in this action.
1. Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and
Class Counsel ("Motion").
2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment
of Class Representative and Class Counsel
("Memorandum").
3. Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 13, to the Declaration of
Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification, Appointment of Class
Representative and Class Counsel ("Exhibits").
The June 5, 2020 Protective Order requires that any information
designated as confidential qualify for protection under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)In turn, under Rule 26(c), a Court may
require "that a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information not be revealed or be
revealed only in a specified way."
If Defendant does not file its responsive declaration as required
by this subsection, the documents and information Plaintiff is
herein requesting be filed under seal may be made part of the
public record in their entirety.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gpeuLfat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopher@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Mitchell H. Macknin, Esq.
John P. Bjork
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
mhmacknin@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601-1604
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
JOHN WETZEL: Court Tosses Cooper's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE X. COOPER, v. JOHN
WETZEL, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01793-MWB-MP (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GzRYtIat no extra charge.[CC]
JOSEPH A. DOORLEY: Coalition Files Suit in D. Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph A. Doorley,
Jr., et al. The case is styled as The Coalition of Black
Leadership, by its President, Michael Van Leesten, Curtis Morris,
Joseph Costa, Richard Metts, Ronald Gray, Alice Pennington, and
Barbara Araujo, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. Joseph A. Doorley, Jr., Mayor of Providence; Harry
Goldstein, Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Providence;
Walter A. McQueeney, Chief of Police of the City of Providence;
Capt. Stephen F. Maroney, Jr., Director of Personnel and Community
Relations; Anthony Calichia, Police Officer of the City of
Providence, Defendants; Willie K. Washington, Intervernor Case No.
1:71-cv-04523-JJM-PAS (D.R.I., Nov. 17, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Joseph Aloysius Doorley Jr. was an American lawyer and politician
who served as mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]
JP MORGAN: Turner Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
et al. The case is styled as Dana Turner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JP
Morgan Chase Bank N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Microsoft
Corporation, Nuance Communications, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-05827-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
JPMorgan Chase Bank -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- doing
business as Chase Bank or often as Chase, is an American national
bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that constitutes
the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S.
multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebekah Susanne Strawn Guyon, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: Guyonr@gtlaw.com
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2022, that the
Company intends to defend itself from a securities class suit in
Eastern District Court of New York.
In December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi's securities prior to March 15, 2019.
This action remains pending.
While the Company believes that the claims in these litigations are
without merit and will defend itself vigorously.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products based in China.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Pending in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2022, that a
securities class suit remains pending in the Southern District
Court of New York.
Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi") and certain
of its current and former directors and officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and sought damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.
Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were
pending in the New York federal court, that motion was granted in
September 2019, and the time to appeal has run.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products based in China.
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Smith Files Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaye-Smith
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Kaye-Smith
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01499-AR (D. Ore., Oct. 6,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
Kaye-Smith -- https://kayesmith.com/ -- is a leading Northwest
marketing execution and supply chain company, serving corporate
clients across a wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
- and -
Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
BAXTER & BAXTER
8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
Portland, OR 97225-3429
Phone: (503) 297-9031
Fax: (503) 291-9172
Email: justin@baxterlaw.com
- and -
Ari Brown, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARI BROWN
3909 47th Ave South
Seattle, WA 98118
Phone: (206) 412-9320
Email: abrownesq@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Repass, Esq.
WOOD SMITH HENNING AND BERMAN
520 Pike Street, Suite 1525
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 204-6802
Fax: (206) 299-0400
Email: trepass@wshblaw.com
KELLY SERVICES: Bazine Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Samy Bazine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company; KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company; MEDI MALL, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV404025 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief pursuant to
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have: failed to provide
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal
periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to
pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to
include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate
of pay; failed to reimburse them for all necessary business
expenses; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following
separation of employment., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for the
Defendants.
KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company
doing business in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farah@setarehlaw.com
KIA AMERICA: Neves Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Juliette Neves, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03630-NJB-KWR
(D.S.C., Oct. 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis L. Gertler, Esq.
Helen Hairston Babin, Esq.
Gertler Law Firm
935 Gravier Street, Suite 1900
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 581-6411
Email: lgertler@gertlerfirm.com
hbabin@gertlerfirm.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural Care" Baby Wipes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California
woman has filed a class action against Kimberly-Clark alleging
Huggies "Natural Care" baby wipes don't contain plant-based
ingredients as labeled.
Summer Whiteside, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint Nov. 10 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Kimberly-Clark
Corp alleging fraud and other claims.
Whiteside, according to her class action, purchased Huggies Natural
Care Baby Wipes on several occasions in the fall and winter of
2021. She alleges the wipes' labels falsely and misleadingly claim
the product is "plant-based" and read "natural care" which leads
consumers to believe the wipes only contain water and other natural
plant-derived ingredients.
Whiteside also alleges the wipes' packaging leads consumers to
believe the product has not undergone "substantial processing." She
claims the wipes are not natural, "do not come from plants
whatsoever" and contain artificial or synthetic ingredients such as
Butoxy PEG-4-PG and Caprylyl Glycol that are subject to chemical
processing. Whiteside also claims because of Kimberly-Clark's
deceptive labeling, consumers pay more for what they believe is a
natural product that is healthier, safer and more environmentally
conservative. She further claims Kimberly-Clark's false advertising
violate California's Unfair Competition Law.
Whiteside and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by
jury and all other just relief. They are represented by Ryan
Clarkson, Katherine Bruce, Kelsey Elling and Olivia Treister of The
Clarkson Law Firm PC in Malibu and Michael Crosner, Zachary
Crosner, Chad Saunders and Craig Straub of Crosner Legal PC in
Beverly Hills.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 5:22-CV-01988 [GN]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Sheer, et al., Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings 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 a class action lawsuit was filed by Joseph
Sheer, Virginia Van Dusen, Jose Motolinia, Vickii Schwalm, Peter
Wood, against the company alleging that Swift misclassified
independent contractors as independent contractors, instead of
employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various
state laws.
The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the
lease agreements that certain independent contractors have entered
into with Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC. The putative class
seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, other costs, and
attorneys' fees.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. is a freight
transportation company based in Arizona.
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Drinks' Artificial Flavoring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges the maker of Crystal Light has failed
to clearly disclose that certain varieties of the flavored drink
mix contain artificial flavoring.
The 39-page case claims the Kraft Heinz Company and Kraft Heinz
Foods Company have intentionally misled buyers by labeling Crystal
Light drink mixes as if they are exclusively made with natural
flavors. However, the filing contends that 17 varieties of Crystal
Light mix are made with an undisclosed synthetic chemical that
simulates the tart taste of fruits and berries.
According to the complaint, Kraft Heinz deceptively labels its
Crystal Light products with claims that they are flavored with
"Natural flavor" or "Natural flavor with other natural flavor,"
along with the names and depictions of fruits and berries. Mixes
under the "Pure Tropical Blend" variety are falsely advertised on
CrystalLight.com as made "[w]ith no artificial sweeteners, flavors,
or preservatives," and the term "pure" implies that the product is
not adulterated with artificial ingredients, the case argues.
Despite these representations, the filing alleges, the Crystal
Light products in question contain dl-malic acid, a synthetic
chemical manufactured in factories from petroleum feedstocks. Per
the case, dl-malic acid is considered artificial under federal
regulations and state law.
"None of the Products or Products' packaging include on either the
front or back labels any indication that the Products contain
artificial flavoring chemicals," the suit asserts.
According to the complaint, Kraft Heinz has failed to comply with
federal regulations and state law that stipulate that food products
must prominently disclose to consumers on their front and back
labels the presence of artificial flavors, and that a food's front
label display the source of its characterizing flavor.
The complaint stresses that Kraft Heinz has intentionally omitted
these required disclosures to give consumers "the false impression
that they are buying a premium all-natural product instead of a
product that is artificially flavored," the case says. Using its
allegedly misleading labeling, the company sells its Crystal Light
drink mixes at a higher price, therefore increasing its profits,
the filing contends.
The 17 varieties of Crystal Light at issue in the lawsuit include
the flavors:
Acai Berry Bliss;
Berry Sangria;
Black Cherry Lime;
Blueberry Raspberry;
Grape;
Mango Passionfruit;
Peach Iced Tea;
Peach Mango Green Tea;
Pomegranate Green Tea;
Raspberry Green Tea;
Raspberry Ice;
Raspberry Iced Tea;
Strawberry Kiwi;
Strawberry Pineapple;
Tropical Blend;
Tropical Coconut; and
Tropical Paradise Punch.
The lawsuit looks to represent all U.S. citizens who bought any of
the above-listed Crystal Light products on or after January 1, 2016
and until the date a class is certified by the court. [GN]
L'OREAL USA: Burton Sues Over Toxic Hair Straightener
-----------------------------------------------------
Angela Burton, Natasha M. Casby, Bridgette Quinn, and Sondra
Loggins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC., and
SOFTSHEEN-CARSON, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-12784-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
Nov. 17, 2022), is brought against the Defendants who wrongfully
advertised and sold Toxic Hair Straightener and/or Relaxers without
any labeling to indicate to consumers that these products may
contain Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ("EDC").
The Defendants distribute, market, and sell several
over-the-counter hair straightener and/or relaxer products under
their brand names, including "Dark & Lovely" ("Toxic
Hair-Straightener(s) and/or Relaxer(s)"). The Defendants' Toxic
Hair-Straighteners and/or Relaxers are adulterated with EDCs.
EDC's, including Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate ("DEP"), are known to
increase a woman's risk of: harm and/or injury including
endometriosis, abnormalities in reproductive organs, various
cancers, altered nervous system and immune function, respiratory
problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular
problems, growth, neurological and learning disabilities.
The presence of EDCs in the Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straightener was
not disclosed in the products' label, in violation of state and
federal law. The Plaintiffs and the putative classes suffered
economic damages due to the Defendants' misconduct and they seek
injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of
the hair straighteners and/or relaxers product(s) they purchased.,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Hair Straighteners and/or Relaxers
manufactured, sold, and distributed by the Defendants.
The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and sell a variety of hair straighteners and/or relaxers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
H. James White, Esq.
WHITE LAW PLLC
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Okemos, MI 48864
Phone: (517) 316-1195
Fax: (517) 316-1197
Web: www.whitelawpllc.com
Email: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com
LEFTIES LOGISTICS: Melgoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lefties Logistics
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Raymond Melgoza, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lefties Logistics Inc., Does
1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00330051-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Lefties Logistics Inc. is an active Californian business entity
incorporated.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Makenzie Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 22CV404069 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for engaging
in an illegal "automatic renewal" scheme with respect to its paid
subscription plans for Linkedln-branded products and services that
are available exclusively to consumers who enroll in the
Defendant's auto renewal programs through its website
athttps://www.linkedin.com and its mobile applications (the
"Linkedin Website" and the "Linkedin App").
Relevant to the Plaintiff's allegations, when consumers sign up for
the LP Subscriptions, the Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a
program that automatically renews the LP Subscriptions from
month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual
charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party
payment account ("Payment Method"). In doing so, Defendant fails to
provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be
made to California consumers under California's Automatic Renewal
Law.
The Defendant markets, advertises, and sells to consumers in
California and throughout the United States paid memberships to the
LP Subscriptions. To sign up for one of Defendant's paid LP
Subscriptions through the Linkedln Platform, customers must provide
Defendant with their billing information and the Defendant then
automatically charges customers' Payment Method as payments are
due, typically on a monthly or annual basis. Defendant is able to
unilaterally charge its customers renewal fees without their
consent, as it is in possession of its customers' billing
information. Thus, Defendant has made the deliberate decision to
bilk Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers on a monthly
or yearly basis, absent their consent under the ARL, relying on
consumer confusion and inertia to retain customers, combat consumer
chum, and bolster its revenues, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff signed up for a free trial of Defendant's monthly
Linkedln Premium Career subscription from Defendant's website while
in California.
The Defendant is an international corporation that owns and
operates an online career-focused social media network of business
professionals, Linkedln.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
jvenditti@bursor.com
- and -
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh A venue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Bemero Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lloyd & McDaniel,
PLC. The case is styled as Karen Bemero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06436 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Lloyd & McDaniel -- https://www.lloydmc.com/ -- is a law firm that
represents creditors.[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
LLOYD J. AUSTIN: Schelske Sues Over Vaccine Mandate
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Schelske, Huntley W. Bakich, Zakai Bufkin, Samuel L.
