/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 6, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 237 Headlines 288 FOX AND JANE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals AB CAR RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marchesani Suit Alleges ACCUTEK PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pickett Alleges ADVANTAGE PLUS: Must File Class Cert Response Bid by Jan. 6, 2023 ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Howard Seeks to Clarify Oct. 31 Order ALLIED COLLECTION: Phillips Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ALLSTATE LIFE: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines ALORICA INC: Baldwin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Can't Compel Arbitration in Braundmeier APEX MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Stuckey Alleges APPLE INC: Order Continuing Class Cert Hearing Entered in Orshan ARGYLE VOLUNTEER: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Hearing ARS NATIONAL: Dervitz Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ATRIA SENIOR: Court Grants Stickles' Bid for Summary Judgment BCE-MACH LLC: Scheduling Order for Class Certification Entered BELLEVUE CITY, WA: Fredrickson Suit Seeks Class Certification BISCUITVILLE INC: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert. Response BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid Extended BRISTOL-MYERS: Williams Suit Removed to D. New Jersey CERTIFIED COLLECTIBLES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CGS STORES: Willis Class Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Seeks to Certify Vacation Pay Class CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: FLSA Class Cert Sought in Hernandez Suit CHURCH & DWIGHT: Batiste Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Zurba Claims CIRCLE K STORES: Court OK's Pettersen Bid for Class Certification CONSOLIDATED EDISON: IH Files Suit in S.D. New York CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Seeks to Certify Day-Rate ROW Agent Class CORTEVA INC: Jenkins Sues Over Anticompetitive & Inflated Prices DAVE S. WORLD: Muir Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Product Contains Benzene, Legrand Says DYNATA LLC: Davis, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Teeter Files Suit in D. Montana EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Hengel Sues Over Misleading Representations EDWIN'S GLORIOUS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Colon Suit Claims EQT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Sur-Reply EVENFLO CO: Dismissal of Faulty Booster Seats Suit Affirmed in Part FPR II LLC: Montoya Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment v. Hackler GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Parties Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefs GREENSKY MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Wright Class Status Bid GRUBHUB INC: Sznitko Suit Removed to C.D. California HANESBRAND INC: Ramon Files Suit in C.D. California HARMAN MANAGEMENT: Antonio-Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Compensation JMD PRECISION: Fails to Pay Handymen's Overtime, Martinez Claims K COMPANY: Chia Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls KENTUCKY: Appeals Attorney Fees Ruling in Roberts Suit to 6th Cir. KSF ACQUISITION: Bid to Dismiss Nacarino Class Suit Granted in Part L'OREAL USA: Shampoo Product Contains Benzene, Hirsch Alleges L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Stengl Suit Seeks Class Certification LENOVO INC: Dinwiddle Sues Over Defective Desktop Products LLOYD AUSTIN: Alvarado Loses Bid for Preliminary Injunction LLOYD AUSTIN: Suit Seeks to Certify Army Service Member Class LOS GATOS: Faces Guaillas Suit Over General Workers' Unpaid OT MANDARICH LAW: Henriquez Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters MASONITE CORP: Shugars Seeks to Recover Untimely Wage Payments MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief in Ponce Suit MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Parties Ask More Time for Class Cert Response NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Baleja Appeals Pension Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. OPENDOOR TECH: Faces VEBA Securities Suit Over 88.61% Share Drop PACIFIC GRAIN: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Hearing OK'd PEGASYSTEMS INC: Faces Larkin Suit Over Drop in Share Price PHH MORTGAGE: Summers Suit Removed From State Court to D.N.J. PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION: Matthews Sues Over Failure to Pay OT PRECISION DYNAMICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Iske Suit Alleges PROAMPAC LLC: Jackson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action QUICK BOX: Court Extends Class Certification Briefing in Tan Suit RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Scharf Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Fox Suit SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Nunez Says SERVICE KING: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefing by Dec. 21 SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Teamsters Appeals Judgment to 6th Cir. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Modifies Class Cert Deadlines in Refuerzo SPERO FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Nunez Says SUMMIT HEALTH: Reyes Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Practices SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Deadlines SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Valiente Suit TAKEDA PHARMA: Dec. 22 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Denied TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug's Bid for Class Cert. Denied THOMAS JEFFERSON: Faces Murphy Suit Over Data Privacy Violations TURNTABLE LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Iskhakova Alleges UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Poe Suit Over Failure to Give 60-Day Notice UNITED FURNITURE: Neal Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice UNITED FURNITURE: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification UNITED STATES: Al Otro Lado Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Court Denies Normandia's Bid for Immediate Release UNITED STATES: Ireland Appeals CARES Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir. UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Filing of Confidential Docs Under Seal Sought UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Order on Class Cert Dates Entered VIESTE SPE: Bid to Seal Under Protective Order Submitted VIESTE SPE: Extension to File Reply in Support of Class Cert Sought VITACOST.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California VOLTAGE SUPPLY: Case Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered WALTER BERRY: Smith Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Terry, et al., Win Partial Summary Judgment WAUKEGAN, IL: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Phillips v. WHA WORKFORCE 7: Case Discovery Plan, Sched Order Entered in Ballast XPDEL INC: Semidey Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments to Laborers YARDI SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Robledo Claims YIELDSTREET INC: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Deadlines Sought ZIONS BANCORP: Gregory, et al., Seek to certify Settlement Class ********* 288 FOX AND JANE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 288 Fox And Jane, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 288 Fox And Jane, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07203 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 288 Fox And Jane -- https://foxandjanesalon.com/brooklyn/ -- is a hair salon in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com 3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Neely, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-03465-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for decades. This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as "PFC" are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA). The Plaintiff's father, Jack Neely, joined the USMC and was subsequently assigned to MCB Camp Pendleton, CA (1991, 1992-1996). The Plaintiff lived on Base at Camp Pendleton (1993 1996) using and drinking the water. Camp Pendleton has a PFAS environmental contamination level of 820.8ppt. In 2008, NEELY was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via orchiectomy. As known by Defendants, testicular cancer is a disease linked to PFAS contamination. Neely did not discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until Fall 2020, when he saw internet information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Jacob Neely is a resident of Arizona, and formerly a resident of San Diego County, California. Neely was a dependent of Jack Neely of the USMC, who during his father's service lived at, inter alia, MCB Camp Pendleton, a military installation identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. VETERAN LEGAL GROUP 700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 215-7834 Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and - S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Phone: (978) 458-0507 Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and - Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (800) 934-2921 Email: kon@kyroslaw.com AB CAR RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marchesani Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARCHESANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Avis Budget Group, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01242-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Marchesani was employed by the Defendant as mechanical technician. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Avis Budget Group operates as a vehicle rental and mobility solution service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: Rmpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com ACCUTEK PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pickett Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PICKETT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ACCUTEK PACKAGING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00736 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Pickett was employed by the Defendant as sales manager. ACCUTEK PACKAGING EQUIPMENT COMPANY manufactures packaging machinery. The Company offers filling, capping, labeling, conveyors, sealers, and bottling machines. Accutek Packaging Equipment serves customers in the States of California, Texas, and Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com ADVANTAGE PLUS: Must File Class Cert Response Bid by Jan. 6, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garrett v. Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-02082 (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order approving the parties' stipulation for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on or before January 6, 2023, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act involving consumer credit. Advantage Plus is a private company that has been in the industry for 28 years. The company currently specializes in the consumer cervices.[CC] ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Howard Seeks to Clarify Oct. 31 Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAQUILLE HOWARD, BROOKE GOODE, JASON PORTER, KEISHA COHEN and ALBERT CASTAPHANY, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAURA WILLIAMS, Chief Deputy Warden of Healthcare Services; ORLANDO HARPER, Warden of Allegheny County Jail; MICHAEL BARFIELD, Mental Health Director; ALLEGHENY COUNTY; Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs file the instant motion to clarify the Court's October 31, 2022 order certifying a Class. On October 31, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and defining the class. The Court's Order did not designate Class Counsel and did not identify the claims, issues or defenses for which the class was being certified. The Court's October 31, 2022, Memorandum Opinion explained that the Court was declining to enter Plaintiffs' Proposed Order because doing so "would essentially have the Court give its imprimatur to Plaintiffs' entire impression of their case and incorporate fact findings and characterizations which are patently unnecessary to certification and premature." The Plaintiffs agree that the Class Certification Order should not give the Court's imprimatur to Plaintiffs' impression of the entire case. But Plaintiffs believe that it is appropriate and necessary to define the claims, issues and defenses, as required by the Rule and case law, and so that there is no confusion going forward. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VrADaO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith E. Whitson, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 2700 Fifth Avenue Place, 120 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 577-5220 Facsimile: (412) 577-5190 E-mail: kwhitson@schnader.com - and - Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 247 Fort Pitt Blvd., 4 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-6175 E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org - and - Bret Grote, Esq. Jaclyn Kurin, Esq. Swain Uber, Esq. Quinn Cozzens, Esq. ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER P.O. Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 E-mail: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org jkurin@alcenter.org swain.uber@gmail.com qcozzens@alcenter.org ALLIED COLLECTION: Phillips Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection Services, Inc. The case is styled as Latania Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-04127 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Collection Services, Inc. -- https://www.alliedcollectionservice.com/ -- operates as a debt collection agency. The Company offers collection, debt, and litigation recovery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ALLSTATE LIFE: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT, v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone. entered an order granting stipulation to extend briefing deadlines for the plaintiff's motion for class certification and continuing hearing on class certification. -- The opposition to the motion to certify class shall be filed no later than January 13, 2023; -- The Plaintiff's reply briefing shall be filed no later than February 3, 2023; and -- The January 9, 2023 hearing on the class certification motion is continued to February 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The Plaintiff initiated this action on May 8, 2020. On November 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which is currently set for hearing on January 9, 2023. On November 23, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend the briefing. The parties proffer that, due to conflicting professional and personal obligations, including trial responsibilities on the part of in-house counsel, they need additional time to review and respond to the class certification briefing. The Court finds good cause exists to approve the stipulated request in this matter. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vp721Y at no extra charge.[CC] ALORICA INC: Baldwin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Baldwin, Daquesha Mccarthy, Aaron Munoz, Cyndy Paniagua, Melissa Olsen, Ginger Ralston, Jacob Romo, Lee Taylor, individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the Alorica 401(K) Retirement Plan v. ALORICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2022), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, on behalf of the Plan against current Plan sponsor, the Defendants, for breaching their fiduciary duties in the management, operation and administration of the Plan. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants because the Plan had more than sufficient bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and investment management services and well-performing, low-cost investment funds and failed to do so. Plainly, the Defendants had insufficient processes in place to ensure that the Plan Participants were provided with prudent investment options and that they paid only reasonable fees. Specifically, Alorica and the other Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan by: Offering and maintaining higher-cost share classes when identical lower cost class shares were available and could have been offered to participants resulting in participants/beneficiaries paying unnecessary costs for services that provided no value to them and resulted in a reduction of compounded return gains; Offering poorly performing actively managed funds when passively managed funds with identical investment goals and significantly lower fees were available and could have been offered to participants and sufficient passively managed funds were not offered to participants resulting in participants/beneficiaries paying unnecessary costs for services that provided no value to them and resulted in a reduction of compounded return gains; Overpaying for Covered Service Providers by paying variable direct and indirect compensation fees through revenue sharing arrangements with the funds offered as investment option under the Plan, which exceeded costs incurred by plans of similar size with similar services and which were in excess of and not tethered to the services provided; Failing to engage in a competitive bidding process by failing to submit a Request for Proposal to multiple service providers such as record keepers, shareholder services and financial advisers; Imprudently choosing and retaining expensive funds that consistently failed to: (1) meet appropriate industry-standard benchmarks, (2) had excessive risk of loss, or (3) had insufficient management tenure or history to be offered in the plan; Through the excessive fees paid to Covered Service Providers and investment in expensive funds depriving participants of compounded returns which greatly exceed the annual cost of fees and revenue sharing; Offering a guaranteed income product that had unnecessarily high risk and low returns; and failing to maintain and restore trust assets. The Plaintiffs were injured during the Relevant Time Period by the Defendants' flawed processes in breach of their fiduciary duties. As a result of Defendant's actions, participants invested in subpar investment vehicles and paid additional unnecessary operating expenses and fees with no value to the participants and resulting in a loss of compounded returns, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan. ALORICA, INC. is the current sponsor and administrator of the Plan and maintains its principal place of business located in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina A. Humphrey (SBN 226326) Robert N. Fisher (SBN 302919) CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 1117 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 618-2924 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com rob@chumphreylaw.com - and - James A. Clark (SBN 278372) Renee P. Ortega (SBN 283441) TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105 Gold River, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Can't Compel Arbitration in Braundmeier ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN BRAUNDMEIER, and KEVIN WALLACE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 7390 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies Ancestry's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Ancestry is a genealogy company that operates Ancestry.com, a public website through which users can search for records in different databases. The lawsuit began when Sergio Bonilla, upon discovering that the yearbook database contained images of him, sued Ancestry for alleged violations of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA") (Count I); the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count II); intrusion upon seclusion (Count III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV). The Court dismissed Counts II and III for failure to state a claim. Ancestry moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts. Before the Court could decide the motion, Bonilla moved to file an amended complaint to add two plaintiffs, John Braundmeier and Kevin Wallace. The motion was granted. The Court then granted summary judgment for Ancestry because Bonilla's IRPA and unjust-enrichment claims fell outside the statute of limitations. The two current Plaintiffs, Braundmeier and Wallace, have never had Ancestry accounts in any form; accordingly, they have never signed agreements with Ancestry to arbitrate any claims. In May 2022, both individuals retained Benjamin Osborn to represent them in a lawsuit against Ancestry over alleged misappropriations of their images. At no point did they ever instruct Osborn to enter into an arbitration agreement on their behalf. Unlike his clients, Osborn has an Ancestry account, and as part of setting up his account (long before he even met the Plaintiffs), Osborn agreed to Ancestry's terms and conditions. One provision required that "any dispute" be resolved "through final and binding arbitration." Additionally, as part of his decision to represent the Plaintiffs, Osborn verified certain information about them using his Ancestry account. Ancestry now moves to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims based on their lawyer's prior agreement with Ancestry and later use of the website to conduct client research. Ancestry relies on implied actual authority, arguing that while neither the Plaintiff explicitly authorized Osborne to sign arbitration agreements, their actions implied as much. Judge Kendall opines that the Plaintiffs never impliedly authorized Osborne to agree to arbitration. She finds that Osborne signed the arbitration agreement before he began representing the Plaintiffs. It strains logic to believe that a principal can authorize an action taken years prior to engaging the agent. Osborne, of course, researched his potential clients, as many lawyers do. But no "facts and circumstances" suggest that the Plaintiffs wanted him to enter them into an arbitration agreement. Indeed, both individuals specifically disclaimed any such intention in declarations before the Court. Nor would it be custom for lawyers to bind their clients to a different forum without their knowledge, and doing so is certainly not incidental, much less necessary, to the Plaintiffs' general instruction to litigate the case. Ancestry has a fallback position: even if the Plaintiffs did not implicitly allow their lawyer to sign an arbitration agreement, they ratified the decision, nonetheless. This argument lacks merit for similar reasons, Judge Kendall opines. Ratification is defined as the "adoption and confirmation by one person of an act or contract performed or entered into in his behalf by another who at the time assumed to act as his agent." For a principal to ratify an agent's agreement, the principal must accept the benefits of the act, have full knowledge of the facts, and be aware of the circumstances or affirmatively elect to accept the unauthorized arrangements. Again, the Plaintiffs could not ratify an arbitration agreement before there was ever a principal-agent relationship, as Ancestry seems to posit. More problematically though, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs discovered this arbitration agreement (or the later research by Osborne), received any benefits, had knowledge of the facts until this motion, and elected in some way to accept the agreement. And such evidence is not likely forthcoming. The record shows that the Plaintiffs wanted the opposite -- to litigate in a federal forum because, in their view, that choice would be superior to arbitration. For these reasons, Ancestry's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrkcvdm7 from Leagle.com. APEX MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Stuckey Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE D. STUCKEY, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APEX MATERIALS, LLC, ELKHORN ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, WERDCO BC, INC., WERDCO LLC, BRENT CONRAD, BRANDON CONRAD, PATRICIA CONRAD, LAS VEGAS PAVING CORPORATION., TAB CONTRACTORS, INC., WILLIAM CHARLES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HARBER COMPANY, INC., John Does I to XX, name fictitious true name and number of persons being unknown, and XYZ Corporations I to XX, name fictitious true name of number of entities being unknown, Case No. 2:22-cv-01964-APG-EJY (D. Nev., Nov. 