Conklin, Joshua J .Costroff, Samuel Galloway, Dominic O. Mell,
Collin M. Morrison, Nicholas Saballa, Peter Testa, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN,
III, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of
Defense; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the Army; YVETTE K.BOURCICOT, in her official capacity as Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs);
RAYMOND S. DINGLE, in his official capacity as The Surgeon General
and Commanding General, USA Medical Command; and UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Case No. 6:22-cv-00049-H (N.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2022), is
brought involving the systematic effort of the Defendants to
violate federal law and the United States Constitution,
specifically the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and the
First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, in a concerted and
deliberate circumvention of the religious rights of members of the
United States Army.
All Plaintiffs have documented and confirmed sincerely held
religious beliefs concerning Defendants' COVID-19 vaccination
requirement. They all seek temporary religious accommodations from
the COVID-19 vaccination requirement ("Vaccine Mandate"), but none
of them have had their requests granted. As a result, now they face
irreparable harm and, in several cases, imminent irreparable harm.
All Plaintiffs have had their accommodation requests processed by
and through their chain of command. As part of that process, each
of them was interviewed at least once by an Army Chaplain who
confirmed the sincerity of each Plaintiffs' beliefs and the
substantial burden being placed upon each Plaintiff to comply with
Defendants' Vaccine Mandate. In each case, that Chaplain
recommended approval of the religious accommodation.
On a routine basis, the Army has failed to approve all but a few of
the temporary religious accommodation requests, and those were only
for end-of-service personnel who will soon be exiting the service.
At the same time, the Army has approved thousands of temporary
exemptions to the same mandate, but for secular reasons. The
Defendants' policies and actions have deprived and will continue to
deprive the Plaintiffs of their paramount rights and guarantees
under the United States Constitution and federal law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are members of the United States Armed Forces.
Lloyd J. Austin, III is the United States Secretary of Defense.
Secretary Austin issued a memorandum on August 24, 2021 requiring
the United States Armed Forces to vaccinate all service
members.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron Siri, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
Wendy Cox, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Voice: (212)532-1091
Fax: (646)417-5967
Email: aaron@sirillp.com
ebrehm@sirillp.com
wcox@sirillp.com
- and -
Christopher Wiest, Esq.
CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC
25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
Phone: (513)257-1895
Fax: (859)495-0803
Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com
- and -
Thomas Bruns, Esq.
BCVA LAW
4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 330
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513)312-9890
Email: tbruns@bcvalaw.com
- and -
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX75104
Voice: (469)523–1351
Fax: (469)613-0891
Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Petro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT V. PETRO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Robert V. Petro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lundquist Consulting
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2-21-cv-01187, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
In this putative class action, Mr. Petro alleges that Lundquist
Consulting illegally attempted to collect a debt from him when it
lacked the authority to do so. He sues Lundquist under the Fair
Debt Collection and Practices Act (FDCPA), based on its purported
violation of Pennsylvania's Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA).
Under this latter statute, a licensed entity may not sell a debt to
an unlicensed entity, unless the state's Department of Banking has
approved. Mr. Petro argues that Lundquist never obtained approval
to purchase the license from the lender.
On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Lundquist originally argued that the federal bankruptcy
code preempts Pennsylvania's CDCA here; that res judicata bars Mr.
Petro's claims; that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine confers immunity
because Lundquist was petitioning to collect money it was owed; and
that Mr. Petro did not allege sufficiently separate conduct to
establish unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to
collect a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f.
On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion through
an Order entered by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. The Court ruled that
because the loan here was charged off, the CDCA's broader
anti-usury regulatory framework is not implicated and does not
apply to Lundquist.
The appellate case is captioned Robert Petro v. Lundquist
Consulting Inc., Case No. 22-3051, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT V. PETRO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
- and -
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (724) 714-3095
- and -
Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
2 Chatham Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 889-8535
- and -
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (717) 491-9162
Defendant-Appellee LUNDQUIST CONSULTING INC. is represented by:
Brit J. Suttell, Esq.
BARRON & NEWBURGER
10 Beatty Road, Suite 200
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (484) 999-4232
MAD MUSHROOM: Guinnup Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mad Mushroom
Franchise Group, LLC. The case is styled as Lyle Guinnup, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Mad Mushroom Franchise
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01954-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Oct. 4,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mad Mushroom -- https://madmushroom.com/ -- offers savor delicious
pizza and more with fast delivery and carryout or a casual,
friendly dine-in meal.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road, Ste 520
Liberty Plaza
Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Putative Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt PLC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the MSP putative
class action was dismissed on August 16, 2022.
As a result of the Plan becoming effective, the Putative Class
Action Litigation was dismissed as to the Company on August 16,
2022.
Mallinckrodt -- http://www.mallinckrodt.com/-- is a global
business consisting of multiple wholly owned subsidiaries that
develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies. The company's Specialty
Brands reportable segment's areas of focus include autoimmune and
rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology,
nephrology, pulmonology and ophthalmology; immunotherapy and
neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. Its Specialty Generics reportable
segment includes specialty generic drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Rockford Putative Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt PLC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Rockford
putative class suit was dismissed on July 20, 2022.
As a result of the Plan becoming effective, the Rockford Putative
Class Action Litigation was dismissed as to the Company on July 20,
2022.
Mallinckrodt -- http://www.mallinckrodt.com/-- is a global
business consisting of multiple wholly owned subsidiaries that
develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies. The company's Specialty
Brands reportable segment's areas of focus include autoimmune and
rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology,
nephrology, pulmonology and ophthalmology; immunotherapy and
neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. Its Specialty Generics reportable
segment includes specialty generic drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shenk Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt PLC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Court
dismissed the Shenk class securities suit with prejudice.
On August 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia held a fairness hearing of the Shenk Class Securities
Action (Shenk v Mallinckrodt plc, et al.) at which it granted final
approval of the settlement in the amount of $65.8 million to be
paid by the insurance carriers, entered final judgment, and
dismissed the action with prejudice.
Mallinckrodt -- http://www.mallinckrodt.com/-- is a global
business consisting of multiple wholly owned subsidiaries that
develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies. The company's Specialty
Brands reportable segment's areas of focus include autoimmune and
rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology,
nephrology, pulmonology and ophthalmology; immunotherapy and
neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. Its Specialty Generics reportable
segment includes specialty generic drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Strougo Putative Securities Class Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt PLC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Stougo
putative class suit was closed.
On March 17, 2022, the Strougo Securities Putative Class Action was
administratively closed.
On March 29, 2022, the Strougo action was reinstated only with
respect to the individual defendants, and the individual defendants
filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on May 2,
2022.
On July 21, 2022, the Company filed a notice of discharge that, if
approved by the court, would result in dismissal for the Company.
The notice informed the court that (i) the Bankruptcy Court
confirmed the Company's Plan; (ii) the Company's discharge pursuant
to Section 1141(d) of the Bankruptcy Code of the claims asserted
against it the Strougo action had taken effect; and (iii) the Plan
and the discharge injunction enjoin any party from, among other
things, continue to pursue claims against the Company in the
Strougo action.
MAZDA MOTOR: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Sonneveldt to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from
court orders denying their motions to exclude the testimony and
granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the lawsuit entitled Terry Sonneveldt, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action involving the
2007-2016 model years of the Mazda CX-9 vehicle and the 2009-2013
model years of the Mazda6 vehicle. According to the complaint,
those vehicles incorporate the Mazda Cyclone Engine, which contains
"a defect in design, manufacturing, materials and/or workmanship
that causes the water pump to suddenly and prematurely fail
well-before the end of the useful life of the engine."
The Plaintiffs' defect theory relies in large part on the opinions
of their engineering expert, Dr. Christopher White. White opines
that the water pumps in the Class Vehicles are defective because a
key component part of those pumps' mechanical seal, which prevents
coolant from flowing into the drive shaft side of the pump and into
the engine's oil pan, is defective.
Specifically, White contends that the water pumps' elastomer
bellows is defectively designed because it is made of hydrogenated
acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) and is in constant,
unshielded contact with high temperature coolant. Because the HNBR
bellows is constantly exposed to high temperature coolant, it
degrades and loses elasticity or cracks.
On March 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Defendants opposed on April 29, 2022. The
Defendants also filed motions to exclude the testimony of Steven
Gaskin and Colin Weir and the report and testimony of Christopher
White.
On Oct. 21, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to
exclude expert testimony and granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certified eight
Classes including California, Song-Beverly, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia but it denied the
certification of proposed Louisiana and North Carolina Classes.
The appellate case is captioned Terry Sonneveldt, et al. v. Mazda
Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80127, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 5,
2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents TERRY SONNEVELDT, et al., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
- and -
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
koncius@kiesel.law
- and -
Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
11 E. Powell Miller
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@miller.law
Defendants-Petitioners MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
2049 Century Park, E., Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 324-3412
- and -
Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
2049 Century Park, E., Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 324-3423
- and -
Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
2049 Century Park, E., Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 285-8330
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Issues Final Judgment in Contreras Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division, issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment in the lawsuit
styled EUGENIO AND ROSA CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY,
KEITH AND TERESA MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC (N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00302-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
Agreement and Certification of Settlement Class, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards, as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release.
For purposes of settlement only, the Parties have stipulated to the
certification of three Settlement Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
defined as all Settlement Class Members, who do not request
exclusion from the Settlement and meet the following criteria:
(1) California Class: all residents of California, who, from
February 1, 2012 to February 14, 2022, made a payment to
Nationstar on a residential mortgage loan over the phone
or online that included a Convenience Fee at Issue charged
by Nationstar for using the phone or internet;
(2) Florida Class: all residents of Florida, who, from
February 1, 2012 to February 14, 2022, made a payment to
Nationstar on a residential mortgage loan over the phone
or online that included a Convenience Fee at Issue charged
by Nationstar for using the phone or internet; and
(3) Illinois Class: all residents of Illinois, who, from
February 1, 2013 to February 14, 2022, made a payment to
Nationstar on a residential mortgage loan over the phone
or online that included a Convenience Fee at Issue charged
by Nationstar for using the phone or internet.
As to the Settlement Classes, the Court finds that the class action
prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been satisfied. As to
the Settlement Classes, the Court also finds "that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Because all the class certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 have been met as to the Settlement Classes, the Court certifies
the Settlement Classes for purposes of this Settlement.
The Court appoints Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes, and Named
Plaintiffs Eugenio and Rosa Contreras, Sherlie Charlot, and Jennie
Miller as class representatives for the Settlement Classes.
No Settlement Class Members have objected to the terms of the
Settlement.
A list of Settlement Class Members, who timely requested exclusion
in proper form pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement
is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. These Settlement Class Members
are: (1) Estate of Thomas E. Vittitow, (2) Jackerly McFadden, (3)
Guadalupe Vera, and (4) David Hale.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Classes.
Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects,
and the Parties are directed to implement and consummate the
Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions.
The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of the Final Approval
Order, including all exhibits thereto, will be forever binding in
all pending and future lawsuits maintained by the Named Plaintiffs
and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as their family
members, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns.
Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, compensation to Settlement
Class Members will be effected pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement.
In addition to any recovery that the Named Plaintiffs may receive
under the Settlement, and in recognition of the Named Plaintiffs'
efforts and risks taken on behalf of the Settlement Classes, the
Court approves the payment of Service Awards to the three Named
Plaintiffs in the amount of $10,000 each or $30,000 total.
The Court approves the payment of Attorneys' Fees to Class Counsel
in the sum of $2.15 million and the reimbursement of litigation
Expenses in the sum of $226,585.83.
The Court approves and orders payment to the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., in the amount of $104,554.92 for
its performance of its settlement claims administration services
provided to date, and further approves and orders payment to A.B.
Data, Ltd. from the Settlement Fund for completion of the primary
distribution in the amount of $183,961.18. The Settlement Agreement
provides for a secondary distribution in the event there are
amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund following the distribution
of electronic payments and checks. Class Counsel will notify the
Court prior to making any secondary distribution. All
administrative costs for a secondary distribution must be taken
from the amount remaining in the Settlement Fund. If a secondary
distribution is not feasible, the Parties will confer and make a cy
pres application for approval by the Court.
The Releases, which are set forth in Section 9 of the Settlement
Agreement, are expressly incorporated here in all respects and are
effective as of the Final Settlement Date.
Judge England notes that this Final Approval Order, the Settlement,
and all negotiations, statements, documents, and/or proceedings in
connection with this Settlement are not and will not be construed
as an admission by the Defendants of any liability or wrongdoing in
this or in any other proceeding.
The Court will retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters
related to the administration and consummation of the Settlement,
and any and all claims, asserted in, arising out of, or related to
the subject matter of the Litigation, including but not limited to
all matters related to the Settlement and the determination of all
controversies related thereto.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment
dated Nov. 14, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4s63mxjr
from Leagle.com.
OHIO: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal Order in Ball v. Kasich
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN
KASICH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Edmund. A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Guardian's Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order that granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
The case involves two groups of individuals with developmental
disabilities, who are not satisfied with Ohio's administration of
its developmental-disability system. One group, the Plaintiffs and
Disability Rights Ohio, filed this case alleging that Ohio's system
violates federal law because it is allegedly too reliant on
Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") at the expense of integration
into the community for disability services.
The other group, who intervened as representatives of individuals
who prefer institutional care in ICFs ("Guardians"), alleges that
Ohio's system violates the same federal law because it is fails to
inform people of the ICF choice, leaving them only the option of
community-based care through waivers or wait lists for those
waivers.
On March 31, 2016, Disability Rights Ohio filed the case on behalf
of six individually named Plaintiffs and the Ability Center of
Greater Toledo seeking declarative and injunctive relief against
and the Directors of the Ohio Department of Developmental
Disabilities, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and Opportunities
for Ohioans with Disabilities (together "State of Ohio") and the
Governor of Ohio.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's administration, management, and
funding of its service system for people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities such as themselves put them at serious
risk of segregation and institutionalization in violation of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court's
decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). They also moved
under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ("Medicaid Act").
The Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental
Disabilities moved to intervene, which was opposed by the
Plaintiffs. After full briefing, the Court permitted the County
Boards to intervene, adding them to the existing Defendants.
The Guardians, representing individuals, who prefer institutional
care in ICFs, also moved to intervene. The Defendants supported the
Guardians' request to intervene, but only for the purpose of
opposing the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. The
Plaintiffs opposed intervention. The Court granted intervention to
the Guardians in July 2017.
The Guardians filed a Third-Party Complaint with Crossclaims
against the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the Intervenor
County Boards. The Guardians alleged that Ohio has systematically
denied ICF services, by failing, in their view, to assure that
individuals, who qualify for ICF services, are informed of that
qualification so that they may be provided that ICF service if they
so choose. The Guardians aver that the County Boards routinely fail
to provide information about ICFs to eligible individuals so that
the individuals know they have a choice to reside in an ICF, and
instead only provide information related to the individual's
qualification for waiver services, i.e., community-based options or
wait lists for community-based options.
The State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards, all
moved for dismissal of the Guardians' crossclaims. After full
briefing, and at the request of the parties, the Court stayed
decision on the motions to dismiss so that all parties could engage
in settlement negotiations. Following extensive settlement
negotiations, all parties entered into a settlement as a complete
and final resolution of all matters. The Court granted the
unopposed request of the Plaintiff Class, the Defendants, and the
County Boards for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement on Oct. 18, 2019.
The following month, the Guardians withdrew from their agreement to
settle. At the parties' request, the Court vacated the stay on the
motions to dismiss of the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and
the County Boards. The Court issued its decision that dismissed the
Guardians' claims brought pursuant to the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act and permitted to go forward the claim filed
under the Medicaid Act.
The Guardians ask the Court to reconsider its dismissal of the ADA
and Rehabilitation Act claims.
The Guardians do not offer any intervening change in law or newly
available evidence. Instead, they argue that the decision
dismissing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims constituted
error because the Court considered the Guardians' claims as
mischaracterized by the Defendants. They maintain that when
properly considered, the Guardians state valid, straightforward ADA
(and Rehabilitation Act) claims.
The Guardians, however, merely restate the arguments the Court
already considered and rejected, Judge Sargus notes.
Motions for reconsideration are not substitutes for appeal nor are
they vehicles to rehash rejected arguments, Judge Sargus opines,
citing Savage v. United States, 102 Fed. Appx. 20, 23 (6th Cir.
2004).
Based on this, the Court denies the Guardian's Motion for
Reconsideration. The remaining dispositive motions directed at the
remaining claim will be considered by the Court forthwith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 14,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf9hw2f from
Leagle.com.
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Settlement Hearing to be Held on Jan. 20, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LUIS PACHECO, Derivatively on Behalf of
OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID R. GUYER, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO,
DAVID E. REDLICK, THOMAS DYRBERG,
AXEL BOLTE, MICHAEL J. ROSS, SAMIR C.
PATEL, and NICHOLAS GALAKATOS,
Defendants,
-and OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No. 1:18-cv-07999-VSB
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF
IVERIC BIO, INC. F/K/A/ OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION ("OPHTHOTECH" OR THE
"COMPANY") AS OF JANUARY 27, 2022 (THE
"RECORD DATE"), EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH THEY
HAVE A CONTROLLING INTEREST AND OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE
COMPANY AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR
ASSIGNS.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE
ABOVECAPTIONED DERIVATIVE ACTION AND OTHER SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
MATTERS AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE
COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM
CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM
PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. IF YOU HOLD OPHTHOTECH COMMON STOCK
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT
TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO CLAIMS PROCESS AND NO INDIVIDUAL
STOCKHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT OF THE
SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED BELOW.
A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
I. WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of this stockholder derivative litigation and related
matters. This Notice is provided by Order of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court
with respect to the truth of the allegations in the litigation or
merits of the claims or defenses asserted by or against any party.
It is solely to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement
and your rights related thereto. The terms of the proposed
Settlement are set forth in a written Stipulation of Settlement
dated January 27, 2022 ("Stipulation").
A link to the Form 8-K filed with the SEC containing the text of
the Stipulation may be found on Ophthotech's website at the
Investor Relations page at
https://investors.ivericbio.com/derivative-settlement.
Your rights may be affected by the settlement of the following
matters, including without limitation all related stockholder
demands: Pacheco v. Guyer, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07999-
VSB (S.D.N.Y.); Ferber, et al. v. Bolte, et al., Index No.
154462/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.); and the litigation demand
made by shareholder Richard Waksman (together the "Derivative
Actions"). Plaintiffs Luis Pacheco, Brian Ferber, Angel Ham and
Richard Waksman ("Plaintiffs") (on behalf of themselves and
derivatively on behalf of Ophthotech); individual defendants David
R. Guyer, Glenn P. Sblendorio, David E. Redlick, Thomas Dyrberg,
Axel Bolte, Michael J. Ross, 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined shall have the same meanings as set forth in the
Stipulation.
Samir C. Patel, Nicholas Galakatos; and nominal defendant
Ophthotech (the "Defendants") (Plaintiffs and Defendants
collectively, the "Settling Parties") have agreed upon terms to
settle the above-referenced litigation and have signed the
Stipulation setting forth those settlement terms.
On January 20, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing
(the "Settlement Hearing") in the Federal Derivative Action. The
purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i)
whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, including
the separately negotiated amount of attorneys' fees and expenses
for Plaintiffs' Counsel and the case contribution awards for the
Plaintiffs, and should be finally approved; (ii) whether a final
judgment should be entered and the Federal Derivative Action
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation; and (iii)
such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the
circumstances.
II. OPHTHOTECH DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
A. The Federal Derivative Action
1. Federal Plaintiff Commences This Derivative Litigation
On August 31, 2018, Federal Plaintiff filed a Verified Stockholder
Derivative Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Waste of
Corporate Assets, and Unjust Enrichment (the "Complaint") against
individual defendants David R. Guyer, Glenn P. Sblendorio, David E.
Redlick, Thomas Dyrberg, Axel Bolte, Michael J. Ross, Samir C.
Patel, and Nicholas Galakatos (the "Individual Defendants"), on
behalf of nominal defendant Ophthotech, captioned Pacheco v. Guyer,
et al., C.A. No. 1:18-cv-07999-VSB (the "Federal Derivative
Action").
Federal Plaintiff alleged that the Individual Defendants made and
permitted the issuance of public statements that omitted material
facts concerning: (i) the average lesion size and average visual
acuity of patients in the control group for the Phase 2b trial for
the Company's lead drug candidate, Fovista, which allegedly had the
effect of overstating the drug's efficacy; and (ii) changes made to
the patient inclusion and exclusion criteria for the Fovista Phase
3 trials compared to the prior Phase 2b trial that allegedly
adversely impacted the potential for replicating the positive
results of the Phase 2b trial. Federal Plaintiff further alleged
that the Individual Defendants' misstatements artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, and that certain of the Individual
Defendants sold their personally held shares of Ophthotech stock at
those inflated prices.
Federal Plaintiff did not make a demand on Ophthotech's Board of
Directors (the "Board") prior to filing suit and, instead, alleged
that demand was excused as futile because there was reason to doubt
(i) the disinterestedness of a majority of the Board members, based
on the substantial threat of liability they faced; and (ii) the
independence of a majority of the Board members, based on various
business and financial entanglements.
B. The Court Denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
On December 14, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss")
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, arguing that
Federal Plaintiff had failed to adequately allege that a pre-suit
demand on the Board would have been futile. After the full briefing
of the Motion to Dismiss, on September 19, 2019, the Court denied
the Motion to Dismiss.
C. The Board Forms a Special Litigation Committee
In response to the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, on October 15,
2019, Ophthotech's Board established a Special Litigation Committee
("SLC"). Pursuant to a resolution of the Board, the SLC was "fully
empowered to take and direct any and all actions on behalf of the
Company with respect to [the Federal Derivative Action] and any
stockholder derivative litigation [thereafter] filed that raises
substantially similar allegations . . . or otherwise with respect
to the allegations therein, including but not limited to
investigating and making determinations concerning or related to
claims and allegations of [the Federal Derivative Action],
determining whether the pursuit of the [Federal Derivative Action]
is in the Company's best interests, causing the Company to pursue
claims, causing the Company to seek the dismissal of claims, and
seeking any form of relief or action by the Court with respect to
the [Federal Derivative Action]."
D. The Parties Agree to Terms on Discovery and a Temporary Stay
Following extensive negotiations, the parties agreed on terms for
(i) discovery; and (ii) a temporary stay in order to permit the SLC
to conduct its investigation. Specifically, Defendants and the SLC,
as appropriate and subject to the terms of the parties'
stipulation, agreed to produce to Federal Plaintiff: (i) any final
written SLC investigation report or presentation, if any, and any
documents identified or referenced therein; (ii) in connection with
such final report, if any, other SLC-related documents, including,
inter alia, documents concerning the formation and independence of
the SLC, minutes of relevant meetings of the Board and the SLC, and
correspondence between SLC members and other members of the Board
(hereinafter, the "SLCrelated documents"); (iii) copies of all
documents and written responses to discovery requests produced to
the plaintiff in Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 1:17-cv-00210-VSB-GWG (the "Securities Action") in the form and
manner in which such documents were produced to the Securities
Action plaintiff; (iv) all written agreements regarding the scope
of discovery to be produced by defendants in the Securities Action;
and (v) all deposition transcripts generated in the Securities
Action.
E. Discovery and Information-Gathering
Between June 2020 and April 2021, Ophthotech produced to Federal
Plaintiff more than 100,000 documents constituting more than 4.2
million pages of material, which included transcripts of the
depositions of percipient witnesses taken in the related Securities
Class Action.
Federal Plaintiff's Counsel attest that they used search terms and
custodial information to identify and compile, and then reviewed
and evaluated, critical non-public documents and deposition
testimony produced by Ophthotech concerning the allegations
underlying this litigation.
On April 27, 2021, Federal Plaintiff's Counsel participated in a
meeting with counsel for the SLC. Federal Plaintiff's Counsel made
a presentation to SLC Counsel that addressed, among
other things, (i) the factual allegations, the legal theories for
recovery, and the damages alleged to have been suffered by the
Company; (ii) corporate governance and other changes that had been
made at the Company since the commencement of the Federal
Derivative Action; and (iii) potential additional corporate
governance measures that could help prevent a recurrence of the
alleged wrongdoing. Federal Plaintiff's Counsel and SLC Counsel
also discussed the status of the SLC's investigation and next
steps, including the possibility of engaging in mediation to
explore a potential resolution of the matter.