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, additional liquidated damages of 100% of any unpaid overtime wages, attorney's fees, interest and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Stuckey and the FLSA collective action members worked more than 40 hours per week for the Apex Defendants and the Individual Defendants and such defendants willfully failed to make said overtime wage payments. Mr. Stuckey and the putative FLSA collective action members were incapable of operating any vehicle on behalf of the Apex Defendants or the Individual Defendants or engaging in other activities that would place them within the scope of the 29 U.S.C. section 213(b) exemption to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA (the Motor Carrier Act or "MCA overtime pay exemption"), says the suit. Specifically, owing to their age, or their lack of appropriate licensure, and/or the specific operational limitations of the Apex Defendants, they could not operate, or potentially be assigned to operate, any motor vehicles that would cross state line, or engage or potentially engage in any other activities that would subject to them to the MCA overtime pay exemption, the lawsuit adds. Mr. Stuckey is a former employee of the Defendant Apex Materials, LLC. Apex Materials is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 S. Rainbow Blvd- Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 APPLE INC: Order Continuing Class Cert Hearing Entered in Orshan ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order that the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendant's Motion to Strike, currently scheduled for December February 23, 2023 15, 2022, is continued to January 13, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor. The Evidentiary Hearing set for December 15, 2022, is continued to February 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ONukfo at 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 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: lkuang@audetlaw.com kkessler@audetlaw.com mmcshane@audetlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Andrew J. Weisberg, Esq. Victoria C. Hargis, Esq. O' MELVENY & MYERS , 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 ARGYLE VOLUNTEER: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD "TREY" RING, v. ARGYLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT (AVFD) D/B/A ARGYLE FIRE DISTRICT, DENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT #1, ALSO D/B/A ARGYLE FIRE DISTRICT, AS THE SUCCESSOR OF THE ARGYLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND TROY MAC HOHENBERGER, Case No. 4:21-cv-00917-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants file a motion to stay class certification Hearing for a 60 day period, or at a minimum, until there is increased clarification of the recent law enforcement action concerning Defendant Hohenberger. Argyle Volunteer Fire Department joins in the Motion. The Plaintiff Harold "Trey" Ring does not oppose a stay of 30 days, with the possibility of an extension thereof if so warranted, but does oppose a stay at this time of 60 days. On August 15, 2022, the Court entered its Second Amended Preliminary Scheduling Order, setting the Hearing on class certification on November 17, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. On November 10, 2022, the Court notified counsel that it needed to reset the hearing due to a conflict. On November 14, 2022, the Court entered an Order Resetting Hearing resetting the class certification hearing to December 8, 2022. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Uop6rI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence J. McNamara, Esq. Jennifer C. Ohn, Esq. FORD HARRISON LLP 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4450 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 256-4700 Facsimile: (214) 256-4701 E-mail: lmcnamara@fordharrison.com jcohn@fordharrison.com ARS NATIONAL: Dervitz Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA DERVITZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Samantha Dervitz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2-22-cv-00179, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in this lawsuit on Dec. 14, 2021, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, and the Defendants timely removed the suit to the present Court on Jan. 13, 2022. The Complaint asserts claims for: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") (First and Fifth Counts); (2) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-2 (First and Second Counts); (3) negligent disclosure of confidential information (First and Third Counts); and (4) invasion of privacy (First and Fourth Counts). On March 18, 2022, the Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the Complaint must be dismissed under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Plaintiff failed to fully disclose her claims against it as assets of her bankruptcy estate and she should not be permitted to benefit from this misrepresentation. On October 4, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Judge Wigenton agreed with the Defendant saying that the Plaintiff's position before the Court is "irreconcilably inconsistent" with her disclosures to the Bankruptcy Court. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA and other legal obligations by disclosing information about her debt to a third-party letter vendor in December 2020. She seeks statutory damages under the FDCPA, treble damages under the CFA, compensatory damages for negligence and invasion of privacy, and other relief for herself and the putative class. However, three months after the Defendant made this purported unlawful disclosure, the Plaintiff reported to the Bankruptcy Court that she had "no" legal interest in claims against third parties. Judge Wigenton says the Bankruptcy Code "imposes on debtors an affirmative duty of full disclosure." The Plaintiff's vague description of "potential" FDCPA claims worth an estimated $1,000 in statutory damages violated her duty of full disclosure because it did not disclose the additional claims and full extent of damages sought in this lawsuit, which is based on events from three months earlier. The Court finds sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff's nondisclosure of these assets was an intentional misrepresentation and not a "good faith mistake." Judge Wigenton concludes that judicial estoppel is an appropriate sanction. The appellate case is captioned Samantha Dervitz v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 22-3090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 4, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SAMANTHA DERVITZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Phillip D. Stern, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Defendant-Appellee ARS NATIONAL SERVICES INC. is represented by: Han Sheng Beh, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 ATRIA SENIOR: Court Grants Stickles' Bid for Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES, Plaintiffs v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., and ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C 20-09220 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to employee classification and denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to employee classification. Plaintiffs Stickles and Rhodes each worked as a "Community Sales Director" for the Defendants. Stickles worked for the Defendants from April 2018 to August 2018, and Rhodes worked for the Defendants from October 2019 to April 2020. The Defendants are affiliated entities that operate 46 senior living communities throughout California. They lease living spaces at their communities to senior citizens. Each community employs at least one full-time CSD like the Plaintiffs. CSDs report to and are supervised by executive directors, and they have offices at their respective communities. CSDs' ultimate goal is to attract seniors to their communities. They record all their activities in a "Customer Relationship Management" database by choosing from a common set of categories. The database does not track work hours, but it does track each individual CSD's daily activities. The Defendants pay flat salaries to CSDs, and pay commissions to CSDs based on the total revenue of their respective communities. They do not pay overtime and do not provide meal or rest breaks to CSDs. But because the Defendants classify CSDs as "outside salespersons," CSDs are exempt from overtime and meal and rest break rules. A prior order certified the following class: CSDs who did not sign arbitration agreements and whom the Defendants classified as exempt outside salespersons from the date Stickles began his employment with the Defendants (April 9, 2018) through Sept. 29, 2019. Certification applied solely to this issue: whether the Defendants properly classified CSDs as exempt outside salespersons. Certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims was held in abeyance. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants both move for summary judgment as to the Defendants' ninth affirmative defense, regarding whether CSDs were properly classified as exempt outside salespersons under California law. Judge Alsup considers the nature of each CSD activity and determines whether each activity constitutes outside sales work. Based on those considerations and the time CSDs spent on each activity, he determines whether either side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the outside salesperson exemption. Judge Alsup finds that only one CSD activity qualifies as outside sales: secondary closes at homes, hospitals, and rehabilitation centers. Thus, for the Defendants to prove that CSDs are outside salespersons, the Defendants must demonstrate a realistic requirement that CSDs spend more than 50% of work time on secondary closes. But the Defendants have not done so. First, the Defendants do not realistically expect CSDs to spend a majority of their time on secondary closes. Second, the way that CSDs actually spend their time confirms this conclusion. Third, the Defendants do not realistically expect CSDs to spend a majority of their time on outside sales. Fourth, because CSDs' efforts are directed toward stimulating the sales of their company generally rather than the consummation of their own specific sales, their activities are not exempt. Fifth, only FLSA exemptions are construed under a fair (rather than a 'narrow') interpretation. Sixth, the Defendants have not shown that other exemptions are suitable for class-wide adjudication. Judge Alsup concludes that analysis regarding the realistic requirements of the CSD position applies to every class member except for those three who have declared that they spent, were required to spend, or were expected to spend more than 50% of their time on outside sales. Those class members are Felicia Horkins, Jennifer Hall, and Angelina Nunez. Separate trials will be held for each of those class members on the misclassification issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/38tm89mn from Leagle.com. BCE-MACH LLC: Scheduling Order for Class Certification Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach LLC and BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00794-HE (W.D. Okla.), the Court entered an order: Event Proposed Deadlines -- Motions for leave to amend or December 30, 2022 add additional parties -- Documents previously produced by May 31, 2023 parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: -- The Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert August 31, 2023 Disclosures, Expert Reports, for Class Certification purposes (Not filed of Record): -- Defendant's Rule 26 Expert October 4, 2023 Disclosures, Expert Reports, for Class Certification Purposes (Not filed of Record): -- Motion for Class Certification November 17, 2023 Filed With All Supporting Evidence: -- Response to Motion for Class January 12, 2024 Certification Filed With All Supporting Evidence: -- Class Certification Discovery January 19, 2024 Cutoff: -- Reply to Motion for Class February 16, 2024 Certification Filed with any Rebuttal Evidence, Including Expert Disclosure for Class Certification Purposes, if any: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isZXyM at no extra charge.[CC] BELLEVUE CITY, WA: Fredrickson Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lacey Fredrickson; John and Jane Does Arrestees as Members of the Class Action v. City of Bellevue; South Correctional Entity (a/k/a "SCORE"), Case No. 2:21-cv-01517-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Fredrickson requests the proposed class be certified as she met all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), and satisfied the prerequisites of either Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Ms. Fredrickson was arrested by the City of Bellevue at 12:45 a.m. on December 1, 2018, without a warrant and placed into the South Correctional Entity ("SCORE") Jail. She neither received a judicial determination of probable cause to justify her detention nor was she released within 48 hours -- a plain violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Ms. Fredrickson is identically situated to all other putative class members as to this common scenario. The only difference between putative class members is the length of their unlawful detention. A class action is the most reasonable and efficient means of adjudicating these claims. The class should be certified. The Plaintiff proposes two damages classes described as: 1. City of Bellevue: Individuals, who, from October 8, 2018 to present, were arrested by the City of Bellevue without a warrant, incarcerated in the SCORE jail, and held more than 48 hours following their arrest without a timely probable cause determination and who were not released within 48 hours. 2. SCORE Jail: Individuals, who, from October 8, 2018 to present, were arrested without a warrant, incarcerated in the SCORE Jail, and held more than 48 hours following their arrest without a timely probable cause determination and who were not released within 48 hours. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VJPPA1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Bariault, Esq. Ted Buck, Esq. Mark Conrad, Esq. The Defendant is represented by: Chad R. Barnes, Esq. Cheryl A. Zakrzewski, Esq. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY City of Bellevue 450 110th Avenue N.E. P. O. Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009 E-mail: cbarnes@bellevuewa.gov czakrzewski@bellevuewa.gov - and - Jonah Harrison, Esq. Denise Ashbaugh, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: jharrison@aretelaw.com dashbaugh@aretelaw.com - and - John E. Justice, Esq. LAW, LYMAN, DANIEL, KAMERRER & BOGDANOVICH, P.S. PO Box 11880 Olympia, WA 98508-1880 E-mail: jjustice@lldkb.com akuehn@lldkb.com BISCUITVILLE INC: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert. Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IHAB DERYAS, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BISCUITVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00600-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time, up to and including December 23, 2022, in which to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional Certification on November 18, 2022. The Plaintiff moved for conditional certification much earlier than contemplated by or outlined in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. And, when Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification, the Court automatically entered the response deadline of December 9, 2022. However, pursuant to the deadline agreed to by the parties in the 26(f) report, the deadline should be December 19, 2022. Given the intervening holidays, and fact Defendant was not expecting Plaintiff's motion until February 2023, Defendant asked Plaintiff whether he would oppose a brief extension of time for Defendant's response to this motion. Biscuitville offers prepared foods, sandwiches, snacks, and beverages for on and off premises consumption. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EO9WpIat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. Garrett L. Davis, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 524-0540 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com gdavis@maginnishoward.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin R. Holland, Esq. Margaret Santen, Esq. Carl M. Short, III, Esq. Virginia M. Wooten, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 201 South College Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28244 Telephone: (704) 342-2588 Facsimile: (704) 342-4379 E-mail: benjamin.holland@ogletree.com maggie.santen@ogletree.com carl.short@ogletree.com virginia.wooten@ogletree.com BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY CAMPBELL, v. BOSCO CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01146-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge on A. York entered an order granting the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. -- The Defendant requests an extension until December 12th, 2022. -- The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is therefore due December 12th, 2022. Bosco is a construction company based in Jackson, Tennesse. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i4pldNat no extra charge.[CC] BRISTOL-MYERS: Williams Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Williams, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. PAS-L-002259-22 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 14, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06097-EP-JRA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for Employment Discrimination. The Bristol Myers Squibb Company -- https://www.bms.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: DANIEL ZEMEL, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq. Tova Katims, Esq. Jason Joseph Ranjo, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (609) 919-6642 Fax: (609) 919-6701 Email: thomas.linthorst@morganlewis.com tova.katims@morganlewis.com jason.ranjo@morganlewis.com CERTIFIED COLLECTIBLES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Certified Collectibles Group, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Certified Collectibles Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10037 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) -- https://www.collectiblesgroup.com/ -- and its affiliates have revolutionized the world of collectibles through their expert and impartial services.[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 CGS STORES: Willis Class Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as a class, v. CGS STORES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01166-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. authorizing the Plaintiff's overtime claims to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on behalf herself and other similarly situated employees who worked for Defendant in the state of Tennessee; 2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide the Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members; 3. providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of the Defendant's facilities where they currently employ anyone who falls within the scope of the putative class, enclosed with all of Defendant's currently employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and emailed to the putative class; 4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this is fully briefed; and 5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiff's Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XPsPBh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, Tennessee 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Seeks to Certify Vacation Pay Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER M. SANSONE, and BALDEMAR ORDUNO, JR., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public Similarly Situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01880-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3): -- Vacation Pay Class "Any and all persons who were employed by TWC Administration LLC in the state of California and who became employed by Charter Communications, LLC without being paid out the vacation wages they had accrued at TWC Administration LLC." The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order: 1. appointing Plaintiff Sansone and Plaintiff Orduno as representatives of the Vacation Pay Class; 2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Vacation Pay Class, and requiring defendants TWCA Administration LLC and Charter Communications, Inc. to identify all members of the Vacation Pay Class so that notice of this action and their opt-out rights under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(c)(2) may be provided to them. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ANVqgnat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: London D. Meservy, Esq. MESERVY LAW, P.C. 401 West A Street, Suite 1712 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 779-1276 Facsimile: (866) 231-8132 E-mail: london@meservylawpc.com - and - Matthew S. Dente, Esq. DENTE LAW, P.C. 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 550-3475 Facsimile: (619) 342-9668 E-mail: matt@dentelaw.com - and - Justin A. Morello, Esq. MORELLO LAW, P.C. 3170 Fourth Avenue, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 277-4677 Facsimile: (619) 924-4268 E-mail: justin@morellolawpc.com CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: FLSA Class Cert Sought in Hernandez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEVERO JOHN HERNANDEZ, UMEET NAND, KRISTOPHER BARR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., a California Corporation; CALEB CHRISTENSEN, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-AB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting their motion for class certification under Rule 23, conditional collective action certification, and Dissemination of Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All Field Employees who were employed by Defendant CBG and Defendant Caleb Christensen from November 18, 2017, up to and through the date of of the order granting collective action certification and who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. appointing Plaintiff Nand, Plaintiff Hernandez, and Plaintiff Barr as representatives of the Classes; 3. appointing Daniel J. Brown and Ethan C. Surls of Stansbury Brown Law, PC; and Sam Kim and Yoonis Han of Verum Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel; 4. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send Notice to all absent Rule 23 Class Members; and 5. certifying the following subclasses: a. Subclass I (Unpaid Wage Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by the Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were subject to the (1) Travel Time Practice, (2) Underreporting Practice, (3) Misclassifying Practice, and/or (4) Meal Period Practice;" b. Subclass II (Overtime Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by the Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were subject to the (1) Travel Time Practice, (2) Underreporting Practice, (3) Misclassifying Practice, and/or (4) Meal Period Practice, and who were not paid at least 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. c. Subclass III (Meal Period Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by the Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were not paid premium meal period wages for shifts for which they were subject to the (1) Meal Period Practice, (2) Late Meal Period Practice, and/or (3)worked shifts over 10.0 hours without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period prior to the start of the tenth hour of work;" d. Subclass IV (Rest Period Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by the Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were not paid premium rest period wages for shifts for which they were subject to the Rest Period Practice;" e. Subclass V (Prevailing Wage Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification (1) who were subject to the Travel Time Practice and/or Underreporting Practice, and/or (2) who's job classification was misclassified by Defendant CBG while working on public works projects;" f. Subclass VI (Itemized Wage Statement Subclass): "All members of Subclass I, II, III, IV and/or V who meet the criteria for class membership for the time period from November 18, 2019, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, and who also received a wage statement from Defendant CBG during this same time period." g. Subclass VII (Facially Deficient Wage Statement Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November 18, 2019, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, and who received a wage statement that (1) did not contain the address for the employer, and/or (2) did not contain the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid;" h. Subclass VIII (Waiting Time Subclass): "All members of Subclasses I, II, III, IV and/or V who separated their employment from DefendantCBG from November 18, 2017, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification;" i. Subclass IX (Reimbursement Class): "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were not reimbursed for expenses that were necessary to carry out their duties, including (1) the use of their cellular phone for work purposes, (2) work boots, (3) safety vests, and/or (4) hard hats;" and j. Subclass X (Unfair Competition Subclass): "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November 18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting class certification, who were subject to the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices identified in Subclasses I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3inrf9Pat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sam Kim, Esq. Yoonis Han, Esq. VERUM LAW GROUP, APC 360 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 1025 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 320-2000 Facsimile: (424) 221-5010 E-mail: skim@verumlg.com yhan@verumlg.com - and - Daniel J. Brown, Esq. Ethan C. Surls, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (323) 207-5925 E-mail: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Batiste Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Zurba Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL ZURBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02121 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who purchased and used Batiste (TM) dry shampoo products that have been found to be contaminated and/or adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. According to the complaint, the presence of benzene in Batiste (TM) dry shampoo products was not disclosed in the products' label other otherwise made known to consumers, in violation of California law. On August 2022, the Plaintiff purchased and used Batiste (TM) Dry Shampoo Plus Brilliant Blonde products. She paid approximately $7.99 each for the products. When purchasing the products, the Plaintiff read and reviewed the accompanying labels, disclosures, and safety information, says the suit. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") recognizes that "benzene is a carcinogen that can cause cancer in humans" and classifies benzene as a "Class 1" solvent that should be "avoided." In November 2021, Valisure confirmed the presence of benzene in dozens of aerosol antiperspirants and deodorants, resulting in massive recalls and ensuing litigation. Despite Defendant's knowledge of the pervasive risk of benzene contamination in the Products, Defendant have failed to warn consumers of this known danger. Instead, Defendant allegedly chose to maximize its profits and delay the costs of immediately recalling the defective products it sold at the expense of its trusting customers who were unwittingly increasing their exposure to benzene contamination in the Products and continued to buy the Products. The Plaintiffs claim that they suffered economic damages due to Defendant's misconduct and they seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the product(s) they purchased, the suit added. Church & Dwight is an American manufacturer of household products that is headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sin-ting Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main St., Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-Mail: mliu@awkolaw.com CIRCLE K STORES: Court OK's Pettersen Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "All persons in California who purchased a carton of cigarettes from a Circle K store in California and did not receive an advertised multi-pack discount from December 4, 2016 to the present." The Court concludes that Plaintiff William D. Pettersen meets the requirements of class representative for this class. The Court also concludes that Lawrence Timothy Fisher and Sean L. Litteral of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Stephen B. Morris of The Law Offices of Stephen B. Morris, and Peggy J. Reali of Reali Law, A.P.C. are adequate counsel for this class. On May 18, 2022, the Plaintiff William D. Pettersen filed a motion to certify class and for appointment of class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 23. On July 25, 2022, Circle filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion. The Plaintiff regularly purchased cigarettes at a Circle K owned and operated convenience store in San Diego County, California between December 2016 and December 2020. The Plaintiff often purchased cigarettes in cartons, which generally contain 10 packs of cigarettes, but he would also on occasion purchase a single pack or multiple packs instead of a carton. The Plaintiff testified that he regularly saw advertisements at Circle K that offered a discount on the total purchase price if a customer purchased two packs of cigarettes. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Circle K is an American chain of convenience stores headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3FaN8Suat no extra charge.[CC] CONSOLIDATED EDISON: IH Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. The case is styled as International House, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08705-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Con Edison of New York -- https://coned.com/ -- provides electric service to approximately 3.3 million customers and gas service to approximately 1.1 million customers in New York City and Westchester County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Steifman, Esq. STEIFMAN LLP 292 Montauk Highway South Hampton, NY 11968 Phone: (718) 645-4100 Email: ms@steifmanlaw.com - and - James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com The Defendant is represented by: Frances E. Bivens, Esq. Michael Stuart Scheinkman, Esq. Craig Jacob Bergman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP (NYC) 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 450-4935 Fax: (212) 701-5935 Email: frances.bivens@davispolk.com michael.scheinkman@dpw.com craig.bergman@davispolk.com - and - Garrett Louis Cardillo, Esq. DAVIS POLK 450 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 450-3266 Email: garrett.cardillo@davispolk.com CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Seeks to Certify Day-Rate ROW Agent Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYL WEINMANN, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "All Right of Way Agents who worked for, or on behalf of, CLS who were paid a day rate with no overtime in the past three years (Day-Rate ROW Agents)." Contract Land provides right of way and real estate land services nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3igDrceat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP , LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CORTEVA INC: Jenkins Sues Over Anticompetitive & Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin W. Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; JOHN DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1-5; AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-01976-RLY-DLP (S.D. Ind., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought on behald of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products ("CPPs", which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides) manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The Defendants Corteva and Syngenta each manufactured several CPPs that are important to large numbers of American farmers. Defendants' CPPs and the active ingredients therein enjoyed a period of patent protection and regulatory protection under which they were lawfully protected from competition. Once those periods expire, generic manufacturers are allowed to produce their own versions of those CPPs, and that competition typically drastically reduces the price of those CPPs. In order for Defendants Corteva and Syngenta to maintain their market dominance even after their patent and regulatory exclusivities on their CPPs expired, Defendants used "loyalty programs" under which they made substantial payments to their wholesalers and in certain cases, also retailers, in exchange for the wholesalers and retailers agreeing to strictly limit their purchases of--and thereby prevent widespread distribution of--generic versions of Defendants' CPPs, ensuring that Defendants' far more expensive branded CPPs would be most of what the wholesalers and retailers purchased and sold to their respective customers. Since a small number of wholesalers control a very large share of all sales of CPPs to retailers that sell to farmers, and some of the wholesalers also own a large number of their own retail outlets, when there is a loyalty program in effect for a particular CPP, this forecloses generic CPP manufacturers from nearly all of the retail market for that CPP. The other channels available to generic CPP manufacturers to get their products to market are far more limited. When there is a loyalty program in place for a particular CPP, the generic CPP manufacturers can typically only sell much smaller volumes of that CPP, or often cannot sell it profitably at all, requiring them to exit the market or to not enter it in the first place. Defendants CHS and Nutrien, which are both wholesalers and retailers, participated in these loyalty programs. Therefore, the Manufacturer Defendants' "loyalty payment" system has the following effects: the Manufacturer Defendants are able to maintain a near-monopoly for the sales of each of these CPPs even though the patent and regulatory protection have expired and there should be open competition from generics, the Manufacturer Defendants are able to continue to charge much higher prices for those CPPs as a result of excluding most generic competition, the Manufacturer Defendants obtain supracompetitive profits as a result, the Manufacturer Defendants share part of those supracompetitive profits with the Wholesaler Defendants (and in Syngenta's program, also the Retailer Defendants) to ensure their cooperation with this scheme, farmers have to pay much higher prices for those branded CPPs than they would if there was the open competition that would occur absent Defendants' conduct, and the lesser amounts of generic versions of those CPPs that are able to be sold are also priced higher than they would be if there was the open competition that would occur absent Defendants' conduct. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs discussed herein and thereby artificially inflated the price of those CPPs and of the generic competitors to those CPPs. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have been injured by paying artificially inflated prices for their CPP purchases, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased CPPs from Nutrien Ag Solutions during the Class Period. Corteva, Inc is a Delaware corporation based in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Radice, Esq. Daniel Rubenstein, Esq. Kenneth Walsh, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (646) 245-8502 Fax: (609) 385-0745 Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com kwalsh@radicelawfirm.com - and - R. Lyn Stevens, Esq. STEVENS LAW FIRM 1782 Mountain Springs Canyon Lake, Texas 78133 Phone: (409) 880-9714 Email: Lyn@Stevens.Law DAVE S. WORLD: Muir Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave S. World, Inc. The case is styled as Denice A. Muir, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Dave S. World, Inc. d/b/a Tahoe Dave S. Skis & Boards, Case No. S-CV-0049251 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Oct. 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Dave S. World, Inc. doing business as Tahoe Dave's Skis & Boards -- https://tahoedaves.com/ -- has been North Lake Tahoe's premier ski and board rental and accessory shop since 1977.[BN] DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Product Contains Benzene, Legrand Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONDALISA LEGRAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-07374-LB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022) is an action seeking to remedy the unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices of DeMert with respect to certain aerosol Not Your Mother's brand dry shampoos that reliable independent laboratory testing has confirm contain benzene (the "Dry Shampoos" or "Products"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant through its unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices regarding the manufacture, testing, labeling, and marketing, has sold and continues to sell benzene containing Not Your Mother's Dry Shampoos to consumers throughout the United States, including in California. The Defendant knew or should have known the Not Your Mother's Dry Shampoos contained benzene, or at the very least that they are at the risk of containing benzene, yet it failed to disclose that to consumers anywhere on the Products' labeling. The Defendant knows that if it had not omitted that the Products contained benzene and or had properly warned them, then the Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Products, says the Plaintiff. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC manufactures and distributes cosmetic products. The Company provides beauty and cosmetic products for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Joseph, Esq. Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Paul K. Joseph, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq. FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 Email: paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com DYNATA LLC: Davis, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA DAVIS, TENESHIA BANKSTON, and TIFFANY TAYLOR individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DYNATA, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-01062-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as: "All current and former hourly Call Center Survey Agents employed by Dynata at any time from three years prior to the date this motion was filed through the date of judgment in this case; 2. Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of the proposed Collective via US Mail and email; 3. Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; 4. Approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents; and 5. Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in period. Dynata provides survey research services. The Company offers survey programming, trackers, qualitative research, data processing, and analytics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gMyAz4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48178 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 55 E Monroe Street, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 Main St Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Teeter Files Suit in D. Montana ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easterseals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain, Inc. The case is styled as Janice Teeter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Easterseals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00096-BMM (D. Mont., Oct. 11, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Easterseals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain Inc. -- https://www.esgw.org/ -- is a private, nonprofit organization serving children and adults with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Rasmusson, Esq. RASMUSSON LAW OFFICES PLLC 218 East Front Street, Suite 200 P. O. Box 7825 Missoula, MT 59807 Phone: (406) 549-3323 Fax: (406) 317-7907 Email: eric@rasmussonlaw.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Hengel Sues Over Misleading Representations -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Hengel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02741 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading representations practices with regard to its SPF 50+ sunscreen in stick form to babies as Simply Protect and adults as Sport Ultra under the Banana Boat brand ("Products"). Social scientists have identified variations of the "pink tax" between personal care products marketed as for children and adults. Numerous explanations purport to explain such significantly different prices, including packaging formats, label statements, retailer discretion to set prices different than those recommended by the manufacturer, insurance requirements and regulatory factors. This has been referred to as the "kids' tax," which imposes additional costs on parents with children. The "kids' tax" exists because studies have shown that demand for children's versions of personal care products is inelastic, since parents are less sensitive to paying higher prices when they believe they are buying products specifically formulated for their children. The representations on the Baby version cause parents to expect it is specifically designed for their babies' needs. This includes the prominent claim of "25% fewer ingredients," because parents of small children and babies believe the number of ingredients is inversely related to a product's safety and natural attributes. That the Baby version contains "No Added Oils & Fragrances" appeals to parents of small children and babies because these ingredients are linked to skin irritation. The back label of the Baby version describes it as "gentle formula which is non-irritating, so time spent outside with your baby can be worry free." The Defendant knows that parents prefer products containing natural and pure ingredients, without fragrances, so that their babies' "delicate skin" will not be irritated. Despite the significantly different and specific representations on the Baby version, the Products are substantively identical. yet sold at dramatically different prices. This is because they contain the same active ingredients in the same relative amounts, including avobenzone (2.7%), homosalate (9.0%), octisalate (4.5%) and octocrylene 9.0%. Not only do the Products contain the relative identical amounts of active ingredients, their 14 inactive ingredients are present in the same relative amounts. However, the Products are sold at significantly different prices. For example, the Baby version is sold for $6.76 for 0.50 oz, compared to the Adult version, sold at $7.97 for 1.50 oz. On a per ounce basis, the Baby version is $13.52 and the Adult version is $5.31. This means the Baby version is priced over 254 percent more than the identical Adult version. The price discrepancy confirms to parents that the Baby version they are buying is specifically formulated for the needs of their babies and small children. No substantive or legitimate differences in the Products reasonably justifies the Baby version being priced over 250% higher than the Adult version. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Products which are false and misleading. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Baby version is sold for more than two and a half times as much as the Adult version, promoted as specially formulated for use in babies, even though they are identical in composition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including Walmart in Dr Belleville, Illinois. Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC is one of the largest sellers of personal care products in the world, known for its sunscreen brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com EDWIN'S GLORIOUS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Colon Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSE COLON, Plaintiff v. EDWIN'S GLORIOUS GARDENS LLC and EDWIN PEAK, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04635 (E.D. Penn., November 19, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to recover overtime wages against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a laborer and landscaper from on or about February 2018 through on or about October 2021, and from on or about February 2022 through on or about October 10, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that he worked between 48 and 52 hours per week from March through August but the Defendants paid him the same hourly rate for worked he performed after 40 hours. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants has willfully failed to pay him the appropriate overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid overtime wages, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and all other reasonable costs incurred, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Moreover, the Plaintiff requests that the Honorable Court to order the Defendants to fully compensate him and all other persons similarly situated for all amounts of wages due. Edwin's Glorious Gardens LLC is a company that provides landscaping services. Edwin Peak owns and operates the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com EQT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA ASBURY, et al., v. EQT CORPORATION, EQUITRANS, L.P., EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, and EQT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-01005-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court for a leave to file a Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On October 31, 2022, the Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification, in which the Defendants addressed the arguments raised by Plaintiff in his Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of the Renewed Motion for Class Certification. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gJSc6Qat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq. Lucas Liben, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 EVENFLO CO: Dismissal of Faulty Booster Seats Suit Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MIKE XAVIER; LINDSEY BROWN; MARCELLA REYNOLDS; MONA-ALICIA SANCHEZ; KEITH EPPERSON; CASEY HASH; JESSICA GREENSCHNER; LAUREN MAHLER; EDITH BRODEUR; DAVID A. SCHNITZER; ASHLEY MILLER; DANIELLE SARRATORI; HAILEY LECHNER; DESINAE WILLIAMS; ELISE HOWLAND; THERESA HOLLIDAY; JOSEPH WILDER; AMY SAPEIKA; NAJAH ROSE; SUDHAKAR RAMASAMY; TARNISHA ALSTON; EMILY NAUGHTON; TALISE ALEXIE; HEATHER HAMPTON; LINDSEY REED; KAREN SANCHEZ; BECKY BROWN; DEBORA DE SOUZA CORREA TALUTTO; KARYN ALY; JANETTE SMARR; KARI FORHAN; JOSHUA KUKOWSKI; ANNA GATHINGS; KRISTIN ATWELL; PENNY BIEGELEISEN; CARLA MATTHEWS; JILLI HIRIAMS; NATALIE DAVIS; CATHY MALONE; JEFFREY LINDSEY; LINDA MITCHELL; RACHEL HUBER; CASSANDRA HONAKER, Plaintiffs, Appellants, JANELLE WOODSON; DANA BERKLEY; JESSICA BLOSWICK; COLLEEN CODERRE; GRETA ANDERSON; KRISTEN BRINKERHOFF; LINDA FEINFELD; ANDREW GLADSTONE; GEORGETTE GLADSTONE; ELIZABETH GRANILLO; JANET JUANICH; TERESA MUGA; ASHLEY PERRY; ANGELICA RUBY, Plaintiffs v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellee, GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 22-1133 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs/Appellants' operative complaint for lack of Article III standing. The Plaintiff Evenflo customers brought a number of suits against the company related to the Big Kid's marketing and safety in various federal district courts in early 2020. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the actions and then transferred them to the District of Massachusetts in June 2020. On Oct. 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended putative class action complaint. This operative complaint names 43 Plaintiffs from 28 states who purchased Big Kids for their children between 2010 and 2020. The complaint alleges that Evenflo's representations that the Big Kid was side impact tested and safe for children as small as 30 pounds were false or misleading. The complaint focuses on two misrepresentations Evenflo allegedly made about the Big Kid on its website and packaging, in marketing materials, and in its product descriptions at major retailers between 2008 and 2020. It alleges that the Evenflo made several misrepresentations about the safety and testing of its children's Big Kid car booster seat and that the Plaintiffs bought the seat relying on those misrepresentations for use by their children and grandchildren. The complaint alleges that, but for Evenflo's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs would not have purchased the seat, would have paid less for it, and/or would have bought a safer alternative. It alleges that Evenflo's misrepresentations caused the Plaintiffs to spend money that they otherwise would not have spent. It does not allege that the Plaintiffs' children were hurt while using the seat or that the product otherwise failed to perform. The complaint asserts 58 state law counts, including claims for fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, violations of various state consumer protection statutes, and breaches of implied warranties of merchantability under several other state statutes. It requests monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of "all persons in the United States who purchased an Evenflo 'Big Kid' booster seat between 2008 and the complaint's filing," as well as subclasses for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and request monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. On Nov. 20, 2020, Evenflo moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing the Plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not been injured by Evenflo's conduct, that the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and that the plaintiffs had not pleaded their fraud claims with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). The district court concluded that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and granted Evenflo's motion on Jan. 27, 2022. It reasoned that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish any economic injury sufficient to pursue monetary relief because (1) the complaint did not allege that the seats failed to perform and (2) they had not plausibly shown that the seats were worth less than what they had paid for them or estimated their true value. The court also concluded that the complaint did not allege any likelihood of future injury sufficient to create standing to pursue injunctive relief. It did not address Evenflo's other arguments for dismissal, and it did not specify whether the dismissal was to operate with or without prejudice. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The First Circuit first considers the Plaintiffs' standing to pursue monetary relief. The complaint alleges only economic injury in the form of overpayment. In addition to statutory and common law claims explicitly based on misrepresentations, the complaint includes several claims pursuant to state statutes creating implied warranties of merchantability. Evenflo attacks both the cognizability of overpayment as an injury in the absence of physical or emotional harm and the plausibility of the Plaintiffs' pleading of that injury. The First Circuit disagrees with Evenflo's more sweeping argument: that where a plaintiff is not actually injured by an allegedly unsafe product, she does not have standing to pursue a claim for damages. The Plaintiffs do not rely on a risk of future injury as grounds for economic loss; instead, they argue that they overpaid (or purchased the product at all) because of Evenflo's past misrepresentations. The First Circuit's conclusion that the Plaintiffs have standing as to these claims is consistent with precedent from other circuits addressing similar allegations. Turning to Evenflo's argument that the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to plausibly demonstrate that, as a result of Evenflo's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs spent more money than they otherwise would have, the First Circuit opines that, read as a whole, the complaint's allegations satisfy the plausibility standard. As the case proceeds, the Plaintiffs will bear the burden of substantiating their alleged injuries, and Evenflo may challenge their success in doing so. Evenflo raised a variety of other arguments for dismissal before the district court which that court did not reach. The First Circuit leaves it for the district court to consider those arguments in the first instance. Next, because the Plaintiffs' briefs do not address their standing to pursue declaratory relief, the First Circuit opines that they have waived any argument on that point. Moreover, nothing in the Plaintiffs' complaint suggests any possibility of future harm. Their assertions about their past behavior do not plausibly allege any likelihood of relying on Evenflo's advertising or purchasing Big Kids in the future, and so there is no impending future injury that an injunction might redress. A hypothetical future injury to other unnamed "parents and grandparents" does not give these plaintiffs standing. Finally, the Plaintiffs request that the First Circuit amends, or directs the district court to amend, the judgment to provide for dismissal without prejudice. The First Circuit opines that the Plaintiffs correctly point out that "a dismissal for lack of Article III standing must operate without prejudice." Given the ambiguity in the district court's order, it directs the district court, on remand, to clarify its judgment to reflect that the judgment is to operate without prejudice to the extent it affirms the dismissal for lack of standing. In light of the foregoing, the First Circuit affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. All parties will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ehhbzh5r from Leagle.com. Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- with whom Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Martha A. Geer -- mgeer@milberg.com -- and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, were on brief, for the Appellants. Barbara A. Smith -- barbara.smith@bclplaw.com -- with whom Dan H. Ball -- dhball@bclplaw.com -- Timothy J. Hasken -- tim.hasken@bclplaw.com -- K. Lee Marshall -- klmarshall@bclplaw.com -- and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP were on brief, for the Appellee. Philip S. Goldberg -- pgoldberg@shb.com -- Mark A. Behrens -- mbehrens@shb.com -- Andrew J. Trask -- atrask@shb.com -- and Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on brief for Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Retail Federation, amici curiae. FPR II LLC: Montoya Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Montoya, an individual, on behalf on herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. FPR II, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; LEADPOINT BUSINESS SERVICES, a Corporation; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. 22CV404499 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay proper compensations. The Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide wages when due, failed to pay sick wages all in violation of the California Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2020 to June of 2022, as a non-exempt employee. The Defendant is an operating partner to companies in the ways and recycling industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment v. Hackler ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Godbey Wood, entered an order granting General Motors motion for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff has no expert to support his allegation of a design defect, he has failed to present sufficient evidence to support his Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim. Thus, Defendant GM's motion for summary judgment, is granted. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against GM on February 22, 2021. In April 2013, Plaintiff bought a new 2013 Chevrolet Silverado from Palm Chevrolet in Ocala, Florida. The Plaintiff's Silverado is equipped with a Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 Engine ("Gen IV Engine"). GM designed the Gen IV Engine that is installed in Plaintiff's vehicle, as well as other General Motors Corporation and Chevrolet vehicle models manufactured in 2011 through 2014 ("Class Vehicles"). The Plaintiff alleges that GM sold numerous Class Vehicles, despite knowing that they all suffered from an "inherent defect," described as an "Oil Consumption Defect," resulting in excessive oil loss in certain Gen IV Engines. GM first learned of the oil consumption issues with certain Gen IV Engines "sometime late in 2008" or "2009." In 2009, GM launched an investigation called the "Red-X" investigation and asked dealerships to return certain 2007 Gen IV Engines to GM for the Red-X team to assess the root cause of excessive oil consumption in those engines. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Vcur6rat no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Parties Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and PFIZER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and jointly request an order granting them leave to file briefs up to 4 pages in support of Plaintiff's motion for and Defendants' opposition to class certification. On December 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint and on January 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint in this putative California-based and Nationwide class action against the Defendants. The Defendants are manufacturers, marketers, and sellers of certain ChapStick brand lip care products, which the Plaintiff alleges are deceptively labeled and advertised as "Natural" in violation of California consumer protection laws and related common law, because the products allegedly contain ingredients that are either artificial, synthetic, or overly processed. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VdUGtj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 228 Hamilton Ave., 3 rd Fl Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (619) 915-9432 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan S. Tam, Esq. Matthew F. Williams, Esq. DECHERT LLP One Bush Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104-4446 Telephone: (415) 262-4518 Facsimile: (415) 262-4555 E-mail: jonathan.tam@dechert.com matthew.williams@dechert.com - and - Christina G. Sarchio, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1900 K St. NW Washington DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3300 Facsimile: (202) 261-3333 E-mail: christina.sarchio@dechert.com - and - Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq. DECHERT LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Sixth Ave. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: lincoln.wilson@dechert.com GREENSKY MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Wright Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXISS WRIGHT, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, GREENSKY, INC., GREENSKY HOLDINGS, LLC, and GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-62441-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order denying motion for class certification: Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff does not seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) or (2). Therefore, class certification is not warranted, and the Court need not go further. On July 17, 2020, Alexiss Wright initiated this class action against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Defendants removed the case to this Court, alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Thereafter, on December 16, 2020, Wright filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Complaint asserts the following three counts against Defendants: Count I -- Violations of Florida's Loan Broker Law ("FLBL") Count II -- Violations of Florida's Credit Service Organizations Act ("CSOA") Count III -- Injunctive Relief. On October 27, 2021, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted and the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief with prejudice In July 2016, Plaintiff purchased a solar system financed by a $25,000.00 Greensky loan. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Greensky took a transaction fee of approximately 13% of the principal. The Plaintiff repaid the loan entirely within the first year and unknowingly paid some or all of the undisclosed transaction fee. GreenSky is a financial technology company founded in 2006 based in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XOrk6k at no extra charge.[CC] GRUBHUB INC: Sznitko Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Denise Sznitko, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GrubHub Inc., Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 22STCV28148 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 7, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07318-PA-AFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Grubhub Inc. -- https://www.grubhub.com/ -- is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Avenue Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: arosenberg@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy P. Lally SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 595-9662 Fax: (310) 595-9501 Email: alally@sidley.com - and - Marissa X. Mejia Hernandez, Esq. Stacy R Horth-Neubert, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6130 Fax: (213) 896-6600 Email: marissa.hernandez@sidley.com shorthneubert@sidley.com HANESBRAND INC: Ramon Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HanesBrand, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Ramon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HanesBrand, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01770-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Hanesbrands Inc. -- http://www.hanes.com/-- is an American multinational clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th St., Ste. 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Fax: (510) 891-7030 Email: lvn@colevannote.com cab@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com HARMAN MANAGEMENT: Antonio-Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Yoselin Antonio-Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; FROILAN 284. INC., a California corporation; and DOES I through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV404364 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 11, 2022), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and test period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked. Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as a crew member from September 20020 to February 2022. The Defendants are California corporations with their principal places of business in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213)232-3128 Facsimile: (213)232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonvanglaw.com enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com JMD PRECISION: Fails to Pay Handymen's Overtime, Martinez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL VASQUEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JMD PRECISION TECH LLC and JESUS MANUEL DONES, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-09860 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around January 2021 until in or around June 2021 as a handyman while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated handymen were regularly required by the Defendant to work approximately 60 hours or more each week throughout their employment with the Defendants. However, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime age requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated handymen with any wage statements upon each payment of their wages, and to provide them with a written notice of their applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required by NYLL, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants all unpaid overtime wages, for himself and all other similarly situated handymen, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. JMD Precision Tech LLC is a company that provides precision technology services. Jesus Manuel Dones is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 K COMPANY: Chia Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ ARIANA CHIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE K COMPANY REALTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017198 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, November 20, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Florida Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant began sending telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about August 15, 2022 in an attempt to promote its services and to obtain information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of its services or an extension of credit for such purposes. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has sent similar telephonic sales calls to other individuals residing in Florida. In addition, the Defendant allegedly used a computer software system that automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephone numbers. Moreover, the Defendant did not obtain their prior express written consent to received such telephonic sales utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, says the suit. AS a result of the Defendant alleged unsolicited telephonic sales calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed in the form of statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff statutory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without prior express written consent, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. The K Company Realty, LLC is a real estate firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq. ZERMAY LAW, P.A. 1200 Fourth Street #1102 Key West, FL 33040 Tel: (305) 767-3529 E-mail: zach@zermaylaw.com KENTUCKY: Appeals Attorney Fees Ruling in Roberts Suit to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW G. BESHEAR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs in the lawsuit entitled Theodore Roberts, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew G. Beshear, in his official capacity as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00054, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On April 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against two executive orders issued by Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear which restricted mass gatherings and out-of-state travel in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 4, 2020, this Court granted a merits-based preliminary injunction against the order restricting out-of-state travel and denied relief as to the order restricting in-person attendance at church services. The Plaintiffs immediately appealed, and on May 9, 2020, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a merits-based injunction pending appeal regarding the prohibition of in-person church services. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to this Court in October 2020 to determine whether the case was moot. On August 26, 2021, this Court dismissed the case as moot because legislation passed during the 2021 session by the Kentucky General Assembly restricted the Governor's authority to issue executive orders related to the pandemic. On September 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs and for return of their bond. On September 29, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion through an Order entered by Judge William O. Bertelsman. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs a total of $272,142.50 in attorney's fees for the work performed by Thomas Bruns, Christopher Wiest, and Robert A. Winter, Jr., which includes the time spent preparing the briefing for the motion for attorney fees and costs; and a total of $1,427.85 in litigation costs. The appellate case is captioned Theodore Roberts, et al. v. Robert Neace, et al., Case No. 22-5985, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 7, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. 25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 104 Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Defendants-Appellants ROBERT D. NEACE, only as Boone County, KY attorney on behalf of all other county attorneys, et al., are represented by: Taylor Payne, Esq. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: (502) 564-2611 - and - David Thomas Lovely, Esq. KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES 275 E. Main Street Room 5W-B Frankfort, KY 40621 Telephone: (502) 564-4001 KSF ACQUISITION: Bid to Dismiss Nacarino Class Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELENA NACARINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04021-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part KSF's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. KSF, a Delaware corporation, owns SlimFast, one of the leading dietary shake and smoothie mix brands in the United States. Nacarino, a California resident, alleges that "in or around December 2021," she purchased a product marketed by KSF, specifically, SlimFast Advanced Nutrition Smoothie Mix Vanilla Cream Product, from a Safeway store in San Francisco, and that she did so in reliance on an assertedly false and misleading statement on its packaging. Specifically, Nacarino alleges that in purchasing the Product, she saw and relied on the phrase "20g HIGH PROTEIN" on its front label which she understood to mean that the smoothie mix itself contained 20 grams of protein per serving, whereas, in fact, the mix itself contains only 12g of protein per serving." Nacarino alleges other SlimFast products suffer from the same flaw. In particular, she alleges, SlimFast Original Meal Replacement Shake Mix promises "10g PROTEIN," but the mix only contains 2g of protein per serving, SlimFast Advanced Immunity Smoothie Mix promises "20g PROTEIN," but only provides 12g of protein per serving, and SlimFast Diabetic Weight Loss Meal Shake promises 10g of protein but provides only 2g of protein per serving. Based on said allegations, Nacarino, on her own behalf and on behalf of two putative classes, asserts the following seven claims for relief: (1) "Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq." ("CLRA"); (2) "Violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq." ("FAL"); (3) "Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq." ("UCL"); (4) "Breach of Express Warranty, Cal. Com. Code Section 2313"; (5) "Breach of Implied Warranty, Cal. Com. Code Section 2313"; (6) "Quasi Contract/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution"; and (7) "Common Law Fraud." By the instant motion, KSF seeks an order dismissing the action, on the grounds that Nacarino (1) lacks standing to assert several of the claims in her complaint and (2) has failed to allege facts sufficient to support any of her claims for relief. The Court first turns to the question of standing. First, KSF challenges, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nacarino's standing to pursue injunctive relief and standing to bring claims as to products she did not purchase. To the extent her claims are based on the Product she purchased, Judge Chesney finds that Nacarino lacks standing to seek injunctive relief under the CLRA, FAL, or UCL. Nacarino, "going forward," is able to evaluate product claims and make appropriate purchasing decisions as to the Product, and, consequently, injunctive relief would serve no meaningful purpose. To the extent she asserts claims, other than for injunctive relief, based on products she herself did not purchase, Judge Chesney finds that Nacarino has adequately demonstrated Article III and statutory standing. The injury Nacarino alleges she suffers is essentially the same as the injury she alleges is suffered by putative class members who purchased other SlimFast smoothie/shake mix products. Next, KSF contends each of the causes of action alleged, is subject to dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Nacarino's First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief allege violations of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL, respectively. To the extent Nacarino seeks restitution under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL, Judge Chesney holds that Nacarino's First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Nacarino's claims for damages are "based on precisely the same alleged conduct" as her equitable claims for restitution. Consequently, of those three claims, only the CLRA claim, under which Nacarino seeks damages as well as equitable relief, potentially remains. Nacarino's claim for damages under the CLRA is not subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Section 1782(a). Judge Chesney finds that the letter KSF received from Houriani prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit satisfies the notice requirements of Section 1782(a) with respect to the CLRA damages claims asserted in the Complaint. To the extent Nacarino seeks damages under the CLRA, her First Claim for Relief is not subject to dismissal. Judge Chesney finds that consumers have no duty to validate claims on the front of a product's label by cross-checking them against information contained in small print" on other parts of the packaging, and failure to do so does not constitute a failure to reasonably safeguard their interests. Nacarino's Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief allege claims for breach of express and implied warranty, respectively. KSF argues the Protein Representation on the front label of the Product is not an affirmation of fact or promise that the amount of protein listed is per serving/scoop alone, rather than per scoop as combined with fat free milk, and, consequently, is not actionable as an express warranty. Although the Court has found the Protein Representation could mislead a reasonable consumer, Judge Chesney agrees that the representation does not constitute an express statement that the amount of protein is per serving/scoop alone. Because Nacarino's implied warranty claim, like her express warranty claim, is predicated solely on the discussed failure to conform to an allegedly "implied promise" on the Product's front label, and because the Court has found Nacarino has not pled an express warranty claim based thereon, Nacarino's implied warranty claim likewise fails. Accordingly, Nacarino's Fifth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Nacarino's Sixth Claim for Relief is titled "Quasi Contract/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution." KSF argues said claim is subject to dismissal, for the asserted reason that "California does not recognize a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment." Judge Chesney construes Nacarino's Sixth Claim for Relief as a standalone equitable claim, but nonetheless finds the claim subject to dismissal, given Nacarino's failure to plausibly allege she lacks an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the Sixth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Nacarino's Seventh Claim for Relief is titled "Common Law Fraud." KSF contends, Nacarino's common law fraud claim is subject to dismissal "for the same reasons as her CLRA, UCL and FAL claims," namely, Nacarino's failure to "plausibly establish a false representation." Judge Chesney holds that the Protein Representation is not a false affirmation of fact, but rather an ambiguous description of the Product's protein content, which can be clarified by reference to the corresponding disclosures on the instructions panel and/or Nutrition Facts panel. Consequently, while the Protein Representation may be "couched in a manner" sufficient to support a claim under the CLRA, it does not rise to the level of an express misstatement necessary to support a fraud claim. Accordingly, Nacarino's Seventh Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. For the reasons stated, Judge Chesney grants in part and denies in part KSF's motion to dismiss. To the extent Nacarino, by her First Claim for Relief, seeks damages, the motion is denied. In all other respects, the motion is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n888b99 from Leagle.com. L'OREAL USA: Shampoo Product Contains Benzene, Hirsch Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- EILEEN HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06569 (N.D. Il., Nov. 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit regarding the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of Redken brand dry shampoo products (the "Products") that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the Defendant did not disclose the actual or potential presence of benzene in its dry shampoo products on the Products' labeling, advertising, marketing, or sale of the Products. Not only would Plaintiff not have purchased the Defendant's Products at all had she known the Products contained or risked containing benzene, she would not have been capable of purchasing them if Defendant had done as the law required and tested the Products for benzene and other carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and impurities, because the Products would have been deemed adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell, says the Plaintiff. L'OREAL USA, INC. manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums. L'Oreal has worldwide operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-Mail: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Stengl Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT J. STENGL, DANIEL WILL, RONALD F. KOSEWICZ, GARY K. COLLEY, LESLIE D. DIAZ, AMAYA JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. MCKINLEY and JOHN KARIPAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30., Case No. 6:22-cv-00572-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action; 2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class defined as: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the L3 Technologies Master Savings Plan, and either (i) paid recordkeeping and administration fees at any time from November 23, 2015 through July 1, 2018; or (ii) were invested in allegedly imprudent investment options from November 23, 2015 through December 31, 2019; and 3. appointing their counsel, Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege claims under ERISA section 502(a)(2) for breaches of fiduciary duty of the type routinely certified in this Circuit and courts throughout the country. L3Harris is an American technology company, defense contractor, and information technology services provider that produces C6ISR systems and products, and wireless equipment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UfJ6wB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: Markg@capozziadler.