F. The Litigation Demands
1. The Waksman Demand
On June 22, 2018, Waksman made a demand for the inspection of
documents of Ophthotech under 8 Del. C. Sec. 220 seeking documents
concerning Fovista's clinical trials and the sale of Ophthotech
stock by certain insiders (the "220 Demand"). In response to the
220 Demand, Ophthotech and counsel for Waksman negotiated and
entered into a confidentiality agreement. In late October of 2018,
Ophthotech provided approximately 2,200 pages of documents to
Waksman and his counsel.
On January 23, 2019, subsequent to reviewing the documents, Waksman
made a litigation demand on the Board, requesting that it take
action to remedy breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements concerning Fovista and insider selling by
defendants Patel, Guyer, Galakatos, and Sblendorio (the "Waksman
Demand"). On March 7, 2019, counsel for Waksman was informed that
the Board had formed a demand review committee (the "Demand Review
Committee"). Subsequent to the making of the Waksman Demand,
counsel for Waksman kept in regular contact with counsel for the
Demand Review Committee and SLC concerning the Board's
investigations and eventually settlement talks.
2. The Ferber/Ham Demand
On October 12, 2018, Ferber and Ham made a litigation demand upon
the Board concerning Fovista's clinical trials and the sale of
Ophthotech stock by certain insiders (the "Litigation Demand"). In
response to the Litigation Demand, counsel for Ophthotech and
counsel for Ferber and Ham exchanged correspondence. On November
30, 2018, counsel for the Company informed Ferber and Ham that the
Board had formed the Demand Review Committee to examine the
Litigation Demand. Later, that committee's membership was expanded
to include Ophthotech director Adrienne Graves, and the SLC was
appointed (as discussed above). Counsel for Ferber and Ham also
requested that the Company obtain agreements tolling the statute of
limitations from the individual defendants named in this Litigation
Demand. The Company executed tolling agreements with the
individuals. Thereafter, counsel for Ferber and Ham requested
action by the SLC and a production of documents as to the
investigation. Ferber and Ham subsequently filed an alleged
demand-refused action in Supreme Court, New York County, captioned
Ferber, et al. v. Bolte, et al., Index No. 154462/2021 on March 6,
2021 (the "State Derivative Action"). Thereafter, counsel for
Ferber and Ham and counsel for the Defendants agreed to enter into
a temporary stay of the State Derivative Action while the parties
pursued global settlement talks. In addition, Ferber and Ham and
counsel for the Defendants entered into a stipulation in which the
SLC agreed to produce to counsel for Ferber and Ham the SLC-related
documents in accordance with the process provided for in connection
with the Federal Derivative Action.
3. Settlement Efforts
On June 21, 2021, the Settling Parties and the SLC participated in
an all-day mediation session with the Honorable Layn R. Phillips
(Fmr.) and Niki Mendoza, nationally recognized
mediators with extensive experience mediating complex stockholder
disputes similar to the Derivative Actions, and both of Phillips
ADR (the "Mediator"). The Settling Parties and the SLC made
substantial progress at the mediation but were unable to resolve
the Derivative Actions that day.
Over the course of the next month, the parties continued to engage
in arm's-length negotiations regarding the terms of a potential
settlement, including, in particular, corporate governance measures
at Ophthotech that could form the basis for a settlement. These
postmediation negotiations were conducted via written and
telephonic communications, with the continued oversight of the
Mediator. The Settling Parties ultimately reached an agreement in
principle on the material substantive terms of the Settlement,
including the Corporate Governance Measures.
Thereafter, with the substantial involvement of the Mediator, the
Settling Parties commenced negotiations regarding the attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel. Despite their
good faith efforts, the Settling Parties were unable to reach an
agreement on an appropriate amount of attorneys' fees on their own.
Accordingly, on September 1, 2021, the Mediator issued a mediator's
recommendation for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$2,450,000, to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel by the Individual
Defendants' insurer(s) (the "Fee and Expense Amount"). The Settling
Parties agreed to the mediator's recommendation regarding the Fee
and Expense Amount on September 3, 2021.
III. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AND THE BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs believe that the Derivative Actions have substantial
merit, and Plaintiffs' entry into the Stipulation and Settlement is
not intended to be and shall not be construed as an admission or
concession concerning the relative strength or merit of the claims
alleged in the Derivative Actions. However, Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' Counsel recognize and acknowledge the significant risk,
expense, and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute
the Derivative Actions against the Individual Defendants through
trial and possible appeals. Plaintiffs' Counsel also have taken
into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation,
especially in complex cases such as the Derivative Actions, as well
as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation.
Plaintiffs' Counsel are also mindful of the inherent problems of
prevailing in the face of a potential motion to terminate by the
SLC that was appointed by the Board here, the possible defenses to
the claims brought in the Derivative Actions, and the difficulty of
prevailing at trial in shareholder derivative litigation,
generally.
Plaintiffs' Counsel have conducted extensive investigation and
analysis, including, inter alia: (i) reviewing the voluminous
non-public documents produced in the course of this litigation,
including the discovery generated in the related Securities Action
and produced to Federal Plaintiff; (ii) reviewing Ophthotech's
press releases, public statements, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") filings, and securities analysts' reports and
advisories about the Company; (iii) reviewing related media reports
about the Company; (iv) researching applicable law with respect to
the claims alleged in the Derivative Actions and potential defenses
thereto; (v) preparing and filing derivative complaints; (vi)
preparing and sending inspection and litigation demands; (vii)
conducting damages analyses; (viii) evaluating the merits of, and
the defendants' potential liability in connection with, the
Securities Action; (ix) participating in a formal meeting and
making a presentation to SLC Counsel regarding the factual
allegations, the legal theories for recovery, the damages alleged
to have been suffered by the Company, corporate governance and
other changes that had been made at the Company, and potential
additional corporate governance measures that could help prevent a
recurrence of the alleged wrongdoing; (x) reviewing the Company's
existing corporate governance policies and preparing comprehensive
yet targeted settlement demands detailing proposed corporate
governance measures to strengthen the Company's governance; (xi)
participating in extensive settlement discussions, including an
all-day mediation and continued follow-up communications with SLC
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel and the Mediator; and (xii)
negotiating the Stipulation and the exhibits thereto. Based on
Plaintiffs' Counsel's thorough review and analysis of the relevant
facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal principles,
Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and confers
substantial benefits upon Ophthotech. Based upon Plaintiffs'
Counsel's evaluation, Plaintiffs have determined that the
Settlement is in the best interests of Ophthotech and have agreed
to settle the Derivative Actions upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth herein.
IV. DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY
Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiffs in the Derivative
Actions, and the Individual Defendants have expressly denied and
continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against
them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or
omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the
Derivative Actions. Defendants have also taken into account the
uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in
complex cases like the Derivative Actions. Defendants have,
therefore, determined that it is in the best interests of
Ophthotech for the Derivative Actions to be settled in the manner
and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation.
Neither the Stipulation, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor
entry of the Judgment, nor any document or exhibit referenced by or
attached to the Stipulation, nor any action taken to carry out the
Stipulation, is, may be construed as, or may be used as evidence of
the validity of any of the Released Claims or as an admission by or
against the Individual Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, or
concession of liability whatsoever.
V. INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
The members of the SLC, acting on behalf of the Company, have
unanimously approved a resolution reflecting their determination,
in an exercise of their business judgment, that: (a) Plaintiffs'
litigation and settlement efforts in the Derivative Actions were a
material and contributing factor in the Board's agreement to adopt,
implement, and maintain the Corporate Governance Measures for the
agreed term; (b) the Corporate Governance Measures reflected in
Exhibit A to the Stipulation confer substantial benefits on the
Company and its stockholders; and (c) the Settlement is fair,
reasonable and in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders.
VI. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT
The principal terms, conditions, and other matters that are part of
the Settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, are
summarized below. This summary should be read in conjunction with,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the
Stipulation and its accompanying Exhibits, which have been filed
with the Court and are available at a link on Ophthotech's website
at the Investor Relations page at
https://investors.ivericbio.com/derivativesettlement.
In connection with the Settlement of the Derivative Actions,
Ophthotech's Board shall adopt and maintain the corporate
governance measures (the "Corporate Governance Measures") described
below within sixty (60) days after the Court's final approval of
the proposed Settlement.
The Corporate Governance Measures shall remain in effect for a
period of no less than four (4) years following final settlement
approval, except for modifications required by applicable law,
regulation, or fiduciary duty, or upon a Change in Control Event,
in which case all duties and obligations to maintain the Corporate
Governance Measures shall become subject to the good faith exercise
of the succeeding board's or controlling group's or entity's
business judgment. The Corporate Governance Measures may be amended
or eliminated if a majority of the independent members of the Board
determine in a good faith exercise of their business judgment that
the implementation or maintenance of the Corporate Governance
Measure(s) would be contrary to applicable laws or regulations,
including the Board's fiduciary duties. In such event, the
independent directors, to the extent their fiduciary obligations
allow based upon their good faith exercise of business judgment,
shall adopt an amended or substitute reform that addresses the same
goals, purposes and/or functions of the original Corporate
Governance Measure(s) as soon as practicable. Any changes made
pursuant to this provision shall be published in the Company's next
regular quarterly filing with the SEC.
VII. PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED AGREED-TO
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
After negotiating the principal terms of the Settlement, counsel
for the Settling Parties, the SLC, and the Individual Defendants'
insurers, acting by and through their respective counsel, with the
substantial assistance of the Mediator, separately negotiated the
attorneys' fees and expenses the Individual Defendants would cause
their insurers to pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel based on the
substantial benefits conferred upon Ophthotech by the Settlement.
In consideration of the substantial benefits conferred upon
Ophthotech as a direct result of the Settlement and the efforts of
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Derivative Actions, and
subject to Court approval, the Individual Defendants shall cause
their insurers to pay Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the total amount of $2,450,000 (the "Fee and Expense
Amount"). The members of the SLC, in the good faith exercise of
their business judgment, have approved the agreed-to Fee and
Expense Amount in light of the substantial benefits conferred upon
Ophthotech as a result of the Settlement and Plaintiffs' Counsel's
efforts in this litigation.
The Settling Parties further stipulated that Plaintiffs' Counsel
may apply to the Court for service awards of up to $5,000 for each
of the Plaintiffs, only to be paid upon Court approval, and to be
paid from the Fee and Expense Amount, in recognition of Plaintiffs'
participation and effort in the prosecution of the Derivative
Actions.
VIII. SETTLEMENT HEARING
On January 20, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hold the
Settlement Hearing at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New
York 10007. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider
whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate and thus should be finally approved, whether the
separately negotiated Fee and Expense Amount and Plaintiffs'
service awards should be approved, and whether the Derivative
Actions should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
Stipulation. Pending the Court's determination as to final approval
of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and all Current Company Stockholders
are barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, filing,
intervening in, participating in, receiving any benefit from, or
prosecuting any action, including without limitation any derivative
action, asserting any of the Released Claims against any of the
Released Persons.
IX. RIGHT TO ATTEND SETTLEMENT HEARING
Any current Ophthotech stockholder may, but is not required to,
appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard
at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with the
procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has
the right to change the hearing date or time without further notice
or to hold it telephonically or via another remote process. Thus,
if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should
confirm the date and time before going to the Court. Current
Company Stockholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not
need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action.
X. RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND
PROCEDURES FOR DOING SO Any current Ophthotech stockholder may
appear and show cause, if he, she, or it has any reason why the
Settlement of the Derivative Actions should not be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why a judgment should not be
entered thereon, or why the separately negotiated attorneys' fees
and expenses should not be approved. You must object in writing,
and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you
choose to object, then you must follow these procedures.
A. You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing
Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the
following information:
1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number;
2. The case name and number (Pacheco v. Guyer,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07999);
3. Proof of being an Ophthotech stockholder as of the Record Date,
January 27, 2022.
4. The date(s) you acquired your Ophthotech shares;
5. A statement of each objection being made;
6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing
(you are not required to appear); and
7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along
with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify
at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their
testimony.
The Court may not consider any objection that does not
substantially comply with these requirements.
B. You Must Timely Deliver Written Objections to the Court
All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to
the Court either by
mailing them to:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
OR by filing them in person at any location of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE
CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 30, 2022.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be
considered unless it is timely filed with the Court.
Your written objection must also be mailed to:
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Brian J. Robbins
Craig W. Smith
Shane P. Sanders
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Counsel for Plaintiff Luis Pacheco
Defendants' Counsel:
Michael G. Bongiorno
Jeremy T. Adler
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Counsel for Defendants and Nominal Defendant
Jordan D. Hershman
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Counsel for Defendants David R. Guyer and Samir C. Patel
Any Person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be
heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived
the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement as incorporated
in the Stipulation or otherwise to be heard (including the right to
appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or
request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, and,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be bound by the
Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given.
XI. RELEASES
Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties shall be deemed to
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged with prejudice and on the merits, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, each and all of the Released Persons from and
with respect to each and all of the Released Claims (including
Unknown Claims), and will be forever barred and enjoined from
commencing, instituting, or prosecuting any action or proceeding,
in any forum, asserting any of the Released Claims against any of
the Released Persons, including but not limited to any and all
claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the
defense, settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Actions
against the Released Persons.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel from all claims
(including Unknown Claims), arising out of, relating to, or in
connection with the institution, prosecution, assertion,
settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Actions or the Released
Claims.
Upon the Effective Date, each of the Settling Parties shall be
deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
and discharged the members of the SLC and SLC Counsel from all
claims (including Unknown Claims), arising out of, relating to, or
in connection with the investigation, settlement, or resolution of
the Derivative Actions or the Released Claims. "Released Claims"
means any and all manner of claims, demands, rights, liabilities,
losses, obligations, duties, damages, costs, debts, expenses,
interest, penalties, sanctions, fees, attorneys' fees, actions,
potential actions, causes of action, suits, agreements, judgments,
decrees, matters, issues and controversies of any kind, nature or
description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, disclosed or
undisclosed, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or not apparent,
foreseen or unforeseen, matured or not matured, suspected or
unsuspected, liquidated or not liquidated, fixed or contingent,
including without limitation Unknown Claims (as defined in
paragraph 1.33 of the Stipulation), whether based on state, local,
foreign, federal, statutory, regulatory, common or other law or
rule, brought or that could be brought by Ophthotech or
derivatively on behalf of Ophthotech that arise out of or relate
to: (i) the allegations asserted in the Derivative Actions; or (ii)
the Settlement, except for any claims to enforce the Settlement.
Excluded from the term "Released Claims" are all claims asserted in
the Securities Action.
"Released Persons" means collectively, Ophthotech, the Individual
Defendants, and their Related Persons. "Related Persons" means: (i)
with regard to each Individual Defendant, the Individual
Defendants' spouses, marital communities, immediate family members,
heirs, executors, personal representatives, estates,
administrators, trusts, predecessors, successors, and assigns or
any other entity in which any Individual Defendant has a
controlling interest, and each and all of their respective past and
present officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates,
parents, subsidiaries, divisions, attorneys, accountants, auditors,
advisors, insurers, co-insurers, re-insurers, heirs, executors,
personal representatives, estates, administrators, trusts,
predecessors, successors, and assigns; and (ii) with regard to
Ophthotech, all past or present agents, officers, directors,
attorneys, accountants, auditors, advisors, insurers, co-insurers,
reinsurers, partners, controlling shareholders, joint venturers,
related or affiliated entities, advisors, employees, affiliates,
predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, insurers, and
assigns for Ophthotech.
"Releasing Parties" means Plaintiffs, all other Current Company
Stockholders, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Ophthotech
XII. HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Derivative Actions or the Settlement
contained in the Stipulation.
You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers in the Derivative
Actions at the United States District Court Clerk's office at any
time during regular business hours of each business day.
The Clerk's office is located at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York,
New York 10007. However, you may visit the Company's
website to inspect the Stipulation or contact counsel listed below.
The Clerk's office will not mail copies to you. You may also view
and download the Stipulation at
https://investors.ivericbio.com/derivative-settlement.
If you have any questions about matters in this Notice, you may
contact:
Brian J. Robbins
Craig W. Smith
Shane P. Sanders
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Counsel for Plaintiff Luis Pacheco
PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO
EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
DATED: November 3, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PANDORA JEWELRY: Faces Class Action Over "Virtual Try-on" Feature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges the "Virtual Try-on" feature on
Pandora Jewelry's website illegally collects, stores and uses
Illinois consumers' facial biometric data without consent.
The 16-page case claims that Pandora Jewelry, the third-largest
jewelry retailer in the United States, has violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain
express written permission before capturing and retaining users'
facial geometries, features and expressions through its Virtual
Try-on feature on Pandora.net.
The online tool allows potential customers to see how they look in
certain pieces of jewelry by uploading photos of themselves, the
complaint explains. The suit relays that some jewelry on Pandora's
website is accompanied with a hyperlinked tag that says, "Try It
On," and leads consumers to Tangiblee.com, a third-party website
owned by software company yRuler, Inc.
"If already on their smartphone, [consumers] will, after granting
tangible.com access to their camera, be prompted on this site to
take a photo of their face," the case states. "The Virtual Try-On
feature then captures their facial geometry in order to determine
how best to place jewelry objects such as necklaces and earrings."
Under the BIPA, private entities must obtain adequate informed
written consent before collecting, using or storing an individual's
biometric identifiers, the suit says. Per the complaint, Pandora's
privacy policy fails to mention that the company collects biometric
data through its website. Further, the case argues that users never
consented to have their biometric data collected in the first place
since they are not given a chance to agree to its privacy policy.
Moreover, the BIPA stipulates that companies are required to notify
consumers in writing of the "specific purpose and length of term
for which such biometric identifiers or information are being
collected, stored, and used," and they must publish a retention
schedule for permanently destroying consumers' biometric data, the
suit says.
However, Pandora has failed to fulfill the BIPA's disclosure and
consent requirements, the lawsuit alleges. Per the complaint,
yRuler admitted in a 2021 press release that it stores this
biometric data "for a short period of time" without further
specifying the retention duration of these photos.
"Tellingly, at some point prior to the filing of this complaint,
Defendants removed the Virtual Try-On capability from computers and
smartphones its websites recognize as located in Illinois while
maintaining it throughout the rest of the United States," the suit
reads.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois whose biometric
data was captured, collected, received or otherwise obtained and/or
stored by Pandora Jewelry through its app during the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]
PORTOLA PHARMA: $17.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 2, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
PAUL HAYDEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al.,
Defendants.
No. 3:20-cv-00367-VC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All Persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock during the period from January
8, 2019, through and including February 28, 2020 (the "Settlement
Class Period").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS
COURT.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, PORTOLA, OR ANY OTHER DEFENDANT OR
THEIR COUNSEL, REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR
ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT IS AVAILABLE: (i) on the settlement website
(www.PortolaSecuritiesLitigation.com), (ii) by contacting Lead
Counsel or the Claims Administrator, (iii) through the Court's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system (for a
fee) at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or (iv) by visiting the
office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Settlement
Class in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified for the purposes of the proposed settlement
only.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Alameda County Employees' Retirement
Association ("Lead Plaintiff") and Additional Named Plaintiff
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class,
and the Defendants have reached a proposed settlement of the Action
for $17,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action based on the
identical factual predicate as the securities claims at issue in
the Action (the "Settlement").
A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held at 10:00 a.m.
on March 2, 2023 before the Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, either via
video conference or in San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 4 –
17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, to,
among other things, determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Defendants, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Stipulation"), dated September 19, 2022; (iii) the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement
Fund, and any interest earned thereon, less Taxes, Notice and
Administration Costs, Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court,
attorneys' fees awarded by the Court, and any other costs,
expenses, or amounts as may be approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and other costs and
expenses should be approved. The Court may change the date of the
Final Approval Hearing without providing another notice. PLEASE
CHECK THE SETTLEMENT WEBSITE OR THE COURT'S PACER SYSTEM TO CONFIRM
THE HEARING DATE. You do NOT need to attend the Final Approval
Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement
Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received (i)
the printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), or (ii) the
Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you can obtain a
copy of those documents on the website
www.PortolaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:
Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 6800
Portland, OR 97228-6800
Please refer to the website for more detailed information and to
review the Settlement documents. Inquiries other than requests for
information about the status of a Claim may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
Daniel E. Barenbaum
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund you must
timely submit a valid Claim Form, which can be found on the website
listed above, postmarked no later than February 13, 2023. If you
are a potential Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, but wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Notice, which can also be found on the website, postmarked
no later than February 9, 2023. If you are a potential Settlement
Class Member and do not timely exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
Any written objections and supporting papers to the proposed
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and other
costs and expenses must be submitted to or filed with the Court in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it
is received, not simply postmarked, no later than February 9, 2023.
The requirement of a written objection as a prerequisite to
appearing at the Final Approval Hearing to object to the Settlement
may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The Court will require
only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an
objection.
DATED: October 31, 2022
THE HONORABLE VINCE CHHABRIA
District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California
URL// www.PortolaSecuritiesLitigation.com
REO HOLDINGS: Family Trust's Case Remanded for New Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case styled FAMILY TRUST SERVICES LLC ET AL., v.
GREEN WISE HOMES LLC ET AL., Case No. M2021-01350-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn.
Ct. App.), the Tennessee Court of Appeals reverses the trial
court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for new trial and remands
this matter to the trial court for a new trial.
On June 30, 2015, Family Trust Services, LLC, and Billy Gregory
filed a class action complaint in the Davidson County Chancery
Court, naming REO Holdings, LLC; Charles E. Walker; Jon Paul
Johnson; Julie Coone; and Merdan Ibrahim as Defendants.
On Aug. 21, 2015, the defendants, REO; Mr. Walker; Mr. Johnson; Ms.
Coone; and Mr. Ibrahim, along with Nationwide Investments, LLC,
filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Plaintiffs lacked
standing and that their complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.
On Oct. 19, 2015, the Plaintiffs, Family Trust Services, LLC;
Steven Reigle; Regal Homes Co.; Billy Gregory; and John Sherrod,
filed a second amended class action complaint against the
Defendants, wherein they identified eleven separate tracts of real
property that they alleged had been fraudulently redeemed by the
Defendants.
On Sept. 30, 2019, Debra A. Irvin sought and was permitted to
intervene as a named Plaintiff in the action. Ms. Irvin alleged
that she had been defrauded by the Defendants and, as a result, had
lost over $70,000 in excess proceeds at the tax sale of her real
property. She specifically claimed that Ms. Coone, Mr. Walker, and
Mr. Johnson had executed forged or fraudulent documents in their
scheme to defraud her.
This appeal involves claims by four Plaintiffs against an attorney,
his business partner, and the attorney's and partner's limited
liability company. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
fraudulently redeemed properties sold via tax sales, utilizing
forged or fraudulent documents.
Following a bifurcated jury trial conducted, the trial court
entered an order on Sept. 21, 2021, in accordance with the jury
verdict forms, finding Mr. Walker liable to Ms. Irvin for damages
in the amount of $53,450. All other claims of the Plaintiffs
against the Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.
Subsequently, the trial court denied a motion for new trial filed
by the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Plaintiffs have appealed.
After considering the trial court's comments articulated during the
motion hearing along with the statements included in its written
order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for new trial, the Appeals
Court concludes that the trial court improperly deferred to the
judgment of the jury concerning the credibility of witnesses and
the weight to be afforded to the evidence presented. The Appeals
Court finds that after questioning the truthfulness of Mr. Walker's
testimony and whether he might have committed perjury, the
chancellor appeared to defer to the jury's decision, relying on the
fact that "no error had been identified" and that the jury had
ruled in a "reasonable" manner.
In addition, the Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred by
dismissing their claims of unjust enrichment prior to trial. The
Appeals Court notes the Defendants filed pre-trial motions seeking
judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain of Plaintiffs'
claims.
In its April 22, 2020 memorandum and order, the trial court granted
the motions regarding Plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment,
concluding that Plaintiffs could not sustain the claims based on
the facts alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The trial court
found that "unjust enrichment claims typically arose when one party
provided valuable goods or services to another without an
enforceable contract, when there was an expectation of payment that
was not fulfilled, and when allowing the receiving party to retain
the benefit would be unjust."
The Appeals Court affirms the trial court's pre-trial determination
that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate concerning the
Plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment due to the absence of a
benefit voluntarily conferred upon the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred by declining
to recognize a common law action for intentional interference with
the right to redeem property following a tax sale.