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: Donr@capozziadler.com - and - Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Telephone: (954) 324-3651 Facsimile: (954) 248-2099 E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com LENOVO INC: Dinwiddle Sues Over Defective Desktop Products ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSH DINWIDDIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00218 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2022) alleges violation of the consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells the Legion T5 28IMB05 desktop computer under the Lenovo brand ("Product"). Consumers expect a computer represented - directly or indirectly - as capable of functioning reliably, not freezing or crashing, and running smoothly during operation, to act as promised, especially when it is marketed to have an Intel Core i5 2.90 GHz processor, 8 GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1 TB HDD storage, 256 GB SSD, and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 graphic card. The Defendant makes representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading. The Product suffered frequent and severe freezing and crashing, significantly interrupting the use of the Product. Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says the suit. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1,999.00, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit alleges. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. operates as a software and hardware reseller. The Company offers desktops, laptops, ultrabooks, tablets, monitors, printers, servers, and workstations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehanm Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com LLOYD AUSTIN: Alvarado Loses Bid for Preliminary Injunction ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL ALVARADO, et al., V. LLOYD AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00876-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Trenga entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction; and 2. dismissing the Complaint sua sponte for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction based on non-justiciability. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to enjoin (1) the Directive's implementation, (2) Defendants' purported retaliation, (3) any punitive or administrative action from being taken against Plaintiffs, and (4) compliance with various statutory and constitutional provisions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GXu63gat no extra charge.[CC] LLOYD AUSTIN: Suit Seeks to Certify Army Service Member Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00049-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "all Army service members (to include active and reserve members, and Army National Guard, and all inductees and appointees of the Army) who: (i) submitted or had pending a religious accommodation request to the Army regarding the Army's COVID-19 vaccination requirement, on or before the date of class certification; (ii) were confirmed as having had a sincerely held religious belief substantially burdened by the Army's COVID-19 vaccination requirement by or through an Army Chaplain; and (iii) have not had their religious accommodation request granted." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court enter an order appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as provided in the tendered proposed order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OLtNdLat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Facsimile: (859) 495-0803 E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Thomas Bruns, Esq. BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC 4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 330 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 312-9890 E-mail: tbruns@bcvalaw.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523–1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com LOS GATOS: Faces Guaillas Suit Over General Workers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO GUAILLAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. LOS GATOS 2 NEW & USED TIRES, CORP., and RIGOBERTO FUENTES VARGAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07059 (E.D.N.Y., November 19, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general worker at the Defendants' tire shop from approximately August 2021 to, through and including the present date. The Plaintiff asserts that the he and other similarly situated general workers worked more than 40 hours per week throughout their employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid them a flat salary rate for all hours worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate wage statements that state the correct gross wages or deductions from the correct gross wages. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep records of the hours they worked, and failed to post notice regarding their wages, says the Plaintiff. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated general workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unpaid wages for failure to pay timely wages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interests, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Los Gatos 2 New & Used Tires, Corp. operates a tire shop owned by Rigoberto Fuentes Vargas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com MANDARICH LAW: Henriquez Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTOPHER HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017173 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, November 18, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent two collection letters to the Plaintiff on or about September 22, 2022 in an attempt to collect an alleged Consumer Debts incurred by the Plaintiff from unsecured lines of credit that the original creditors, Credit One Bank, N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., extended to him primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Accordingly, LVNV Funding LLC is the current creditor o both the Consumer Debts. However, the Defendant's collections letters failed to identify the names of the creditors to whom the Consumer Debts were owed on the itemization dates, specifically on March 9, 2021 for the Credit One Bank, N.A. account and March 17, 2021 (for the Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. account. As such, by failing to identify in the Collection Letter the name of the creditors to whom the Consumer Debts were owed, the Defendant has violated Section 1006.34 of Reg F, Section 1692e of the FDCPA, Section 1692f of the FDCPA, and Section 1692g of the FDCPA, says the suit. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief that the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Mandarich Law Group, LLP is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jenniger G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com MASONITE CORP: Shugars Seeks to Recover Untimely Wage Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SHUGARS and JAMES LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASONITE CORPORATION and MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01237-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), seek to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions including fork lift operators, machine operators, material handlers, painters, general laborers, assemblers, stockers, and similarly situated hourly warehouse workers under the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed as forklift operators at Defendants' manufacturing plant located in Kirkwood, New York. They asserts that despite being manual workers, the Defendants have allegedly failed to properly pay them and other Warehouse Workers their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. The Plaintiffs, individually, also bring an action for wrongful termination under NYLL for their illegal termination due to positive THC drug tests in violation of the recently enacted New York Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act. Masonite is a leading global designer, manufacturer, marketer and distributor of interior and exterior doors for the construction and repair, renovation and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief in Ponce Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL PONCE, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC., an Illinois corporation; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited partnership, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00531-FWS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Medline applies ex parte for an order granting it leave to file a Sur-Reply to Plaintiff Maribel Ponce's Reply in support of motion for class certification ("Reply Brief"). This application is necessary to correct factual misrepresentations, and to address new evidence and new arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief,the suit says. This Ex Parte Application for leave to file a Sur-Reply is made pursuant to Rule 7-19 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Medline says that it should be granted leave to respond via a sur-reply to plaintiff's reply brief containing new arguments and new evidence. in her reply brief, the Plaintiff makes factual misrepresentations, raises new arguments and submits new evidence -- for the first time -- that were never raised in the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. To protect Medline's due process rights to present a complete record of the issues and applicable law, and to provide the Court with an adequate record upon which to base its decision, the Court should grant them leave to file its Sur-Reply, Medline adds. Medline manufactures and distributes health care supplies. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GUTHtIat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Perko, Esq LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO 26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 390-4442 Facsimile: (949) 916-1039 E-mail: jack@jackperkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. Jannine E. Kranz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: sgroode@littler.com jkranz@littler.com MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Parties Ask More Time for Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIE PETREA, v. MIDNIGHT EXPRESS AUTO RECOVERY, INC., STACEY WILLETTE, and TONY WILLETTE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00415-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Parties move for an Order extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification, Judicial Notice, and Equitable Tolling. The Plaintiff filed her Certification Motion on October 5, 2022. Currently, pursuant to this Court's Order dated October 18, 2022. The Defendants' response to the Certification Motion is due on November 25, 2022. The Parties are actively exploring the prospect of settling and resolving the dispute, and have made substantial progress toward settlement since filing their first Consent Motion for an Extension of Time. Consequently, the Parties consent and jointly request that the Court extend Defendants' deadline to file their response to the Certification Motion to December 9, 2022, to allow the Parties to finalize settlement terms and resolve the dispute. Plaintiff will then have until December 23, 2022 to file a reply to Defendants' response. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov.. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UgDWArat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 The Defendants are represented by: Kristina H. Vaquera, Esq. Shaun M. Bennett, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 500 E. Main Street, Suite 800 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 648-1445 Facsimile: (757) 648-1418 E-mail: kristina.vaquera@jacksonlewis.com shaun.bennett@jacksonlewis.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Baleja Appeals Pension Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BALEJA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled John Baleja, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February 7, 2017, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for alleged 44.2% reduction in his monthly pension benefit. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was supposed to receive a monthly benefit of $1,066.80 under his Single Life Annuity effective December 15, 2015. However, he received a Pension Calculation Statement dated January 25, 2016 indicating that he was to receive only $595.46. On October 18, 2022, the Defendants filed a request for entry of judgment and dismissal of the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jesus G. Bernal on October 19, 2022. The appellate case is captioned John Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp., et al., Case No. 22-56042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 9, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant John Baleja Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 16, 2022; -- Appellant John Baleja opening brief is due on February 16, 2023; -- Appellees Does, Northrop Grumman Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan answering brief is due on March 20, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN BALEJA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Dana Erin Berkowitz, Esq. Elizabeth Rogers Brannen, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. Peter K. Stris, Esq. STRIS & MAHER, LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 - and - Shaun Martin, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-4600 Defendants-Appellees NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE AND MISSION SYSTEMS CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN, et al. are represented by: Mark Yun Chen, Esq. Mitchell Aaron Kamin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 332-4774 OPENDOOR TECH: Faces VEBA Securities Suit Over 88.61% Share Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, and the Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01987-GMS (D. Ariz., Nov. 22, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or acquired Opendoor securities and common stock, pursuing claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933: -- Opendoor securities between December 21, 2020 and September 16, 2022; -- Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the December 2020 Offering Documents; -- Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the February 2021 SPO Documents; and/or -- Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the September 2021 SPO Documents. On September 15, 2020, the Company, then still operating as SCH, and Legacy Opendoor, announced their entry into a definitive agreement for the Merger, which valued Legacy Opendoor at an enterprise value of $4.8 billion. Following the Merger, the Company has operated a digital platform for buying and selling residential real estate in the U.S. In February of 2021, the Company offered for sale to the public a total of 32,817,421 shares of its common stock pursuant to the February 2021 SPO Documents. These shares were sold to the public at an offering price of $27.00 per share. In February of 2022, Opendoor announced massive losses which began to reveal to investors that its Algorithm failed to live up to the representations Opendoor made in the Offering Documents and throughout the Class Period. Then, on September 19, 2022, citing a review of industry data, Bloomberg reported that the Company appeared to have lost money on 42 percent of its transactions in August 2022. Following the Bloomberg report, Opendoor's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 12.32 percent, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $3.56 per share on September 20, 2022-an 88.61 percent decline from the Company's first post-Merger closing stock price of $31.25 per share on December 21, 2020, says the suit. The Defendants include Eric Wu, Carrie Wheeler, Chamath Palihapitiya, Steven Trieu, Ian Osborne, Adam Bain, David Spillane, Cipora Herman, Pueo Keffer, Glenn Solomon, Jason Kilar, Jonathan Jaffe, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., BTIG, LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Wedbush Securities Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC, Zelman Partners LLC, Academy Securities, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC, and SVF Excalibur (Cayman) Limited. Opendoor was formerly known as SCH and operated as a SPAC, also called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com - and - Aaron L. Castle, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. Detroit, Michigan 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com PACIFIC GRAIN: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Hearing OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA L. SALCEDO v. PACIFIC GRAIN & FOODS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00640-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order granting stipulation to continue hearing on motion to certify class. The Plaintiff initiated this action on May 27, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which is currently set for hearing on December 12, 2022. On November 23, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue the hearing on the motion to certify the class and to extend the briefing deadlines. The parties proffer they are currently conferring and considering whether to attend mediation to save time and costs. The opposition to the motion to certify class shall be filed and served no later than February 1, 2023; Any reply briefing shall be filed and served no later than February 8, 2023; and The parties shall file a joint status report no later than December 13, 2022, with respect to whether they are attending mediation. Pacific Grain supplies food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GY8NP0 at no extra charge.[CC] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Faces Larkin Suit Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY LARKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETER GYENES; RICHARD JONES; CHRISTOPHER LAFOND; DIANNE LEDINGHAM; SHARON ROWLANDS; ALAN TREFLER; LARRY WEBER; KENNETH STILLWELL; and PEGASYSTEMS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11985-PGL (D. Mass., Nov. 21, 2022) is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Pegasystems against certain officers and directors of Pegasystems for breaches of their fiduciary duties in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose the case filed by Appian Corporation against Pegasystems to investors. Instead, Pegasystems misleadingly assured investors that litigation from unnamed competitors could arise at some unspecified time in the future, and indicated that Pegasystems prohibited the exact tactics it used against Appian Corporation. On May 9, 2022, after a seven-week trial, a jury unanimously decided in Appian's favor and found that the Company misappropriated Appian's trade secrets. The jury awarded damages of over $2 billion against Pegasystems and found that the Company acted willfully and maliciously, which entitled Appian to seek tens of millions of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Following the news of the jury verdict, the Company's stock price fell nearly twenty-one percent. On May 11, 2022, the stock price fell an additional eight percent when analysts cut their price targets for the Company. On September 16, 2022, the Company announced that a final judgment was entered in the Appian Action, which affirmed the jury verdict, and that the Company was ordered to pay Appian more than $23.6 million in attorneys' fees and costs, as well as post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 6%. Following this news, the Company's stock price fell another nearly six percent on both September 16 and September 19, 2022, the suit alleges. As a result of the foregoing, a securities fraud class action was filed against the Company, Individual Defendant Trefler, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Kenneth Stillwell ("Stillwell"), captioned City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Ret. Sys. v. Pegasystems Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11220-WGY (D. Mass.) (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action has exposed the Company to massive class-wide liability, the suit further asserts. PEGASYSTEMS INC. develops customer relationship management software. The Company automates customer interactions across transaction-intensive enterprises. Pegasystems provides its products to customers in the banking, mutual funds and securities, mortgage services, card services, insurance, healthcare management, and telecommunications industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Telephone: (781) 453-0100 Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Vincent A. Licata, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com PHH MORTGAGE: Summers Suit Removed From State Court to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT AND KIM SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. MON-L-002746-22 (Oct. 7, 2022) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Law Division to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 22, 2022. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06726 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violation of the regulations and guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. PHH Mortgage provides mortgage financing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Hanratty, Esq. 57 West Main Street Freehold, NJ 07728 E-mail: thanratty@centralnewjerseybankruptcylawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. Braunstein, Esq. P. Russell Perdew, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP One Gateway Center, 26th Floor, Suite 18 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 520-2300 E-mail: andrew.braunstein@lockelord.com rperdew@lockelord.com PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION: Matthews Sues Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- NEQUAVA MATTHEWS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR AGING, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04632 (E.D. Penn., November 18, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful compensation policies in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an OAPS Investigator from approximately January 2020 until approximately August 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated OAPS investigators regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff often worked 45 hours per week and on some weeks, he worked over 55 hours. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated OAPS investigators, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and pre-judgment interest, liquidated damages to the fullest extent permitted under the FLSA, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Philadelphia Corporation for Aging contracts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or the City of Philadelphia to provide an "Older Adult Protective Services (OAPS) team" that "helps to detect, prevent and protect older Philadelphians from all forms of abuse."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twinning Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 PRECISION DYNAMICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Iske Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE ISKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02624-B (N.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Iske was employed by the Defendant as product sales trainer. PRECISION DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, LLC is an automotive company providing fine blanking and stamping. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryl J. Sinkulem, Esq. KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC Kilgore Law Center 3141 Hood Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 969-9099 Facsimile: (214) 379-0843 Email: djs@kilgorelaw.com PROAMPAC LLC: Jackson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEMY JACKSON, ROBERTO PEREZ, and RAYMUNDO GALLARDO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals, v. ProAmpac LLC a/k/a ProAmpac, and Ampac Holdco Inc. a/k/a ProAmpac, Case No. 7:22-cv-03120-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. directing the disclosure of contact information of similarly-situated individuals; and 3. approving notice to be sent to those similarly-situated. ProAmpac offers adhesive lamination, metallizing, rotogravure printing, pouching, extrusion coating and lamination, bag conveting, and film extrusion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3u574jkat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Kakalec, Esq. Hugh Baran, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 195 Montague Street, 14 th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com Hugh@KakalecLaw.com - and - Robert McCreanor, Esq. RDMC LEGAL 245 Saw Mill River Road Suite 106 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Telephone: (845) 202-1833 E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com QUICK BOX: Court Extends Class Certification Briefing in Tan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., CHAD BIGGINS, v.LA PURA DEFENDANTS and JOHN DOES 1-10, as defined in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order granting ex parte application to extend class certification briefing pending ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. 1. All deadlines established in the modified class certification briefing schedule are vacated; and 2. A new class certification briefing schedule will be set after the Court rules on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Given the record before the Court, it appears that Defendants moved expeditiously in filing their Ex Parte Application upon recognizing the need for action to ensure that the Motion for Leave to Amend was evaluated before filing an opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause to modify the class certification briefing schedule pursuant to Rule 16. The Defendants state that if the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, then the "earlier class certification order is rendered moot." The Defendants allege that Plaintiff's proposed SAC "could change the complexion of the case." Conversely, the Plaintiff opposes the Ex Parte Application on the ground that the request is being made to seek more time "to harass Plaintiff's counsel" during informal discovery proceedings. The Plaintiff further claims that the amendments to the complaint do not affect the class certification motion. On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendants alleging various federal and state law claims. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class Certification with a motion to file documents under seal. Following the Motion for Class Certification, the parties jointly moved to modify the briefing schedule. On November 1, 2022, the Court entered an order modifying the class certification schedule and enlarging the page limits. On November 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint with a motion to file documents under seal. Both the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint have yet to be fully briefed. On November 11, 2022, the Defendants filed the instant Ex Parte Application to vacate the dates provided in the Court's class certification briefing schedule and extend the class certification briefing schedule in this Court pending the resolution of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ug23iLat no extra charge.[CC] RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Scharf Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- RIVKA SCHARF, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 533996/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 21, 2022) seeks damages as a result of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which, inter alia, prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. In its effort to collect an alleged debt, RGS contacted the Plaintiff in writing, including by collection letter dated Nov. 25, 2021. The Letter claims that Plaintiff owed $1,755.11. The Defendant did not clearly, accurately, and without ambiguity convey, from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the actual amount of the alleged Debt as required by 15 U.S.C., the lawsuit says. RGS is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara s. McCabe, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Jonathan M. Cader, Esq. SANDERS LAW GROUP 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 402 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 203 7624 Facsimile: (516) 282 7878 E-mail: lmccabe@sanderslaw.group RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Fox Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant moves the Court for a leave to file under seal certain exhibits to its Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and an unredacted version of its Opposition because they contain or discuss highly confidential information subject to the Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties agreed to and this Court approved the Stipulated Protective Order, which controls the handling of confidential information in this matter. During the course of discovery, the parties have designated certain materials as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Stipulated Protective Order. The Defendant seeks leave to file the following under seal: a. The Declaration of Katrina Fleming ("Fleming Declaration"), which Defendant designated as "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on the grounds it contains non-public, proprietary, and highly sensitive commercial and financial information, including trade secrets, that could reasonably be expected to result in injury to Defendant if it were disclosed. b. The Declaration of Regina Harward, which the Defendant designated as "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on the grounds it contains non-public, proprietary, and highly sensitive commercial and financial information, including trade secrets. c. The November 2017 Local Standard Operating Procedures, which Defendant designated as "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on the grounds it contains non-public, proprietary, and highly sensitive commercial and financial information, including trade secrets. d. The December 2020 Bleu Standard Operating Procedures ("Bleu SOP") attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Obdulio Jimenez, which Defendant designated as "Confidential" pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Stipulated Protective Order, on the grounds it contains non-public, proprietary, and highly sensitive commercial and financial information, including trade secrets. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is an American multinational company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AXluG9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Peter F. Valori, Esq. DAMIAN & VALORI LLP 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-3960 Facsimile: (305) 371-3965 E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com - and - Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Alexander D. Terepka, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com aterepka@kcozlaw.com SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Nunez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yugely Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 534038/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendant's Website contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products on it. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff tried to purchase a product on the Website, but the Access Barriers encountered on the Website would not allow herself to purchase a product, i.e., Nuna RAVA Convertible Car Seat, which Plaintiff was, and still is interested in purchasing for her nephew, the suit says. Accordingly, the screen reader had the below problems due to the Website's accessibility issues: Website is not properly coded to allow a customer using a screen reader to navigate the Website with the keyboard. The screen reader fails to read many elements on the webpage, due to the fact that they do not contain proper names. The Website fails to have titles on many of its webpages, making it difficult for the Plaintiff to understand where she is on the Website. The screen reader failed to read many of the products names or provide information about the products. The screen reader starts reading everything on a webpage, as soon as it loads, regardless of whether Plaintiff wants it to or not. As a result of the existence of these access barriers, the Plaintiff was repeatedly denied full and equal access to Defendant's Website. These access barriers impede Plaintiff's ability to navigate the Website and complete a purchase. Seahorse Enterprises is an online retail company that sells baby clothing, toys, nursery items, and gear through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com SERVICE KING: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefing by Dec. 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERVICE KING, INC., a California corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and DOES 2 through 100,Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order that the Parties file any supplemental briefing by no later than December 21, 2022. Service King is an automotive collision repair company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov.. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iknwcZat no extra charge.[CC] SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Teamsters Appeals Judgment to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND is taking an appeal from court orders granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and the dismissal of the lawsuit entitled Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02553, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of ServiceMaster common stock between February 26, 2019, and November 4, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against ServiceMaster and its most senior executives. According to the complaint, the Defendants assured investors during the Class Period that ServiceMaster was successfully executing its transformation plan for the Terminix business and that results in the segment would drive positive trends in the second half of 2019. Behind the scenes, however, the Terminix business had been beset by costly termite litigation for the past several years, primarily related to Formosan activity in Mobile, Alabama. The Formosan termite is an invasive termite species native to Southern China. Not only had damage from Formosan termite infestations materially impacted ServiceMaster's results and operations, but, unbeknownst to investors, the Company had been taking measures to mitigate this trend since at least early 2018. These undisclosed adverse facts rendered the Defendants' positive Class Period statements regarding the Company's Terminix business materially false and misleading. On August 12, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on March 31, 2022. On May 25, 2022, the Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. In their joint motion, the Defendants seek the dismissal of the Plaintiff's "scheme liability" claim for the same flaw that required the dismissal of the misrepresentation claim. On October 5, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has not pointed to any additional fact or new development of law to show why the Court should reach one result for the misrepresentation claims and a different result for the scheme liability claims. Without more to show why the Court should take divergent views of the scienter issue, the Defendants' motion is granted. The appellate case is captioned Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund v. ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-5981, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 4, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Defendants-Appellees SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., are represented by: Samuel Carter, Esq. BUTLER SNOW 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 680-7200 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Modifies Class Cert Deadlines in Refuerzo ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order modifying class certification deadlines as follows: -- Further Case Management Conference: January 26, 2023 -- Deadline to Move for Class March 14, 2023 Certification: -- Opposition: May 9, 2023 -- Reply: June 27, 2023 -- Hearing: July 27, 2023 Southwest Airlines is one of the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest low-cost carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OMnkzuat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason M. Erlich, Esq. ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C. 180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380 Oakland CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 390-9140 Facsimile: (510) 369-3876 E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com - and - Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com The Defendant is represented by: Annie Lau, Esq. Megan F. Clark, Esq. Kevin L. Quan, Esq. Daniel Farrington, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com mclark@fisherphillips.com kquan@fisherphillips.com dfarrington@fisherphillips.com SPERO FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Nunez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Yugely Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPERO FOODS, INC., Case No. 534039/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendant's Website contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products on it. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On August 21, 2022, October 3, 2022, and October 12, 2022, Ms. Nunez browsed and attempted to transact business on Defendant's Website. Mr. Nunez used the NVDA screen-reader when she tried to access the Website. Ms. Nunez tried to purchase a product on the Website, but the Access Barriers encountered on the Website would not allow herself to purchase a product, i.e., the Original Cream Cheese, which she was, and still is interested in purchasing for her nephews, says the suit. Accordingly, the screen reader had the below problems due to the Website's accessibility issues: The screen reader fails to say whether a product is available for purchase. The Website is coded so that screen reader users cannot navigate it using a keyboard, as some items can only be accessed using a mouse. While on one product's webpage, the screen reader will start to give information about a different product without any explanation as to why it is doing so. The screen reader fails to describe images on the Website. When a webpage loads, the screen reader immediately starts to read everything on that Webpage, regardless of whether Plaintiff wants it to or not. As a result of the existence of these access barriers, the Ms. Nunez was repeatedly denied full and equal access to Defendant's Website. These access barriers impede the Plaintiffs ability to navigate the Website and complete a purchase. As a result of the access barriers, she was repeatedly denied, on each of her visits, the opportunity to purchase and to obtain the full enjoyment of the Original Cream Cheese and the other plant-based dairy alternatives, the suit added. Spero Foods is an online retail company that sells plant-based cheeses through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com SUMMIT HEALTH: Reyes Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ANA MARTINEZ REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09916 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2022) seeks to recover all amounts the Plaintiff and the Class have paid to Summit Health for an "Office Visit" that was, in actuality, a COVID test, and to enjoin Summit Health from, and require it to cause CityMD to cease, any further efforts to collect from the Plaintiff and the Class the portion of its $300 "Office Visit" their insurers did not pay. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, Summit Health has improperly circumvented, or caused CityMD to improperly circumvent, the Family First Coronavirus Response Act and Cares Act, which were enacted to, among other things, provide for free COVID Tests to the public, and taken monetary advantage of consumers' widespread knowledge and belief that, by virtue of these laws, they would receive free COVID tests. Ignorant that their insureds actually had COVID tests, for which the insureds were not required to pay anything, the insured health insurance companies processed the claims as ordinary medical non-Covid related claims and when the insureds had co-pays and deductibles, it did not pay the full amount to Summit Health or CityMD, both of which, then, billed the consumers for all of the amounts not paid by the insurers. As a consequence of the scheme, notwithstanding that they should have had no financial responsibility for their COVID tests, Summit Health has aggressively been seeking to collect from Plaintiff and the Class the amount of the "Office Visit" charges their insurers did not pay, says the suit. SUMMIT MANAGEMENT, LLC was founded in 2006. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Janet Walsh, Esq. Francesca Iacovangelo, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 838-3333 Email: jwalsh@lockslaw.com fiacovangelo@lockslaw.com SUTTER VALLEY: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION ("SVMF"), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), SVMF will move the Court for an order striking, or, in the alternative, staying deadlines associated with Plaintiff Kristeena Tinnin's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant submits this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff's Motion for Certification is procedurally improper because it disregards the Court's Order deferring setting scheduling deadlines until after the Court resolves the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and its Standing Order, as Plaintiff failed to meet and confer on the basis of the Motion or certify that they did so. SVMF offers urgent care, physical therapy, radiology, health tips, research and clinical trials, ebola update, as well as hospital management services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VgMWGPat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. Teresa W. Ghali, Esq. Amanda Osowski, Esq. GBG LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: tomgeidt@gbgllp.com teresaghali@gbgllp.com amandaosowski@gbgllp.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Valiente Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHEL VALIENTE, ASHRAF AIAD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situate, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-55456 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision dismissing the underlying class action lawsuit. In 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) decided to preempt California's meal and rest break rules (MRB rules) with respect to truck drivers subject to federal regulations. In International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Ninth Circuit held that the agency's decision was a lawful exercise of its power under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA). It left open, however, the question whether the preemption decision bars the Plaintiffs from proceeding with lawsuits that commenced before the decision was made. It answers that question in the affirmative. Plaintiffs Valiente and Aiad are former hourly truck drivers for the Defendant. On Oct. 16, 2018, before the agency issued the preemption decision, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Swift alleging violations of California's MRB rules and derivative state-law claims. After the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in International Brotherhood, the district court called for supplemental briefing on whether the preemption decision affected the Plaintiffs' claims. After briefing, the court held that, in the wake of the FMCSA's determination, it "had no authority to enforce the regulations upon which the Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims rest." Because the entirety of the Plaintiffs' suit depended on the preempted MRB rules, the district court sua sponte granted summary judgment to Swift in all respects and dismissed the suit. The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Whether a statute or agency decision applies retroactively is a question of law that it also reviews de novo. The Plaintiffs argue that the presumption against retroactive application of laws operates to allow their lawsuit to proceed despite the FMCSA's preemption of California's MRB rules. Swift, for its part, argues that the plain language of both the MCSA and the preemption decision bar continuation of the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit's analysis of these arguments is guided by the retroactivity test set forth in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263-64, 280 (1994). In Landgraf, the Supreme Court provided a framework for reconciling any tension between two general rules: first, that "a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," and second, that "retroactivity is not favored in the law" due to considerations of "fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations." Applying the Landgraf test is not always straightforward, the Ninth Circuit holds. Any test of retroactivity will leave room for disagreement in hard cases. Because Congress intended for the FMCSA to have the power to halt enforcement of state laws, and because the FMCSA intended for this particular preemption determination to apply to pending lawsuits, the FMCSA's decision prohibits present enforcement of California's MRB rules regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred. The Ninth Circuit opines that the preemption context is thus different from other circumstances under which statutes and agency rules are created, amended, or eliminated. For instance, in Martin v. Hadix, cited by Plaintiffs at oral argument, a new statute set a "substantive limit" on the award of attorney's fees, and there was no "unambiguous directive" -- indeed there was no directive at all -- to apply either the new version of the statute or the old one. In the present case, on the contrary, Congress has explicitly given the FMCSA authority to void state laws, and the Ninth Circuit has upheld the FMCSA's decision to do so with respect to California's MRB rules. The Ninth Circuit concludes that it need not reach the second step of the Landgraf analysis: Congress and the FMCSA have spoken with a clear voice in prohibiting enforcement of California's MRB rules. Allowing the Plaintiffs to move forward with their claims would require the Ninth Circuit to act in opposition to that decree. The district court's decision dismissing this suit is therefore affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Oopinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cy8ucuk from Leagle.com. Deepak Gupta (argued) -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- and Gregory A. Beck -- greg@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.; James R. Hawkins -- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- and Gregory Mauro -- greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC, Irvine, California; Stanley D. Saltzman , Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Agoura Hill, California; Louis M. Benowitz -- louis@benowitzlaw.com -- Smith & Benowitz, Sherman Oaks, California; Joshua Cohen Slatkin , Law Offices for Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Los Angeles, California, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Paul S. Cowie (argued) -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert E. Mussig -- rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- and John D. Ellis -- jellis@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, San Francisco, California, for the Defendant-Appellee. Richard Pianka, ATA Litigation Center, Arlington, Virginia, for Amici Curiae American Trucking Associations Inc. and California Trucking Association. TAKEDA PHARMA: Dec. 22 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03500-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order denying the Plaintiffs motion to amend without prejudice to moving for class certification no later than December 22, 2022 addressing evidence not adduced at the time of our November 1, 2022 hearing (but not by way of reconsideration of today’s Order and Memorandum denying the pending Motion for class certification) as well as the remaining Rule 23 requirements. Takeda is a research pharmaceutical company. Par Pharmaceutical develops and manufactures generic pharmaceutical products. Watson manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company with headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel. Amneal is an American publicly traded generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov.. 25, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3FagrVqat no extra charge.[CC] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug's Bid for Class Cert. Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Civil Action No. 21-3500 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies Value Drug's motion for class certification without prejudice. A colchicine purchaser claims the brand name manufacturer and three generic colchicine manufacturers violated antitrust law by conspiring to maintain higher prices for brand name and generic colchicine through three separate agreements signed within a few months of each other to settle pending patent litigations shortly before trials. Physicians prescribe colchicine to treat gout and Familial Mediterranean Fever. Unapproved and unbranded colchicine products have long been on the market. The United States did not approve or regulate a patented branded colchicine until the last 13 years. The Food and Drug Administration announced the Unapproved Drugs Initiative in 2006 to bring previously marketed non-FDA approved drugs like colchicine into the approval process to encourage clinical trials of medicines predating federal regulation for safety and effectiveness. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., a subsidiary of United Research Laboratories, Inc., sought approval of its 0.6mg colchicine tablet in response to the Unapproved Drugs Initiative. The FDA approved its brand name Colcrys as the first pharmaceutical product containing colchicine as the sole active ingredient on July 29, 2009. It granted a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity for colchicine to United Research. United Research launched its brand Colcrys in late 2009. Takeda became the first company able to obtain marketing exclusivity for brand Colcrys when it bought United Research in 2012. It holds 17 patents for Colcrys which allegedly only covered methods of administering colchicine and not the colchicine itself. Takeda charged 5,733.33% over the 2006 price of colchicine and controlled nearly 100% of sales of single-ingredient colchicine tablets by May 2014. Takeda's seven-year marketing exclusivity ended July 29, 2016 after which competitors could manufacture and market AB-rated generic colchicine. Generic drug companies attempt to bring an AB-rated generic form of a drug once a brand drug comes to market by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the Food and Drug Administration. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. obtained tentative FDA approval for its Abbreviated New Drug Application in February 2015. Hikma International Pharmaceuticals LLC received FDA approval and launched colchicine capsules under the brand name Mitigare on Oct. 1, 2014. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Watson Laboratories, Inc. obtained tentative FDA approval in October 2015 and September 2016 respectively. Non-party Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic colchicine approval in September 2016. Takeda sued the generic company filers for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. It first sued Par in August 2013 before suing Amneal and Watson. It sued Hikma for patent infringement on Oct. 3, 2014, alleging the brand name colchicine capsules Mitigare infringed on five of its Colcrys patents. It sued Alkem, Zydus, Dr. Reddy, Mylan, Granules, Hetero, Aurobindo, and Strides for patent infringement after each generic received FDA final approval of their Abbreviated New Drug Application between 2016 and 2018. Takeda agreed non-party Prasco could market, distribute, and sell authorized generic colchicine during the pendency of the patent suits in January 2015. It received substantial royalties from Prasco's sales. Takeda lost profitability on its brand Colcrys with the addition of a generic colchicine on the market. Takeda settles with Par on on Nov. 24, 2015 and with Watson, and Amneal two months (in early 2016) after it settled with Par. Takeda settled its patent infringement claims against Mylan in November 2017, approximately 18 months after Judge Andrews granted Hikma's motion to dismiss Takeda's patent infringement counterclaim. It again sued Mylan for patent infringement in the District of Delaware in December 2019 when it entered the generic colchicine market. Judge Andrews denied Takeda's request for a preliminary injunction in January 2020. Mylan reentered the market on March 25, 2020 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Andrews' denial of the preliminary injunction on July 31, 2020. Mylan's November 2019 entry and 2020 re-entry triggered the "escape clause" in Par, Amneal, and Watson's settlement agreements allowing them to immediately enter the Colcrys market. Value Drug directly purchased Colcrys brand colchicine tablets and AB-rated generic versions of colchicine from Prasco and Par between July 29, 2016 and Dec. 1, 2020. Value Drug, for itself and similarly situated colchicine purchasers, sued Takeda, Watson/Teva, Amneal, and Par on Aug. 5, 2021 for entering a conspiracy "to restrict output and restrain competition" by preventing AB-rated generics of colchicine tablets from coming to market. Value Drug alleges this conspiracy restrained generic competition, caused inflated prices, and allowed Takeda and Par to earn larger profits until other generic competitors launched in 2020. It alleges the conspiracy compelled it and the other proposed Class members to pay "artificially inflated prices for their requirements for Colcrys tablets." Value Drug initially alleged two claims against Takeda and the three generics -- conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and conspiracy to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2 -- and one claim for monopolization against Takeda only in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2. The brand and generics moved to dismiss for failure to plead antitrust injury. The Court dismissed Value Drug's claims alleging Takeda, Par, Watson, and Amneal conspired to restrain trade and monopolize the market on the eve of Par's trial with Takeda in November 2015. Value Drug amended. The brand and generics again moved to dismiss for failure to plead antitrust injury. The Court denied their Motion to dismiss but granted the Motion to dismiss as to Value Drug's claim Takeda separately conspired with each Par, Watson, and Amneal individually to order the market and restrict output (three separate bilateral conspiracies). The single horizontal conspiracy claim among Takeda, Par, Watson, and Amneal is pending before the Court with a discovery close in a month and trial set for March 2023. The parties engaged in substantial discovery often leading to discovery disputes. The Court appointed the Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie (Ret.) as Special Discovery Master on March 15, 2022 with the parties' consent. The parties have had ample opportunity for discovery and filed numerous discovery Motions referred to Judge Vanaskie. The Court approved and adopted 29 Special Master Recommended Orders from Judge Vanaskie to date. The parties' discovery deadline is Dec. 22, 2022. Value Drug now asks to add the other Colcrys purchasers to the case as absent class members. It moves to certify a class before the close of discovery and before adducing expert testimony on the likelihood of Takeda losing the patent infringement suit. It moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) seeking to certify a class of approximately 50 purchasers of brand and generic colchicine tablets seeking to recover overcharges for inflated prices for Colcrys tablets because of an antitrust conspiracy "to stave off a 'third wave' of Abbreviated New Drug Application filers for as long as possible to prevent incremental price decrease thereby reducing each sellers' market share and profits" in the Colcrys market. Value Drug claim co-conspirators include Takeda and generic-brands competitors Par, Amneal, and Watson. Value Drug admittedly bases its arguments almost entirely on the expert opinions of economist Russell L. Lamb, PhD to show the alleged conspiracy resulted in overcharges for brand and generic colchicine for purchasers across the country. It attempts to use Dr. Lamb's two "but-for" scenarios to establish antitrust impact and damages for certification. Dr. Lamb concludes the conspiracy injured all or nearly all proposed Class members because they paid higher prices than they otherwise would have because of the delayed and ordered entry of multi-source competition for generic colchicine. He calculated $1.2 billion in aggregate damage under "but-for" Scenario 1 and $772.3 million in aggregate damages under "but-for" Scenario 2. Value Drug's theory of antitrust impact and damages relies on Dr. Lamb's conclusions. Takeda, Amneal, and Watson counter with expert opinions from Dr. Bruce Strombom. He primarily opines Dr. Lamb premised his analysis on assumed but-for scenarios lacking economic and factual support, Dr. Lamb's reliance on academic literature, forecasts, and averages fails to establish antitrust injury, and his methodology for determining class wide overcharges is unreliable. Judge Kearney vigorously analyzes Value Drug's theory of antitrust impact for both plausibility and evidentiary support. He finds that Value Drug has not shown a plausible basis convincing the Court common issues predominate over individual issues and it has not produced evidence supporting its theory of antitrust impact. Judge Kearney explains that Value Drug relies on an expert opinion from a qualified economist to show antitrust impact across all similarly situated colchicine purchasers. The economist assumes facts based on Value Drug's counsel's proffered assumptions in two but-for scenarios which centrally ask the Court to assume a theory the brand manufacturer would lose the patent litigations and the generics would have earlier moved to market notwithstanding regulatory review. The Court cannot simply assume facts like an economist to support a theory, Judge Kearney states. He says they based their decisions on facts in evidence. Their obligation is to rigorously analyze whether the theory offered by the lead plaintiff seeking class certification is plausible today and at trial based on evidence adduced at and before their evidentiary hearing. The colchicine purchaser before the Court now did not adduce the evidence allowing the Court to find its theory of antitrust impact is plausible. Judge Kearney need not address the manufacturers' arguments challenging the alleged number of similarly situated purchasers given this lack of plausibility before the Court. He denies Value Drug's motion for class certification without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/388kadnk from Leagle.com. THOMAS JEFFERSON: Faces Murphy Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY MURPHY; and ROBERT STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS INC. d/b/a JEFFERSON HEALTH; and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04674-BMS (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2022) seeks to redress the Defendants' practice of capturing and sharing statutorily-protected health care information, medical records and related information for commercial gain without the knowledge or consent of Jefferson Health's patients in violation of Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated the ECPA by accessing and sharing Jefferson Health patients' health care information, medical records, and related information without their knowledge or consent. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS INC. d/b/a JEFFERSON HEALTH operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Organization offers orthopedics, pulmonology, rehabilitation, cancer, diabetes, endocrinology, gastroenterology, nephrology, urology, and throat treatment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohenm Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com TURNTABLE LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Iskhakova Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MARINA ISKHAKOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TURNTABLE LAB, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07110 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.turntablelab.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to make a purchase. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual. Accordingly, many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to adequately describe its content, says the suit. Many features on the Website also fail to Add a label element or title attribute for each field. This is a problem for the visually impaired because the screen reader fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to the user not being able to understand what he or he is expected to insert into the subject field, the lawsuit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated visually impaired users of the Defendant's Website are unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Website equally to sighted users. These access barriers effectively denied the Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy the Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do, the suit added. Turntable Lab is a company that owns and operates the www.turntablelab.com, which is an online store for Vinyl Record Collectors, Turntable Enthusiasts, Audiophiles and DJs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-650 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Poe Suit Over Failure to Give 60-Day Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Willie Poe, et al., v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00172-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., Nov. 22, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to give Mr. Poe and the Class members 60 days notice prior to the plant closing as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Defendant notified Mr. Poe and all employees in the middle of the night on November 21, 2022, that the respective plants would be closed immediately. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs and other employees their accrued vacation. The Defendant also failed to provide 60 days notice to the Mississippi Rapid Response Team, the Mayors of Amory, Tupelo, Verona, Wren, Okolona, and Nettleton and the President of the Boards of Supervisors of Lee and Monroe counties, says the suit. Mr. Poe is a former employee of United Furniture Industries, Inc. United Furniture manufactures and sells upholstery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Farrell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MIKE FARRELL, PLLC 210 E. Capitol Street, Regions Plaza, Suite 2180 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8030 Facsimile: (601) 948-8032 E-mail: mike@farrell-law.ne - and - Philip C. Hearn, Esq. HEARN LAW FIRM, P.A. 102 N. Guyton Blvd. Blue Mountain, MS 38610 Telephone: (601) 720-3541 Facsimile: (662) 524-3530 E-mail: philiphearn@yahoo.com UNITED FURNITURE: Neal Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOREA NEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00171-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., Nov. 22, 2022) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), seeking to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. manufactures and sells upholstery. The Company offers bonded leather and upholstery fabric recliners, reclining sofas and loveseats, sectionals, and sofa sleepers, as well as stationary sofas, loveseats, chairs, and ottomans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Jack Simpson, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Boonsville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (628) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jsimpson@langstonlott.com UNITED FURNITURE: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE POE, on Behalf of Himself and all Other Similarly Situated Persons v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00172-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granhid motion for certification of the proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff filed this case as a class action on behalf of all employees who were terminated (or soon will be terminated) as a result of Defendant, United Furniture Industries, Inc., closing all of its Mississippi locations, including but not limited to Amory, Wren, Okolona, Nettleton, Verona, and Tupelo, without notice on or about November 21, 2022. UFI manufactures and sells upholstery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isJNoY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip C. Hearn, Esq. Charles C. Cole, Esq. HEARN LAW FIRM, PLLC Post Office Box 5009 Jackson, MS 39296 Telephone: (662) 766-7777 Facsimile: (662) 524-3530 E-mail: philiphearn@yahoo.com cass.hearnlaw@gmail.com - and - Mike Farrell, Esq. MIKE FARRELL, PLLC 210 E. Capitol Street Regions Plaza, Suite 2180 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8030 Facsimile: (601) 948-8032 E-mail: mike@farrell-law.net UNITED STATES: Al Otro Lado Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- AL OTRO LADO, et al. are taking an appeal from a final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Al Otro Lado, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the Southern District of California, seeks an order restoring the status quo ante for named Plaintiff Beatrice Doe prior to the Defendants' alleged unlawful Turnback Policy. The Plaintiffs, acting on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals presenting themselves at Ports of Entry ("POEs") along the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum in the United States. The Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officials have systematically violated U.S. law and binding international human rights law by refusing to allow individuals, including the Plaintiffs - who present themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border and assert their intention to apply for asylum or a fear of returning to their home countries - to seek protection in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals of their statutory and regulatory rights to apply for asylum, violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violated the United States' obligations under international law to uphold the principle of non-refoulement. On August 5, 2022, the Court ordered the Defendants to restore the status quo ante for the named Plaintiffs prior to their unlawful conduct. This includes taking the necessary steps to facilitate Plaintiff Doe's entry into the United States, including issuing any necessary travel documents to allow her to travel to the United States (by air if necessary) and to ensure her inspection and asylum processing upon arrival. On August 23, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment in this case through an Order signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant. The appellate case is captioned Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, et al., Case No. 22-56036, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 7, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Al Otro Lado, Abigail Doe, Beatrice Doe, Bianca Doe, Carolina Doe, Cesar Doe, Dinora Doe, Emiliana Doe, Ingrid Doe, Jose Doe, Juan Doe, Maria Doe, Roberto Doe, Ursula Doe and Victoria Doe Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 14, 2022; -- Appellees' first cross appeal brief is due on December 20, 2022; -- Appellants' second brief on cross appeal is due on January 19, 2023; -- Appellees' third brief on cross appeal is due on February 21, 2023; and -- Appellants' optional cross appeal reply brief is due within 21 days of service of third brief on cross appeal. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AL OTRO LADO, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Baher Azmy, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 - and - Gianna Borroto, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 "G" Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 507-7540 - and - Rebecca M. Cassler, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 - and - Neela O. Chakravartula, Esq. UC HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 - and - Melissa E. Crow, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES 1121 14th Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 355-4471 - and - Anne Daher, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 890-5448 - and - Matthew Fenn, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-7040 - and - Ori Lev, Esq. Michelle N. Webster, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3270 - and - Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 621-9483 - and - Stephen M. Medlock, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS, LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 639-6578 - and - Sarah Rich, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Defendants-Appellees ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by: Alexander Halaska, Esq. Katherine Shinners, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNITED STATES: Court Denies Normandia's Bid for Immediate Release ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAOUL V. NORMANDIA, Petitioner v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., Respondents, Case No. CV 22-08205-DMG (ADS) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies Normandia's Emergency Motion for Immediate Release Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition concerns the conditions of confinement at Federal Correctional Complex located in Lompoc, California ("FCC Lompoc") where the Petitioner is in custody. The Petitioner alleges: (1) the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has not, cannot, and will not carry out or execute any recommendation, enforcement order, decree, or order to release prisoners; (2) this Court has extraordinary power to grant relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 writ of habeas corpus; (3) the settlement agreement relinquishes his constitutional rights and by itself constitutes numerous constitutional violations; and (4) he has been adversely affected psychologically, mentally, and physically on multiple occasions from COVID-19. On May 16, 2020, a class of inmates medically vulnerable to severe illness or death from COVID-19 at FCC Lompoc brought an action against the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and the Warden of Lompoc -- Torres et al. v. Milusnic et al., Case No. 20-4450 CBM (PVCx). The Complaint asserted two causes of action related to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. On Oct. 11, 2022, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall approved the class action settlement. The settlement requires FCC Lompoc to continue the home confinement review process established by the preliminary injunction and follow guidelines to protect inmates from COVID-19. The settlement agreement does not preclude a class member from filing an individual habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The Petitioner claims that he has been affected psychologically, mentally, and physically on multiple occasions from COVID-19. He attaches an "Inmate Release Plan" and portions of the First Amended Complaint from the class action. However, he does not provide specific details as to any health conditions that put him at high risk to COVID-19 nor does he allege specific conditions in the prison. As relief, the Petitioner seeks immediate release from the "unconstitutional confinement of prison." Given the weight of authority within the Ninth Circuit, Judge Gee finds that the Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in habeas review. Although the Petitioner does not specify the unconstitutional conditions he has had to endure, these allegations suggest that immediate release is not the only relief available to him and that other relief related to improving the conditions at FCC Lompoc is more appropriate. Moreover, Judge Gee declines to convert or construe the Petition as a civil rights complaint. She says the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has exhausted the available administrative remedies. Conversion also would not be appropriate at this time given Judge Marshall's recent approval of the final settlement in Torres. Accordingly, Judge Gee dismisses the Petition for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bzxkk5 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Ireland Appeals CARES Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL CREAGER IRELAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Rachel Creager Ireland, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01049, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged failure to administer the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). According to the complaint, in the wake of the unprecedented public health emergency and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Congress sought to ensure that workers affected by the pandemic would receive federal financial support. It initially did so through the CARES Act enacted on March 27, 2020. Nevertheless, between approximately June 12 and July 3, 2021, prior to the end date of the "pandemic unemployment assistance" or PUA program, recipients in 20 states had their benefits terminated prematurely, when their states chose to end their administration of the program, including Texas, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were affected by this unlawful discontinuation of benefits when the state of Texas terminated its administration of the PUA program on June 26, 2021. The Defendant allegedly did nothing to ensure that the affected recipients would receive benefits notwithstanding their states' decision to cease administering the program. On February 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 8, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell signed a report and recommendations concerning the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Lee Yeakel accepted and adopted the report and recommendation on September 6, 2022, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and final judgment was entered in the case. The appellate case is captioned Ireland v. USA, Case No. 22-50980, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 9, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHEL CREAGER IRELAND, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Morris Rosenthal, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, PC 1629 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 496-0500 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by: Lisa A. Olson, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 901 E. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 514-5633 UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Filing of Confidential Docs Under Seal Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for administrative relief to file under seal certain materials submitted with their Motion for Class Certification. The parties have entered into a protective order in this action. The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's opposition to class certification refers to information designated by the Defendants as "CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" pursuant to the protective order in thes action. These documents include transcripts of the depositions of D.B., Sean Crandell, Mark Edwards, Denise Strait, Jaqueline Kienzle, Denise Strait (as UBH's 30(b)(6) witness), Jolene Bradley, Radames Lopez, and Rebecca Paradise (as United's 30(b)(6) witness), attached as Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 38, 42, and 43 to the Modiano Declaration, as well as compendium of documents and emails relating to Tom Ralston, attached as Exhibit 37. These documents also include Administrative Services Agreements and Summary Plan Descriptions for Plaintiffs' sample class which have been designated by Defendants as CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY", attached as Exhibits 12- 36 to the Modiano Declaration. UnitedHealthcare Company provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov.. 