The Appeals Court take notes of the trial court's conclusion that
"Tennessee has not recognized a civil claim of theft or conversion
of the intangible right of redemption." Given that Tennessee has
declined to recognize a claim of conversion regarding intangible
property, the Appeals Court concludes that the trial court reached
the proper result when it granted judgment on the pleadings
concerning Plaintiffs' conversion claim.
Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants respecting
claims against Mr. Johnson that were predicated on Tennessee Code
Annotated Section 66-22-113 because, according to the Plaintiffs,
Mr. Johnson "notarized certifications used to falsely attest that
forged instruments were genuine."
In this matter, the Defendants showed that Mr. Johnson was
personally acquainted with Mr. Walker and thus would have satisfied
his duties pursuant to the notary statute when notarizing Mr.
Walker's signature insofar as Mr. Walker's identity had been
established. Therefore, according to Defendants, the fact that the
Plaintiffs demonstrated that Mr. Johnson notarized Mr. Walker's
signature on pages that were attached to documents that the
Plaintiffs alleged to be fraudulent and/or forged was of no
consequence.
The Appeals Court affirms the trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants with respect to the Plaintiffs'
claims concerning violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section
66-22-113 -- the statute that establishes liability for a notary
public. Considering that the Defendants demonstrated that Mr.
Johnson notarized the signature of a person with whom he was well
acquainted and whose identity was not in question, the Appeals
Court holds that the Defendants affirmatively negated an essential
element of the Plaintiffs' claim of liability pursuant to Tennessee
Code Annotated Section 66-22-113.
Another question raised on appeal concerns whether the trial court
erred by denying Green Wise's pre-trial motion to dissolve the lien
lis pendens entered by the trial court regarding real property that
allegedly had nothing to do with Mr. Chambers or the underlying
litigation.
In this regard, the Appeals Court affirms the trial court's denial
of the Defendant company's motion to dissolve the lien lis pendens
on its property. The record establishes that Mr. Chambers filed a
lien lis pendens on Aug. 1, 2019, affecting parcels of real
property owned by Green Wise. In the abstract relative to the lien
that Mr. Chambers filed in the trial court, he reported that he
sought to secure payment of any damages awarded to him in this
action. Mr. Chambers further asserted that Mr. Walker and Mr.
Johnson had fraudulently transferred the parcels of property to
Green Wise in order to avoid paying damages to Mr. Chambers. The
Appeals Court concludes that the Plaintiffs properly stated a claim
of fraudulent transfer with respect to the real properties
referenced therein. The Court determines that the trial court did
not err by refusing to dissolve the lien until the litigation was
finally concluded.
A full-text copy of the Opinion dated Nov. 21, 2022, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/427xc2ya from Leagle.com.
About REO Holdings LLC
REO Holdings, LLC, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr.
W.D. Tenn. Case No. 16-10414) on Feb. 29, 2016. The Debtor is
represented by Thomas Harold Strawn Jr., Esq.
On May 6, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
On July 29, 2016, the bankruptcy court ordered the appointment of
Eva M. Lemeh as trustee. The trustee hired Manier & Herod, P.C.,
as special counsel; and Alexander Thompson Arnold PLLC as
accountant.
On Feb. 29, 2016, Charles E. Walker, who owns a 50% interest in the
Debtor, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Case No. 16-10413). On May 6, 2016, the case was transferred to
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On
Aug. 1, 2016, John C. McLemore was appointed to serve as the
Chapter 11 trustee for Mr. Walker.
RIDGE TOOL: Ciesielski Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ciesielski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RIDGE TOOL COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-02111 (N.D. Ohio,
Nov. 21, 2022), is brought to challenge the policies and practices
of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for
unlawfully unpaid overtime wages and additional statutory
liquidated damages in this matter, other penalties.
Although the Defendant suffered and permitted the Plaintiff to work
more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime at a rate of one and one half times the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a
result, the Plaintiff was not properly paid overtime compensation
for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since October 2020 to
the present as an hourly operator (from October 2020 until spring
2021) and job setter (from spring 2021 to the present).
Ridge Tool Company is a manufacturer of tools and equipment,
including pipe pressing tools and equipment, drain cleaning tools
and equipment, pipe patching tools and equipment, threading & pipe
fabrication tools and equipment, wrenches & tubing tools, utility &
electrician tools, general purpose & hand tools, wet/dry vacs, and
power tools and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Phone: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (440) 846-1625
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Phone: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (440) 846-1625
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Email: Strongsville, Ohio 44136
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
RING LLC: Case Management Schedule Entered in Wise Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE WISE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-01298-JCC (), the Hon. Judge John c. Coughenour entered an
order granting the parties' request for case management schedule:
Event Date
-- Deadline for discovery prior August 31, 2023
to class certification motion:
-- Plaintiff’s expert report(s) September 27, 2023
relating to class certification
served on defendant:
-- Defendant’s expert report(s) October 25, 2023
relating to class certification
served on plaintiff:
-- Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert November 17, 2023
report(s) relating to class
certification served on
defendant:
-- Plaintiff’s motion for class January 12, 2024
certification
-- Defendant’s response to motion February 9, 2024
for class certification:
-- Plaintiff’s reply in support February 23, 2024
of class certification:
Ring LLC is a home security and smart home company owned by
Amazon.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gvjOwDat no extra charge.[CC]
RLX TECH: Garnett Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX GARNETT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Alex Garnett, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Ying (Kate) Wang, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05125-PAE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on June 9,
2021, Plaintiff Garnett filed the action under the federal
securities laws on behalf of purchasers of RLX securities in
connection to the company's initial public stock offering ("IPO").
Garnett claimed, inter alia, that RLX Technology Inc. and its
co-defendants had made untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts necessary to make their statements not
misleading. These statements and omissions tended to conceal the
facts -- as alleged, known to RLX -- of forthcoming regulations in
China that would constrain RLX's plan to sell vaping products and
thereby tend to harm the company's financial prospects.
After Garnett filed suit, eight movants ultimately, not including
Garnett -- sought appointment as lead plaintiff. Consensus among
these movants as the proper lead plaintiff(s), however, has since
been reached.
A joint motion was filed from the Prospective Lead Plaintiffs,
Chien-Lung Tseng, Billy Sung, and Jerry Yue, seeking appointment as
co-lead plaintiffs and appointment of their respective attorneys as
co-lead counsel, which the Court granted.
On Nov. 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 23, 2021.
On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint through an Order entered by
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs
lacked standing to bring a claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act because their certifications showed that none of
them purchased their shares at the IPO price and two had purchased
after the IPO, and therefore they did not buy their shares directly
in the IPO. The Court dismissed the action with prejudice because
the Plaintiffs had already amended their complaint twice, they had
not requested further leave to amend, and it did not appear that
the deficiencies identified by the Court could be remedied.
The appellate case is captioned Garnett v. Wang, Case No. 22-2787,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on November 1, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEX GARNETT, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Defendants-Appellees YING (KATE) WANG, et al., are represented by:
Scott Musoff, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-7852
- and -
Susanna M. Buergel, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
SANTANDER BANK: Final Approval and Judgment Issued in Tepper Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment in
the lawsuit titled DANIEL TEPPER and REBECCA RUFO-TEPPER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 7:20-cv-00501-KMK (S.D.N.Y.).
On June 14, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release dated
July 6, 2021, and certification of the Settlement Class.
Commencing on Sept. 8, 2022, KCC Class Action Services, LLC (the
"Administrator") began providing notice to Settlement Class Members
in compliance with the Notice Plan, due process, and Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Nov. 14, 2022, the Court held
a Final Approval Hearing.
The Court grants final approval of the Settlement and Agreement in
full, including the releases therein and the procedures for
distribution of the Settlement Fund Account. All Settlement Class
Members, who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement
Class, are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment.
The Parties will carry out their respective obligations under the
Agreement in accordance with its terms. The relief provided for in
the Agreement will be made available to the various Settlement
Class Members pursuant to the terms and conditions in the
Agreement.
Zero objections to the Settlement were filed by Settlement Class
Members. All persons who did not object to the Settlement in the
manner set forth in the Agreement are deemed to have waived any
objections, including appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of persons, who made valid
and timely requests to be excluded from the Settlement and the
Settlement Class. The Opt-Out Members are not bound by the
Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment and will not
be entitled to any of the benefits afforded to Settlement Class
Members under the Agreement.
Solely for purposes of the Agreement and this Final Approval Order
and Judgment, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class:
All persons, including individuals and entities, who are
holding, or who have held, during the Class Period, a
mortgage loan secured by real property in the states of
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Utah or Wisconsin who would
have been due interest on an escrow account maintained by
Santander under the law of the state in which the property
was located but were not paid such interest. The Class
Period is the period beginning, for Settlement Class Members
whose mortgage loan is secured by real property in Iowa or
Rhode Island, on January 1, 2010; in Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, or
Wisconsin, on January 1, 2014; and in Maryland, on
January 1, 2017; and ending on the date of Preliminary
Approval.
The Settlement Class specifically excludes (a) Santander; (b)
Santander's officers and directors at all relevant times, as well
as members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (c) any entity in
which Santander has or had a controlling interest; and (d) any
person that timely and properly excluded himself or herself from
the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures approved by
the Court.
The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Plaintiffs
Daniel Tepper and Rebecca Rufo-Tepper as the Class Representatives
and concludes that they have fairly and adequately represented the
Settlement Class and will continue to do so.
The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Janine L.
Pollack and Michael Liskow of Calcaterra Pollack LLP as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class. Class Counsel have fairly and
adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do
so.
The Court awards Class Counsel $666,666.66 in fees and
reimbursement of $7,418.51 in expenses. It awards Plaintiffs Daniel
Tepper and Rebecca Rufo-Tepper $2,500 each as a Service Award, for
a total of $5,000.
The Court releases and forever discharges the Released Parties from
each of the Released Claims, as provided in the Agreement.
Pursuant to Section III of the Agreement, the Cash Settlement
Amount, consisting of two million dollars and no cents ($2
million), will be used to pay (a) all Class Member Awards; (b) any
Court-ordered Fee & Expense Award to Settlement Class Counsel; (c)
any Court-ordered Service Awards to Plaintiffs; (d) any
Administrative Costs, including but not limited to costs related to
any aspects of the Notice Program performed by the Administrator;
(e) any taxes due under the Agreement including, without
limitation, taxes owed as a result of interest earned on the
Settlement Fund Account; and (f) any additional fees, costs, and
expenses not specifically enumerated herein, consistent with the
purposes of this Agreement and subject to approval of Class Counsel
and Santander counsel.
If any excess unclaimed funds remain after the payments described
herein in paragraph 17, and after the time for all payment checks
to be cashed has passed, the Court directs the Parties and the
Administrator to distribute all such unclaimed funds to Habitat for
Humanity as the cy pres recipient. Habitat for Humanity is a
non-profit organization providing housing-related services to those
in need. Accordingly, Habitat for Humanity meets the requirement
that a cy pres recipient reasonably approximate the interests of
the class.
The Court dismisses the Action in its entirety with prejudice, and
without fees or costs except as otherwise provided for herein.
The Court enters judgment in this matter pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment
dated Nov. 14, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bsp7t46
from Leagle.com.
SCORES HOLDING: Bid for Reconsideration in De Oliveira Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the motion for reconsideration and
reargument in the lawsuit titled LUISA SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SCORES HOLDING COMPANY INC.; CLUB AZURE LLC; ROBERT GANS; MARK
S. YACKOW; HOWARD ROSENBLUTH, Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 06769
(GBD) (S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant Club Azure, LLC, conducting business as Scores, moves for
reconsideration and reargument of the Court's March 24, 2022
Memorandum Decision and Order, which granted the Plaintiff's
cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
On July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff brought this action against the
Defendant for violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff
originally brought the case as a class-action suit against four
additional Defendants (Scores Holding Company Inc., Robert Gans,
Mark S. Yackow, and Howard Rosenbluth). She did not move for class
certification and abandoned her class-action claims. She
voluntarily dismissed Scores Holding Company Inc., Robert Gans,
Mark S. Yackow, and Howard Rosenbluth on March 25, 2021.
The Plaintiff's nine-count complaint alleged that the Defendant
failed to pay her statutory minimum wages, overtime wages, and
spread-of-hours wages; did not provide her accurate wage statements
or the requisite notices for taking tip credits; did not reimburse
her for equipment costs; and misappropriated tips. At the end of
discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
In its Decision of March 24, 2022, the Court partially granted the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in finding the Defendant
not liable for failure to provide a written wage notice at the time
of hiring (count 6) or for failure to provide accurate wage
statements (count 7) in violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act
("WTPA"). The Plaintiff's cross-motion did not oppose the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the claims for
reimbursement of equipment costs (count 8) or for misappropriated
tips (count 9). The Defendant prevailed on both counts.
However, the Court partially granted the Plaintiff's cross-motion
in finding the Defendant liable for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the FLSA and NYLL (counts 2 and 4), failure to
comply with NYLL's separate written notification requirement for
using a tip credit to pay a minimum hourly rate (count 3), failure
to pay spread-of-hours wages (count 5), and liquidated damages. The
Court also held that any dispute as to whether the Defendant
verbally conveyed a tip-credit notice to the Plaintiff in
compliance with the FLSA (count 1) to be moot, given the Court's
holding against the Defendant as to the tip-credit notice under the
NYLL (count 3) and the inability of an employee to receive a double
recovery of back wages under both the FLSA and NYLL.
The Defendant argues that it is entitled to reconsideration because
the Court committed clear error by overlooking material facts or
making inferences not justified by the record. The Defendant first
argues that the Court erred in granting summary judgment in the
Plaintiff's favor on count 3 for failure to provide an adequate
wage notification.
However, Judge Daniels notes that the Defendant confuses count 3
with count 6's claim regarding a written wage notice at the time of
hiring under the WTPA--the latter of which the Defendant prevailed
on due to the statutory affirmative defense under NYLL Section
198(1-b). In contrast to count 6, counts 1 and 3 concerned the
notification requirement for using a tip credit to meet the
statutory minimum hourly rate pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL,
respectively.
On count 3, the Court found for the Plaintiff due to the
Defendant's failure to meet the written tip-credit notice
requirement for applying a tip credit to meet the Plaintiff's
minimum wage under the NYLL. As to count 1 under the FLSA, the
Court held the claim to be moot due to the inability of the
Plaintiff to receive a double recovery of back wages under both the
FLSA and NYLL for the Defendant's tip-credit violations.
Judge Daniels holds that the Defendant's rehashed arguments that
its New York and Federal Labor Law Posters provided sufficient
notice remain unavailing. The Defendant cites Copantitla v.
Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F.Supp.2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), for
the acknowledgement that a poster explaining the tip credit
constitutes sufficient notice.
The Defendant misconstrues Copantitla and the countervailing case
law from other circuits that Copantitla found unpersuasive, Judge
Daniels opines.
The Court finds that the Defendant's posters addressed a broader
responsibility of the employer to inform employees of the minimum
wage provisions more generally, as opposed to the tip-credit notice
requirement. The Court also finds that the Defendant's posters
failed to provide sufficient notice to the Plaintiff for using a
tip credit to pay a minimum hourly rate under the NYLL.
The Defendant's remaining arguments as to the Plaintiff's overtime
wages (counts 2 and 4) also fail to justify reconsideration, Judge
Daniels holds. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff abandoned
her overtime wages claims by not opposing the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment on those claims. Yet, the Plaintiff's
opposition motion is replete with mention of her overtime wages
claims, in addition to incorporating her response and counter
statement of undisputed material facts, which recounts her overtime
claims.
Judge Daniels points out that the Plaintiff never abandoned her
overtime wages claims in counts 2 and 4.
The Defendant's arguments as to the spread-of-hours wages (count 5)
are similarly unavailing, Judge Daniels holds. The Defendant's own
submissions show that the Plaintiff worked for 10.1 hours on Dec.
2, 2017, by clocking in at 7:46 p.m. and clocking out at 5:52 a.m.
Judge Daniels points out that there was no error in granting the
Plaintiff summary judgment for count 5, notwithstanding the
Timecard Report's automatic readout of 10.00 or the Defendant's
persistent difficulty in calculating the spread.
Finally, Judge Daniels holds that there was no error in the Court's
finding for liquidated damages because the Defendant's reliance on
the erroneous legal advice of its own Human Resource Manager still
fails to establish good faith. The Defendant's restated reliance
arguments opposing the Court's liquidated damages determination
merely--and impermissibly--employ a motion for reconsideration as a
vehicle for relitigating old issues, Judge Daniels explains.
The Defendant's motion for reconsideration and reargument is,
therefore, denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the open
motion at ECF No. 82, accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Nov. 14, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4js9d4 from
Leagle.com.
SESEN BIO: $21MM Class Settlement to be Heard on January 23, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE SESEN BIO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No.: 1:21-cv-07025-AKH
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sesen
Bio, Inc. ("Sesen Bio") Common Stock, and/or Sesen Bio Call
Options, and/or wrote Sesen Bio Put Options, between December 21,
2020 and August 17, 2021, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby
(the "Settlement Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $21,000,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.
A hearing will be held on January 23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 14D, 500 Pearl St.,
New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August 3, 2022 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Sesen
Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
170600, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-354-3897. Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained
by the Claims Administrator, www.SesenBioSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than February 28,
2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 2, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than January 2, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Sesen Bio, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170600
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 354-3897
info@SesenBioSecuritiesSettlement.com
www.SesenBioSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10151
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
Dated: November 14, 2022
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Falls Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FALLS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled James Falls, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Soulbound Studios, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00922-JCC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, seeking
damages for the conduct of the Defendants wherein they have
wrongfully withheld money from the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated.
On April 22, 2022, the Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended complaint, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge John C. Coughenour on Oct 3, 2022. The Court
determined that the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. The
Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned James Falls v. Soulbound Studios,
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-35863, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant James Falls Mediation Questionnaire was due on
November 8, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on December 30, 2022;
-- Appellant James Falls opening brief is due on February 8,
2023;
-- Appellee Soulbound Studios, LLC answering brief is due on
March 10, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES FALLS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jessica C. Kerr, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
- and -
Evan Selik, Esq.
MCCATHERN LLP
523 W. 6th Street, Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 225-6150
Defendants-Appellees SOULBOUND STUDIOS, LLC, et al., are
represented by:
Anna F. Cavnar, Esq.
Timothy Brenden Fitzgerald, Esq.
MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 467-1816
SOUTH DAKOTA: Black Hawk Mine Collapse Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit on behalf of Hideaway Hills residents whose
homes have been rendered worthless by unstable underground soil and
an abandoned mine is moving forward thanks to a ruling by the South
Dakota Supreme Court.
On Nov. 18, the court rejected the State of South Dakota's petition
asking for the right to file an intermediate appeal of the
certification of class action, which was issued in September.
The ruling clears the way for every homeowner in the Black Hawk,
South Dakota-area neighborhood to receive official notice of the
class certification in the coming days. The lawsuit seeks full
compensation for homeowners based on the appraisal of each property
before an April 2020 mine collapse created a large sinkhole near
East Daisy Drive. Overnight, property values plummeted while state
officials refused to acknowledge responsibility.
"This ruling shuts the door on any more delay tactics by the state,
and we are ready to move forward," said Kathy Barrow, a partner at
the Fox Rothschild law firm. "These residents have been in limbo
for too long. A class-action sets the stage for a neighborhood-wide
solution."
By law, all owners of 158 homes in the neighborhood are part of the
lawsuit unless they opt out. In addition, homeowners can
participate in the lawsuit without impacting any individual claims
they might have against other defendants.
For generations, the state owned and operated gypsum mines in the
region as part of its now-defunct for-profit cement company.
According to the lawsuit, the state failed to properly remediate
the underground soil and underground, pit and strip mines before
the surface property was sold to a housing developer.
In September, Fox Rothschild attorneys won class certification
after presenting findings from geological experts about the
imminent dangers throughout the neighborhood. In granting
certification, Circuit Court Judge Kevin Krull ruled in part that
mounting separate lawsuits would be too costly and time-consuming
for any individual homeowner. As a class-action, costs for
geophysical and engineering studies and expert analysis are shared
by all plaintiffs.
The case is Andrew Morse and John and Emily Clarke et al. v. State
of South Dakota, No. 46CIV-20-000295 in the Meade County 4th
Judicial District.
Fox Rothschild has grown to a 950-lawyer national law firm with 27
offices by focusing on client service and responsiveness and by
attracting bright and creative lawyers who know how to deliver.
More information at foxrothschild.com.
Media Contact:
Robert Tharp
800-559-4534
robert@androvett.com [GN]
SUKUT CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jimmy Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba
Sukut, A JV, a California corporation; DRAGADOS USA INC dba
Dragados, a Delaware corporation; FLATIRON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
dba Flatiron, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. BCV-22-102326 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of Kern, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 18,
2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00913.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a claim for civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff
seeks penalties based upon certain Labor Code violations allegedly
suffered by himself and other non-exempt employees ("Aggrieved
Employees") in connection with their work on the Lake Isabella Dam
Project in Kern County, California. Plaintiff alleges the following
violations on the Project: failure to pay wages including overtime
as required by Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods as
required by Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; failure to provide rest
periods as required by Labor Code; failure to pay timely wages
required by Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements as required by Labor Code; failure to pay reporting time
pay; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses as required
by Labor Code; failure to record work periods and time worked; and
failure to pay for COVID leave.[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
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara A Cotter, Esq.
Alexis M Gabrielson, Esq.
COOK BROWN, LLP
2407 J STREET, SECOND FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816
Phone: 916-442-3100
Fax: 916-442-4227
Email: bcotter@cookbrown.com
agabrielson@cookbrown.com
- and -
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
Natalie M. Lagunas, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Phone: 310.315.8200
Facsimile: 310.315.8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
arussell@mcguirewoods.com
nlagunas@mcguirewoods.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Appeals Remand Order in Leflar Suit to 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TARGET CORPORATION is taking an appeal from a court order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court the lawsuit
entitled Robert Leflar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-CV-00727-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from Lonoke County Circuit Court on August 15,
2022, alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by
failing to provide consumers with access to written warranties
prior to sale.
On August 24, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state
court, which Judge Billy Roy Wilson granted on October 20, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned Target Corporation v. Robert
Leflar, Case No. 22-8018, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 31, 2022. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner TARGET CORPORATION is represented by:
Teresa Wineland, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 975-3000
Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
E-mail: teresa.wineland@kutakrock.com
- and -
Terry M. Henry, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-5644
E-mail: terry.henry@blankrome.com
- and -
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3465
Facsimile: (424) 239-3690
E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Bid to File Docs Under Seal Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI
ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID
COLEMAN and CARL McROBERTS, JR., On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Broomes
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file
documents under seal.
The Plaintiffs are long-haul truck drivers asserting several claims
against Defendant TransAm, its parent company Jacobson Holdings,
Inc., and its sibling company Olathe Noble.
The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and state law claims for failing to pay wages and minimum
wages, and for making unlawful deductions. They also include claims
that Defendants violated Truth-in-Leasing regulations and the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA").
TransAm provides transportation carrier services. The Company
offers fleet management, leasing, logistics, and trucking
transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TS5zQaat no extra charge.[CC]
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Nov. 22 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against TuSimple Holdings, Inc.
("TuSimple") (NASDAQ: TSP) on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's stock between April 15, 2021 and October
31, 2022.
On or about April 15, 2021, TuSimple completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") of common stock, selling 33.8 million shares of
stock to investors at $40.00 per share.
The shareholder complaint alleges that the Company's IPO materials
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") were
materially false and misleading, and omitted to state: (i) that
TuSimple was engaged in undisclosed related party transactions with
Hydron, a company founded by Defendant Chen; and (ii) that TuSimple
shared confidential information and/or proprietary technology with
Hydron without Board approval or informing regulators or TuSimple
shareholders.
On October 31, 2022, TuSimple disclosed that its Board of Directors
had terminated defendant Xiaodi Hou from his position "as the Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chief Technology Officer of the
Company and removed Dr. Hou from his position as Chairman of the
Board, in each case, effective as of October 30, 2022." Following
this news, TuSimple share price fell $2.88, or over 45%, to close
on October 31, 2022 at $3.43 per share, on heavy trading volume.
Current TuSimple stockholderswho purchased or acquired shares of
the Company's stockprior to January 1, 2022are encouraged to
contactKaskela Law LLC(Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (484) 229-0750, or
by email (abell@kaskelalaw.com) or online
athttps://kaskelalaw.com/cases/tusimple-holdings-inc/, to receive
additional information about this action and their legal rights and
options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
KASKELA LAW LLC
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(888) 715-1740
(484) 229-0750
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]
TWITTER INC: Wants Judge to Send Class Action Into Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Twitter
Inc. asked a California federal judge to send a class action
alleging violations related to the recent mass layoffs at the
social media company into individual arbitration.