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XFZuJxat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: MATTHEW M. LAVIN, Esq. AARON R. MODIANO, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com aaron.modiano@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Order on Class Cert Dates Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATUM ROBERTSON, ET AL., v. UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA, ET AL., Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-HE (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Joe Heaton entered an order regarding class certification deadlines as follows: 1. Initial disclosures shall be January 21, 2023 made by: 2. Discovery as to class October 1, 2023 certification and the merits shall be completed by: 3. Any expert disclosures August 1, 2023 (and the related expert reports) directed to class certification shall be made by: 4. The Plaintiffs' motion for October 10, 2023 class certification shall be filed on or before: 5. The Defendants' response November 1, 2023 shall be filed on or before: The University of Central Oklahoma is a public university in Edmond, Oklahoma. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FfzGN4 at no extra charge.[CC] VIESTE SPE: Bid to Seal Under Protective Order Submitted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vieste SPE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Defendants Herbert J. Sims & Co., Inc. and Timothy Smith file a motion to seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d) and Section 8 of the Protective Order. The Defendants also seek leave to file portions of Exhibit 1 to their Amended Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Amended Opposition) under seal. The exhibit for which Sims Defendants seek relief is a compilation of deposition transcript excerpts and select exhibits from the October 25, 2022 30(b)(6) deposition of the Plaintiffs Crossfirst Bank and Crossfirst Investments, Inc. This compilation exhibit includes deposition exhibit 5 designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" in accordance with the Protective Order by nonparty FHN Financial, which produced the document in response to subpoena. Accordingly, Sims Defendants seek to file under seal deposition exhibit 5 and associated deposition testimony that reveals the contents of deposition exhibit 5. A highlighted version of Exhibit 1 to Sims Defendants' Amended Opposition will be lodged. Vieste LL specializes in capital program management for private, public, quasi-public, and non-profit clients throughout North America. Sims & Co., Inc. is a Connecticut headquartered investment banking firm, 1st established in 1935. Today, HJ Sims is registered on all principal stock and commodities exchanges including registration with the National Futures Association (NFA) as an Introducing Broker (IB). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iiazAkat no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Defendants Herbert J. Sims & Co. Inc. and Timothy "Xan" Smith are: Jeffrey C. Matura, Esq. BARRETT & MATURA, P.C. 8925 East Pima Center Parkway, Suite 215 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (602) 792-5705 Facsimile: (602) 792-5710 E-mail: jmatura@barrettmatura.com - and - Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Esq. Hutson Smelley, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON, LLP 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5594 Facsimile: (713) 337-8850 E-mail: tom.hetherington@mhllp.com hutson.smelley@mhllp.com VIESTE SPE: Extension to File Reply in Support of Class Cert Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, a Kansas banking corporation, et al., v. Vieste SPE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending time to file reply in support of class certification (second request) to December 30, 2022. On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On August 2, 2022, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the first Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Reply. On August 12, 2022, this Court granted leave to conduct class discovery and set a deadline for Responses to Plaintiffs motion for class certification on October 14, 2022. The opposition deadline was then moved to November 23, 2022. On November 23, 2022, the Defendants Lawson Financial Corporation, Robert Lawson, and Pamela Lawson filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On November 23, 2022, the Defendants Herbert J. Sims & Co. and Timothy "Xan" Smith filed an amended opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. CrossFirst provides banking services primarily designed for business owners, professionals, and their families. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4bwXl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Goulder, Esq. Timothy Lauxman, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Telephone: (602) 279-1600 Facsimile: (602) 240-6925 E-mail: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com - and - Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 739-1098 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Todd Feltus, Esq. Sarah M. Humble, Esq. KERCSMAR FELTUS & COLLINS PLLC 7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 E-mail: tfeltus@kfcfirm.com smh@kfcfirm.com - and - Scot L. Claus, Esq. Vail C. Cloar, Esq. Holly M. Zoe, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 E-mail: sclaus@dickinsonwright.com vcloar@dickinsonwright.com hzoe@dickinsonwright.com - and - Jeffrey C. Matura, Esq. BARRETT & MATURA, P.C. 8925 East Pima Center Parkway, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 E-mail: jmatura@barrettmatura.com - and - Hutson Smelley, Esq. Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: hutson.smelley@mhllp.com tom.hetherington@mhllp.com - and - Jon D. Weiss, Esq. Nicholas S. Bauman, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85504-2595 E-mail: jweiss@lrrc.com nbauman@lrrc.com - and - John T. Lynch, Jr., Esq. Nancy A. Temple, Esq. KATTEN & TEMPLE LLP 209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 950 Chicago, IL 60604 E-mail: John_Lynch_Jr@me.com ntemple@kattentemple.com VITACOST.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vitacost.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00042326-CU-MT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 25, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01854-RSH-WVG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Vitacost.com, Inc. -- https://www.vitacost.com/ -- is an American e-commerce company based in Boca Raton, Florida, that sells vitamins, supplements and organic grocery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, 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 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 865 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 633-6863 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com VOLTAGE SUPPLY: Case Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Voltage Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08189-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- No additional parties may be joined Dec. 28, 2022 after: -- All fact discovery shall be completed March 30, 2023 no later than: -- Initial requests for production of December 14, 2022 documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 shall be served by: -- Interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. December 14, 2022 Civ. P. 33 shall be served by: -- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. March 30, 2023 Civ. P. 30, 31 shall be completed by: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ioMO9N at no extra charge.[CC] WALTER BERRY: Smith Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE SMITH, v. Warden WALTER BERRY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00014-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order: 1. dismissing without prejudice Smith's complaint; and 2. denying as moot motion to amend and request for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ivlUxe at no extra charge.[CC] WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Terry, et al., Win Partial Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denika Terry, et al., v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00799-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: -- granting plaintiffs' motion partial summary judgment in its entirety; and -- and denying defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, or, alternatively, class certification. Both parties oppose the other's motion, and the matter is fully briefed. Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion as to the FCA claim. The Defendants first argue summary judgment on the CLRA class claim is appropriate because plaintiffs cannot clear the hurdle of establishing the ASA charges constitute "additional rental amounts" or "side payments." Because the court has already found the ASA charges constitute impermissible rent, it turns to defendants' second argument -- that there "is simply no evidence that the defendants have made any misrepresentations with respect to housing authorities' repeated approval of HAP contracts based on leases that include ASAs." However, this is the same argument this court considered and rejected in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' FCA claim above. Additionally, omission can show deception. For these reasons, the court denies defendants' motion as to the CLRA claim. The court previously found class certification warranted because plaintiffs' claims "all involve the resolution of whether defendants' 'additional charges set forth in [ASAs] violated defendants' HAP Contract provisions with Section 8 tenants or federal law." Previous Order (July 30, 2018). Because this court now finds there is no material dispute defendants violated the HAP contracts and federal law by treating additional service charges as rent, class decertification is not warranted and the court denies defendants' motion. The Plaintiffs are tenants who receive rental assistance through the federally subsidized Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. They claim defendant lessors improperly charged plaintiffs, as well as the class members they represent, for additional services and required them to purchase renter's insurance. Wasatch Advantage offers real estate development and management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gFhjbcat no extra charge.[CC] WAUKEGAN, IL: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Phillips v. WHA ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY PHILLIPS, GILBERTO COLON, CHANDRA THOMAS, KEVIN DUTY, TROY THOMPSON, DENNIS HALTER, SHONDIS ADAMS, SHIMON MERRIWEATHER, CEDRIC REAMS, LANIQUA KUYKENDALL, CHARLOTTE A. DAVIS, ALICIA ROSS, CARYN E. PRICE, LATASHA GATLIN, CHRISTOPHER SEALS, RONALD ANDERSON, TONYA ESKILSON, ALVIN ARREAGA, WALTER ORI, and CAROL WILL, individually and on behalf of the class of all persons who currently reside in Harry Poe Manor or formerly resided therein at any time from January 2011 to April 22, 2019, Plaintiffs v. WAUKEGAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate; CHARLES CHAMBERS, individually and as Executive Director of Waukegan Housing Authority; and RENWICK CORNELIOUS, individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor; and TARA DANIEL, individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-08444 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs represent a certified class of individuals, who resided in Harry Poe Manor, a 10-story multifamily public housing apartment building in Waukegan, Illinois, from Jan. 1, 2011, to April 22, 2019. They are suing the Defendants for inadequately responding to a prolonged bedbug infestation. The Defendants are the Waukegan Housing Authority ("WHA"), which is the public housing authority that operates Poe Manor; Charles Chambers, the WHA's executive director; and two of Poe Manor's former property managers, Renwick Cornelious and Tara Daniel. Poe Manor, a 155-unit apartment building, participates in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program for disadvantaged, low-income tenants. It is subsidized by HUD and subject to certain HUD regulations governing eligibility for subsidized housing, terms of rent and payment, and housing quality standards, among other things. Per these regulations, Poe Manor residents pay only a limited percentage of their adjusted income to the WHA as rent. The WHA has written leases with each of the Poe Manor tenants. The Plaintiffs assert three theories of relief on behalf of the class: violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, unjust enrichment under Illinois law, and breach of contract under Illinois law. The Plaintiffs claim, and the Defendants have not disputed for purposes of this motion, that numerous Poe Manor tenants were, at times, unable to sleep soundly in their apartments due to the presence and fear of bedbugs. Further, the infestation impacted their living arrangements and lifestyles; many tenants were forced to move out, face homelessness, refrain from entertaining guests or visit family and friends, and avoid going elsewhere for fear of passing bedbugs. The infestation further impacted tenants by forcing them to throw out their furniture, clothing, and other personal items, and some resorted to sleeping on air mattresses or the floor. The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiffs cannot prove the elements of their claims as a matter of law and that qualified immunity shields the defendants from the Section 1983 claim. Judge Tharp grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He grants the Defendants' motion with respect to the Section 1983 and unjust enrichment theories, and denies it with respect to the breach of contract theory. The Plaintiffs may proceed on a class-wide breach of contract theory based on the Defendants' purported breach of Poe Manor residential leases from Jan. 1, 2011, to April 22, 2019. Judge Tharp holds that the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Section 1983 substantive due process and pendent unjust enrichment theories. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have not identified any affirmative acts by the Defendants that increased the danger of bedbugs to Poe Manor tenants in the record; (ii) the Plaintiffs have pointed to no evidence that the Defendants affirmatively placed Poe Manor tenants in harm's way; they did not introduce the bedbugs to Poe Manor, nor did they do anything to increase the risk to a higher level than what it would have been had they done nothing at all; and (ii) the Defendants' remedial measures, no matter how ineffective, cannot be said to constitute affirmative acts in the manner contemplated by the case law. Judge Tharp further finds that the record, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, may be able to support a claim of negligence or gross negligence on the part of the Defendants, but not reckless indifference. Therefore, even if the Plaintiffs had adduced evidence to show an affirmative act by the Defendants that caused or increased the risk of harm to them, their state-created danger claim would nonetheless fail. Other than ineffective inspection and treatment methods, the Plaintiffs point to evidence that the Defendants occasionally lied to tenants about the existence of bedbugs in Poe Manor and suppressed tenant communications about the issue. Given the lack of any authority clearly establishing the violative nature of the Defendants' conduct, Judge Tharp finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in defeating the application of qualified immunity. As a result, even if the Court were to find a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a state-created danger, qualified immunity still applies, and summary judgment on this claim is appropriate. However, Judge Tharp holds that the Plaintiffs may go to a jury on their breach of contract theory. He finds that enforceable leases existed, and the Plaintiffs have adduced evidence sufficient to lead a reasonable factfinder to find that the Defendants breached those leases on a class-wide basis. The Plaintiffs may proceed on a class-wide breach of contract theory based on the Defendants' purported breach of Poe Manor residential leases from Jan. 1, 2011, to April 22, 2019. Because the Court has determined that an enforceable contract exists between the parties, and because the unjust enrichment claim is premised on the same obligations and conduct of the parties as the breach of contract claim, summary judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants on the unjust enrichment claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj6ya5ze from Leagle.com. WORKFORCE 7: Case Discovery Plan, Sched Order Entered in Ballast ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE and MARQUIS RICHARDSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs to exchange a damages Dec. 9, 2022 spreadsheet based on records produced by the Defendants summarizing the named and opt-in plaintiffs' alleged dates of work, the projects on which they worked and a summary of back wages and other damages claimed by: 2. The Defendants' Oppositions to Dec. 12, 2022 Plaintiffs' November 7, 2022 Motion to Join Parties and for Leave to Amend the Caption and Complaint shall be due on or before: 3. The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Jan. 9, 2023 Oppositions shall be due on or before 4. Non-expert depositions shall be March 17, 2023 completed by: 5. Plaintiffs shall take the first May 17, 2023 step in class certification motion practice by: 6. Any further interrogatories shall April 17, 2023 be served no later than: 7. Requests to Admit, if any, April 17, 2023 shall be served no later than: 8. Expert reports shall be served May 30, 2023 no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XP4f3D at no extra charge.[CC] XPDEL INC: Semidey Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments to Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYQUAN SEMIDEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. XPDEL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07098 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers who were employed at any time by the Defendant between April 7, 2016 and the present in the State of New York under the New York Labor Law. Mr. Semidey was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse worker from 2021 until November 2022 at Defendant's 25 9th Street, Brooklyn 11215 fulfillment center. Mr. Semidey typically performed physical tasks for more than 25% of his workday, as his responsibilities included lifting and moving heavy boxes in furtherance of shipping, receiving, picking, packing, and loading and unloading trucks with the use of pallet jacks. He asserts that he was compensated on a bi-weekly basis by Defendant throughout his employment, and in so doing was time and again injured by the Defendants alleged failure to pay him timely wages. The Defendant's conduct routinely deprived him on a temporary basis of monies he was lawfully due, which denied him the ability to invest, save, or make purchases utilizing the wages he earned and was owed, the lawsuit claims. XPDEL is a leading provider of Fulfillment and Delivery services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-955 YARDI SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Robledo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LEE ROBLEDO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01233 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its alleged systematic and repeated violations of the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act. According to the complaint, Yardi has allegedly required Plaintiff and Class members to pay Yardi a fee, every month, for simply paying their rent electronically and using methods of payment including ACH, credit card, or debit card. When the Plaintiff and other residential tenants log in to a Yardi Resident Portal or app, Yardi encourages the resident to make a payment of rent and associated charges from the Resident Portal or app and to set up automatic monthly payments of rent and associated charges, says the suit. Yardi's Payment Portal for the Plaintiff states that the "Service fee," or Pay-to-Pay Fee, for payment by "Debit Card" is "$3.95 - $9.95" and that payment by "VISA/MC/Diners/Discover/AMEX" is "2.50%." Accordingly, Yardi has collected more than $5 million in Pay-to-Pay Fees from Plaintiff and Class Members in the two years prior to the filing of this Complaint. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the more than $5 million in Pay-to-Pay Fees Yardi unlawfully took from the Plaintiff and other Class Members. Yardi Systems is a California-based rent collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Turner III, Esq. Robert R. Bell III, Esq. Elizabeth Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: jturner@baileyglasser.com rbell@baileyglasser.com eryan@baileyglasser.com - and - Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD. 100 West Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-006 E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com YIELDSTREET INC: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Deadlines Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TECKU et al v. YieldStreet Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07327-VM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties submit a consent agreement and request to move the schedule for the filing of the Motion for Class Certification, Opposition and Reply thereto, from the original agreed upon dates, to the proposed dates below. The original schedule for the filing of the Motion/Opposition/Reply regarding Class Certification is as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification: December 22, 2022 -- Opposition to Motion for Class January 20, 2023 Certification: -- Plaintiff's Reply: February 17, 2023 -- Hearing on Motion: to be determined by the Court The reason for the present request is the parties have faced some incremental delay as they discuss and address a variety of discovery issues that have arisen. All affected parties consent. The parties consent to the following schedule: -- Motion for Class Certification: February 3, 2023 -- Opposition to Motion for March 6, 2023 Class Certification: -- Plaintiff's Reply: March 28, 2023 -- Hearing on Motion to be determined by the Court Yieldstreet is an American company based in New York City. The company focuses on expanding access to private market investment products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VdyfEpat no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lawrence Tjok, Michael Tecku, David Finkelstein, and the Proposed Class are: Brian B. Pastor, Esq. Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. Adolfo J. Anzola, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP PA One Turnberry Place 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912-3000 Facsimile: (786) 485-1501 E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com aanzola@sonnlaw.com bpastor@sonnlaw.com service@sonnlaw.com - and - Joseph Peiffer, Esq. Daniel Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Facsimile: (504) 608-1465 E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com dcentner@peifferwolf.com The Counsel for Defendants Yieldstreet Inc.; Yieldstreet Management, LLC; YS Altnotes I, LLC; YS Altnotes II, LLC; and Michael Weisz are: Robert Tiefenbrun, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 E-mail: RTiefenbrun@goodwinlaw.com - and - Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 733-6202 E-mail: JShapiro@goodwinlaw.com - and - Brendan F. Quigley, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 408-2551 E-mail: brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com ZIONS BANCORP: Gregory, et al., Seek to certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS GREGORY, NICOLE GREGORY, ALAN LAMBERT, and ROBERT BAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00015-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; 2. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes: "All persons and entities who invested in the Rust Rare Coin Silver Pool and were harmed in connection with such investment;" Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) Zions Bank; (2) any person, firm, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with Zions Bank or in which Zions Bank has or had a controlling interest, (3) Gaylen Rust, Denise Rust, Joshua Rust, and their immediate family members; (4) all other employees of Rust Rare Coin, Inc.; (5) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any such excluded person; and (6) the currently-named plaintiffs in the lawsuit pending in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, as North Valley Partners, et al. v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A. Civil No. 210902187. Also excluded from the Settlement Class will be the persons and/or entities who validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class within the time period set by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order; 3. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the proposed Settlement to the members of the Settlement Class; and 4. scheduling of a hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement. The Parties reached the Settlement in the months following an all-day mediation conducted by Mr. Meyer, at which counsel for all Parties were in attendance. Counsel for the Parties also engaged in extensive settlement-related communications before and after the mediation. The Plaintiffs closely monitored and participated in this Action and recommend the Settlement be approved. Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated Nov. 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UhtgS1at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Adams, Esq. ADAMS DAVIS P.C. 35 Broadway, Suite 203 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 532-9500 E-mail: sam@adamsdavis.com - and- Alan L. Rosca, Esq. Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO, LLC Eight Tower Bridge 161 Washington St., Conshohocken, PA 19428 23250 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 100 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law pscarlato@rscounsel.law ********* 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 ***