The laid-off workers who sued Twitter previously agreed to
arbitrate any dispute arising out of their employment as part of
their job offer packet, the company said in a brief filed late on
Nov. 21.
"Here, Plaintiffs cannot dispute that they electronically signed
their Agreements, their signatures appear on the Agreements, their
signatures appear on their offer letters, and they could not have
completed the process and been hired by Twitter without signing the
Agreements," the company said.
The workers further showed their assent to the arbitration
agreement by failing to submit a request to opt out of the deal for
30 days after they began their employment, Twitter said.
Litigation over the mass layoff comes amid chaos at Twitter after
Elon Musk purchased the social media company for $44 billion, fired
half its workforce, asked some essential employees to return,
rolled back its expansive work-from-home policy, and called on
workers to sign a pledge to remain at an "extremely hardcore"
Twitter or quit.
Musk's stewardship of Twitter has triggered class actions arguing
the company failed to give proper notice before laying off
thousands of employees and contractors, as well as class claims
that his demand that workers return to the office and log "long
hours at high intensity" discriminates against disabled workers.
Musk's Tesla Inc. invoked employee arbitration agreements to escape
a class action related to mass layoffs at the electric car maker.
Those workers have challenged an order dismissing the case pending
arbitration.
Prominent plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan PC, who represents the laid-off workers who sued Tesla
and Twitter, said Twitter has basically argued it doesn't have to
worry about the law because the workers are bound by an arbitration
agreement.
"If former Twitter employees need to bring individual arbitrations
in order to enforce their rights, we are ready to represent them --
and will bring hundreds or thousands of arbitrations if necessary
to ensure that Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is held
accountable under the law," she said. "No one is above the law."
Twitter's lawyer, Eric Meckley of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Alleged Broken Promises
Twitter workers sued the company in federal court in San Francisco
on Nov. 3 -- the eve of mass layoffs -- alleging violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and California's
version of that law for not providing the mandatory notice before
sacking workers.
A day later, Liss-Riordan said she was "pleased" to learn that some
terminated workers will continue being paid until Jan. 4, which
showed that Musk "is making an effort to comply" with the legal
requirement to provide 60 days of notice before a mass layoff.
But she updated the lawsuit on behalf of ex-Twitter workers on Nov.
8, adding breach-of-contract claims for breaking promises to
continue its remote-work policy for at least a year and to provide
severance at least as favorable as packages it provided before Musk
bought the firm.
Several of the workers suing Twitter were offered a month's salary
and were told they wouldn't receive the pay unless they signed a
release of legal claims against the company, according to the
amended complaint.
Protective Order
The workers are seeking a court order preventing the company from
requiring laid-off workers to sign agreements that they wouldn't
join a class action against it in order to get their severance
packages.
A protective order blocking the company from soliciting such
releases -- and nullifying any that it's already obtained -- is
necessary to protect the legal rights of thousands of potential
class members, they said.
Liss-Riordan obtained a protective order on behalf of workers who
were let go from Tesla.
US District Judge James Donato set a Dec. 8 hearing on the former
Twitter workers' request for a protective order. Donato, an Obama
appointee, said in a Nov. 18 order that he adopted the schedule for
considering the motion "with the understanding that Twitter will
not seek employee releases pending further order."
Coercive, Misleading
The workers' Nov. 9 request is based on a well-developed body of
federal law analogous to the state law standards developed after a
California appellate court's 2009 ruling in Chindarah v. Pick Up
Stix, Inc., said Lauren Teukolsky, a plaintiffs' attorney with
Teukolsky Law PC.
"Many cases since Pick Up Stix have found releases to be invalid
where the employer engaged in coercive or misleading tactics,"
Teukolsky said.
Twitter's efforts to obtain releases are coercive because the
company is pressuring workers to quickly accept severance
agreements and misleading for not telling workers about ongoing
litigation, according to the workers' request for a protective
order.
But the company argued in a separate filing on Nov. 21 that the
court should reject the workers' request for a protective order
because they signed arbitration agreements and thus have no
standing to sue.
"Here, the only risk to the rights of absent class members is
depriving them of their promised severance benefits and misleading
them into thinking they may be able to recover potential damages in
this soon-to-be-dismissed lawsuit," Twitter said.
The case is Cornet v. Twitter, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 22-06857, brief
filed 11/21/22. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS LIU filed an appeal from a court judgment dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Thomas Liu, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-07499-VC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a class action suit against the Defendant under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against
minority drivers using its star rating system to terminate them.
Under the rating system, Uber passengers are asked to evaluate
drivers on a one to five scale after each ride, and Uber used the
customer feedback to determine which drivers get terminated. The
Defendant continued to use the rating system despite its awareness
that passengers frequently discriminate against minority drivers.
Thus, the Defendant's reliance on customer evaluation to determine
driver terminations is racially discriminatory, asserts the
complaint.
On December 9, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and
strike the Plaintiff's class allegations, which Judge Vince
Chhabria granted in part and denied in part in an order entered on
March 3, 2021.
On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint
and the Defendant moved to dismiss on April 23, 2021, which the
Court granted with leave to amend on July 30, 2021.
On November 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class
action and the Defendant again moved to dismiss on January 7,
2022.
On May 23, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
On June 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed its third amended class
action complaint. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July
5, 2022.
On September 28, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On October 27, 2022, Judge Chhabria entered judgment on the case.
The appellate case is captioned Thomas Liu v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 22-16712, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 2, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Thomas Liu Mediation Questionnaire was due on
November 9, 2022;
-- Appellant Thomas Liu opening brief is due on January 9,
2023;
-- Appellee Uber Technologies, Inc. answering brief is due on
February 8, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Meal Breaks" Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class and collective action claims Walmart has failed to
pay employees for hours worked unloading trucks while off the clock
during unpaid meal breaks.
The 14-page case out of Kentucky alleges Walmart has violated
federal and state labor laws by instructing hourly employees to
unload trucks during their mandatory, unpaid lunch breaks,
depriving workers of regular wages and overtime compensation.
The lawsuit, filed by a former employee whose duties consisted
primarily of unloading trucks of inventory at the Hanson, Kentucky
Walmart, says that the mega retailer's alleged misconduct is the
result of two conflicting policies. First, it is Walmart's policy
to discipline employees if they do not clock out for a 30-minute,
unpaid lunch break "no earlier than exactly three hours after
clocking in at the beginning of the shift and no later than exactly
five hours after the end of the shift," the case states. At the
same time, however, the company has a policy that dictates "truck
drivers should not be made to wait and that trucks should be
unloaded as soon as possible after they arrived," the suit relays.
According to the complaint, these policies conflict in actual
practice:
"[G]iven staffing levels, if a truck arrived just as an employee
had begun a lunch break, the employee would either have to
interrupt his or her lunch break to unload the truck, or the truck
driver would have to wait for the unloading employee to have his or
her break.
Similarly, if a truck arrived before an employee had begun taking a
meal break, but was not yet unloaded by the time five hours after
the employee clocked in, the employee would either have to stop
unloading the truck to take the meal break, causing the truck
driver to have to wait, or fail to begin taking the meal break
within five hours of clocking in."
As the case tells it, Walmart has resolved this conflict by
"permitting, allowing, and/or requiring" employees to begin working
without pay if a truck arrives during their break. The filing
argues that Walmart has captured on its cameras "numerous
occasions" in which employees unloaded trucks during supposed meal
periods, often in the presence of management.
The lawsuit contends that under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act,
workers were entitled to overtime compensation since time spent
unloading trucks totaled more than 40 hours in many weeks.
Additionally, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act stipulates that
employers must pay employees time-and-a-half overtime wages, the
complaint asserts.
The lawsuit looks to represent all current and former Walmart
employees in Kentucky who, within the past five years, were not
paid full compensation owed for their work (including both overtime
and non-overtime work) because the company suffered, permitted or
required work during an unpaid "meal break" period.[GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Hill Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
JAMES HILL filed a complaint captioned James Hill, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Whole Foods Market
California Inc., et al., Case No. CGC22602684, in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco on Oct 31, 2022.
The case type is stated as Other Non-Exempt Complaints. [BN]
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENNA SCHRADER, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. STEPHEN ALAN WYNN; an individual; MAURICE WOODEN, an individual,
WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC dba WYNN LAS VEGAS a Nevada Limited Liability,
WYNN RESORTS, LTD, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-20, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties agreed and request the
Court enter a 60-day stay on discovery while the parties' complete
private mediation.
This case was originally referred for an Early Neutral Evaluation
(ENE) Conference in 2019. The parties subsequently stipulated to
vacate the ENE because "the preliminary stage of the proceedings"
was "a significant hurdle to meaningful participation in the
ENE,",but that if the case would proceed after decision of
Defendants' respective motions to 3 dismiss, the parties could
submit an appropriate stipulation if an ENE could assist resolution
of the 4 case. See ECF 27. The Court approved the stipulation by
order.
On July 15, 2022, the Court issued an oral ruling setting initial
discovery deadlines for this matter.
On September 7, 2022, the Court granted the parties' first request
to extend discovery deadlines by 90 days.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tRBIwnat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle C. Miller, Esq.
Tracy A. Eglet, Esq.
Danielle C. Miller, Esq.
Brittney Glover, Esq.
EGLET ADAMS
400 S. 7th Street, Ste. 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
- and -
Burke Huber, Esq.
RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
801 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
The Attorneys for Defendants Wynn Las Vegas, LLC and Wynn Resorts,
Ltd. are:
Deverie J. Christensen, Esq.
Joshua A. Sliker, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 921-2460
Facsimile: (702) 921-2461
E-mail: deverie.christensen@jacksonlewis.com
joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com
The Attorney for Defendant Stephen Alan Wynn is:
Todd L. Bice, Esq.
Tamara Beatty Peterson, Esq.
Nikki Baker, Esq.
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
701 S. 7th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
- and -
Todd L. Bice, Esq.
PISANELLI BICE, PLLC
400 S. 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89101
XAVIER BECERRA: Neese, et al., Seeks Entry of Class Cert Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Neese, M.D., and
James Hurly, M.D., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary
of Health and Human Services; United States of America, Case No.
2:21-cv-00163-Z (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs file motion for entry
of class-certification order.
The Court's memorandum opinion and order of October 14, 2022
granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to enter a
class-certification order that complies with the requirements of
Rule 23.
The language of Rule 23(c)(1)(B) requires the Court to appoint
class counsel in its certification order. The plaintiffs also
respectfully ask the Court to include language that explicitly
defines the certified class as well as the "class claims,
issues, or defenses," as required by Rule 23(c)(1)(B), to avoid any
possible collateral attack on the classwide judgment that will
issue.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tWNm9nat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gene P. Hamilton, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy S.B. Newman, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 532-3114
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: jeremy.s.newman@usdoj.gov
XTO ENERGY: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY S. BRADLEY and
REBECCA J. BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00079-BSM
(E.D. Ark.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives, and
appointment of class counsel by 21 days to December 21, 2022.
XTO's reason for requesting a 21-day extension is that when
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, they proposed representing a class
defined as:
"All royalty owners in XTO E NERGY -operated wells with gross
proceeds leases, where XTO Energy is or was the operator and
XTO ENERGY is or was the leaseholder or assignee."
The Class Claims relate only to the proper gross proceeds
payment arising from gross proceeds leases of hydrocarbons
produced from wells located in the State of Arkansas.
Specifically, Plaintiffs now ask to represent a class of royalty
owners "with one of [ten different] royalty payment provisions."
Each of the ten royalty provisions quoted in Plaintiffs' new
proposed class definitions is very different from the other. And
only three of the quoted provisions contain the phrase "gross
proceeds."
As a result of Plaintiffs' new proposed class definition, XTO has
requested additional information from Plaintiffs and the parties
are conferring regarding Plaintiffs' ability to provide that
information. Additionally, XTO is researching the facts related to
each of the leases attached to Plaintiffs' Motion -- a process that
requires a large number of man-hours.
XTO is involved with the production, processing, transportation,
and development of oil and natural gas resources.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ExverDat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 347-5270
Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
E-mail: elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com
- and -
Robert M. Honea,Esq.
HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
5000 Rogers Avenue, Suite 500
Fort Smith, AR 72917
Telephone: (479) 452-2200
Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***