/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 241 Headlines APRIO LLP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply ARCONIC INC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Howard ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Must File Class Cert by Jan 16, 2023 AUDIBLE INC: Order on Class Cert Related Deadlines Entered BLUE TRITON: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Rios-Gutierrez Suit CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Reply CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $2M in Settlement Cost at September 30 CHAD WOLF: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 23, 2023 CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Order on Class Cert Deadlines Entered CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Management Plan Entered in Carlier CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Damages Class CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Suit Pending in California CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Berg Dental Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fifty First Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Hirschfield-Louik Appeals Dismissal Ruling CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Walborn Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal CNA AND VALLEY: Grant of Ungarean's Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed CONTRACT LAND: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Weinmann Class Suit CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Loses Bid for Production of Questionnaires DENTON COUNTY, TX: Bid to Stay Class Cert Hearing Granted in Part DETROIT, MI: Scheduling Order Entered in Howard Class Suit DINGDONG LTD: McCormack's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Nixed EMORY UNIVERSITY: Court Corrects/Amends Sched Order in Schultz ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Bid to Compel Documents Granted in Part FCA US: Flynn Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial Over Costs Award FLRISH INC: Calhoun Bid to File Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd FORSTER & GARBUS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim, et al., Seek to Certify 21 Classes GEO GROUP: Appeals Summary Judgment in Menocal Labor Suit GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Notice Plan Approved in Staley Suit H&K ENGINEERING: Case Management Order Entered in Ledet Class Suit HISCOX INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Acosta Class Suit INCOMM FINANCIAL: Clark Files Suit in C.D. California INTERFACE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ISRAMCO INC: Special Committee Defendants Dismissed From Ligos Suit JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Noohi KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin KPS AFFILIATES: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert Bid Response KRUGER FOODS: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KUNES AUTO GROUP: Fairchild Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Loses Bid to Junk Gwinn Class Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Sched Order Entered in COI Rate Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Conestoga LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in LSH Suit LITIGATION PRACTICE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2023 MAJSETIC STAR: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in Rodriguez MARINOSCI LAW: Burke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MELINDA MASTERS: Court Junks Longino Class Action META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Contract METROPOLITAN TOWER: Court Junks Pitt Bid for Class Certification MIRAPATH INC: Liendo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Mills Seeks to Certify ERISA Class Action NCINO INC: Continues to Defend Live Oak Class Suit NESTLE PURINA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 12 NETAPP INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice NETFLIX INC: Maple Heights Can't Enforce Ohio's FCCOA, Court Says NEW JERSEY: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Jan. 4, 2023 NFL: Application to File Documents Under Seal Submitted NIGHT TEETH INC: Zucker Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York NOMI HEALTH: Servidori Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY: Challender Seeks Conditional Status NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought OKTA INC: Continues to Defend O'Dell Shareholder Derivative Suit OKTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California PARAMOUNT FLORIDA: Cerda Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages PENN CREDIT: Messinger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Communication Time PERATON INC: Ewers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paschal, et al., Seek to Certify Collective PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PIERRE FABRE: Bojko Sues Over Defective Products PORSCHE AG: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lapides Sues Over Incorrect Statements PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pierni Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Files Class Certification Bid PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Suit Removed to D. Maine PROSPECT HOTEL: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class QUAID HARLEY: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hill Suit Affirmed REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy REALPAGE INC: Uses Software to Raise Rent Prices, Silverman Says RED APPLE GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Discovery Deadline Extended in Ford Suit RIDDLE'S GROUP INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Class Action Status Bid SAYBONE INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina SCOTT SEMPLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Vega Class Action SENTINEL INSURANCE: Zunino Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal SEPM MARKETING INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEROOGY'S HOLIDAY HOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Seagate Resident Class SIDNEY FEDERAL CREDIT: Brasiel Files Suit in N.D. New York SIRIUS XM RADIO: Campbell Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls SK TRADING: Amended Class Certification Schedule Entered SORELLAS PIZZA: Cuahquensi Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ganzfried Sues Over Deceptive Statements SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPINX GAMES: Class Action Settlement in Croft Gets Final Nod SPLUNK INC: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 15, 2023 STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Negreanu Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida STUDENT LOAN: Shadrin, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement STUDIO FOUR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SUTTER VALLEY: Wins Bid to Strike Tinnin Class Cert Bid TCP HOT: Prelim Approval of Rider to Class Settlement Deal Sought TOOTSIE ROLL: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Beasley Suit Affirmed TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Coffey Class Suit UMITJON KAMOLOV: Kargar, et al., Seek to Proceed Collectively VENICE HMA: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert Briefing VF OUTDOOR: Court Junks Valencia Bid for Class Certification VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 30 VITAMIN COTTAGE: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in Levine WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Parties Must File Settlement Approval Bid WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint WASHINGTON, DC: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought WHITEFISH, MT: Beck, et al., File Class Certification Bid ZYNGA INC: Class Action Settlement in Ferrando Gets Final Nod ********* APRIO LLP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER; SYLVIA THOMPSON; LAWSON F. THOMPSON; RUSSELL DALBA; and KATHRYN DALBA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP; ROBERT GREENBERGER; SIROTE & PERMUTT, P.C.; BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.; SMITH, LEWIS & HALEY, LLP; DAVID C. SMITH; FOREVER FORESTS LLC; NANCY ZAK; JAMES JOWERS; LARGE & GILBERT, INC.; CLOWER KIRSCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC; JIM R. CLOWER, SR.; TENNILLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ATLANTIC COAST CONSERVANCY, INC.; ROBERT D. KELLER; and GEORGIA ALABAMA LAND TRUST, INC. f/k/a GEORGIA LAND TRUST, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants file bid for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Aprio further submits that the Sur-Reply is warranted as it will aid the Court in evaluating the numerous claims and class certification requirements involved in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Aprio filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on October 6, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Reply on November 18, 2022. Aprio is a financial consulting and CPA firm. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDlLrh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John E. Floyd, Esq. John H. Rains IV, Esq. Jennifer L. Peterson, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: floyd@bmelaw.com rains@bmelaw.com peterson@bmelaw.com ARCONIC INC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Howard ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARCONIC INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01057-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an initial Case Management Order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 30, 2023 Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed on or before: -- Fact discovery shall be September 30, 2023 completed by: -- Any fact discovery propounded March 31, 2023 or taken by any party prior to: -- The Plaintiffs' expert reports and disclosures as to class certification matters shall be filed and exchanged not later than 21 days before the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. -- The Defendants' expert reports and disclosures as to class certification matters shall be filed and exchanged not later than 21 days before the filing of Defendants' opposition brief as to class certification. -- Additional parties will be January 12, 2023 joined in this matter on or before: -- Leave to amend pleadings (other than to correct technical matters) shall be: -- Document Production shall be March 31, 2023 substantially completed on or before: Arconic is an American industrial company specializing in lightweight metals engineering and manufacturing. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h16XT1 at no extra charge.[CC] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Must File Class Cert by Jan 16, 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DOTSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00923-SVW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting stipulation to extend the class certification deadline Deadline for Plaintiff to File January 16, 2023 Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Defendant to File April 17, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and to file any Daubert Motions Deadline for Plaintiff to File May 7, 2023 Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification Motion and Opposition to any Daubert Motions Deadline for Defendant to File May 25, 2023 Reply to Opposition to any Daubert Motion Arizona Beverages is an American producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iCr4as at no extra charge.[CC] AUDIBLE INC: Order on Class Cert Related Deadlines Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOLDEN UNICORN ENTERPRISES, INC. and BIG DOG BOOKS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,v. AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order on class certification related deadlines as follows: -- Fact discovery is closed, except as discussed on the record. The deadline for disclosure of Dec. 9, 2022 opening expert reports is: With the exception of the opening Dec. 15, 2022 report for Plaintiffs' damages expert, which will be due: -- The deadline for rebuttal expert Jan. 12, 2023 reports is: With the exception of Defendant's Jan. 19, 2023 damages rebuttal report, which will be due: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for Dec. 21, 2022 class certification is due: -- The Defendant's opposition is due: Jan. 26, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due: Feb. 9, 2023 Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of spoken word content. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OYUsUA at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE TRITON: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff MIJEONG KIM filed an appeal from the District Court's November 1, 2022 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled MIJEONG KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE TRITON BRANDS, AMAZON.COM, INC., MOHAMMADREZ SHAHRBABKI, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01907-JLS-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. This action, filed on March 23, 2022, deals with a water bottle product manufactured, advertised, sold, or delivered, by Defendants: ARROWHEAD 100% MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER. The TRITON Product is a bottled water line that Defendant TRITON manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells. The TRITON Product is a bottled water line that Defendants AMAZON and SHAHRBABKI advertise, markets and sell. According to the complaint, based on the presentation in the front label, the Plaintiff reasonably believed the TRITON Product was from the springs in Arrowhead Mountain. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the TRITON Product bottles had she known that the spring water might not be from the arrowhead mountain. She would not have purchased the TRITON Product absent the misrepresentation depicted with the picture of the Arrowhead Mountain, says the suit. On November 1, 2022, Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss dated May 18, 2022, May 27, 2022, and May 31, 2022. The Court has concluded that Kim's claims do not satisfy the reasonable consumer standard as a matter of law, and it does not appear that Kim can allege additional facts which would alter the outcome of the case. Accordingly, Kim's claims were DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The appellate case is captioned as MIJEONG KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BLUE TRITON BRANDS; AMAZON.COM, INC.; MOHAMMADREZ SHAHRBABKI, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-56063, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 17, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 25, 2022; -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be filed on January 17, 2023; -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served on February 17, 2023; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Rios-Gutierrez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO RIOS-GUTIERREZ, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and suggestions in support. 2. appointing Daniel Werner, Mark Dugan, and Heather Schlozman as class counsel; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Jose Roberto Rios-Gutierrez, Jose Juan Mendoza-Servin, Francisco Javier Martinez-Mendez, Jonathan Rodriguez-Anaya, and Cesar Edgardo Avendaño- Martinez as class representatives; 4. directing the Plaintiffs to submit their proposed form of notice on or before December 19, 2022; 5. directing the Defendants to file their objections, if any, on or before January 6, 2023; and 6. directing the Plaintiffs to file any reply to the objections on or before January 17, 2023. As the Court finds the plaintiffs' proposed classes should be certified, the Court adopts the following class definition: "All individuals who, between May 28, 2018 and the present, (1) received wages from Defendant Briggs Traditional Turf Farm, Inc.; (2) performed work related to the installation, seeding, and/or maintenance of sod at locations off of the Defendants' farms in any workweek; (3) worked over 40 hours in any such workweek; and (4) were H-2A visa holders." The Plaintiffs Jose Roberto Rios-Gutierrez, Jose Juan Mendoza-Servin, Francisco Javier Martinez-Mendez, Jonathan Rodriguez-Anaya, and Cesar Edgardo Avendaño-Martinez, are Mexican nationals. The Plaintiffs worked forD efendants Briggs Traditional Turf Farm, Inc., L.C. Briggs Turf Farm, LLC, Lawrence "Larry" Briggs, Capen Briggs, Kenosha, LLC, and Naudi-D Investments, LLC between 2018 and 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that they and the other workers on whose behalf they bring this action came to work in the United States as guestworkers on H-2A visas. Under the H-2A visa program, the visa holder is required to "perform agricultural labor or services" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 3121(g) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 203(f). A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B0ifhd at no extra charge.[CC] CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAIWAN DICKERSON and KIM KING-MACON, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and CENTENE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00519-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the their time to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification by one week, from December 8 to December 15, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the Court adopted the parties' Joint Scheduling Plan. Under that two-phase plan, Phase One focuses "on conditional certification, if any" and Phase Two focuses on "discovery related to any opt-in Plaintiffs and expert witnesses, as well as a potential motion for decertification and any dispositive motions. The Court ordered that any motion for conditional certification must be filed no later than November 10, 2022, the response must be filed no later than December 8, 2022, and any reply brief may be filed no later than December 15, 2022. The Defendants' motion does not seek delay for any improper purpose and is reasonable under the circumstances. Further, no party will be prejudiced by the proposed change to the case management order. Centene is a publicly traded managed care company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3upTbME at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Patricia J. Martin, Esq. Eva C. Madison, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square, 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com pmartin@littler.com emadison@littler.com CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $2M in Settlement Cost at September 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Century Aluminum Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that as of September 30, 2022, $2.0 million was recorded in other current liabilities related to the approved settlement of the class action complaint seeking a declaration of Century Aluminum of West Virginia's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"), the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives ("CAWV Retirees"), seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. On August 18, 2017, the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia approved a settlement agreement in respect of these actions, pursuant to which, CAWV agreed to make payments into a trust for the benefit of the CAWV Retirees in the aggregate amount of $23.0 million over the course of ten years. Upon approval of the settlement, the Company paid $5.0 million to the aforementioned trust in September 2017 and recognized a gain of $5.5 million to arrive at the then-net present value of $12.5 million. CAWV has agreed to pay the remaining amounts under the settlement agreement in annual increments of $2.0 million for nine years. As of September 30, 2022, $2.0 million is recorded in other current liabilities and $4.7 million is recorded in other liabilities. Century Aluminum Company is a US-based producer of primary aluminium, with aluminum plants in Kentucky, South Carolina and Iceland. It is the largest producer of primary aluminium in the United States. The company is a publicly held corporation listed on the NASDAQ. Its headquarters is at One South Wacker in Chicago. CHAD WOLF: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 23, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd et al. v. Chad T. Wolf et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order continuing the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to January 23, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs' deadline for filing the Reply brief is not continued and remains set as if the hearing were not continued, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ESEhDG at no extra charge.[CC] CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Order on Class Cert Deadlines Entered --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order setting the deadlines applicable to class certification as follows : -- Deadline for written fact discovery July 7, 2023 related to class certification. -- Deadline for fact witness depositions August 7, 2023 related to class certification. -- Deadline for plaintiffs to serve August 7, 2023 expert reports supporting class certification -- Deadline to serve motion for class August 17, 2023 certification -- Amending the pleadings or joining March 1, 2023 parties -- Last date to serve discovery requests May 31, 2024 -- Opening Rule 26 expert disclosures May 16, 2024 -- Responsive Rule 26 expert disclosures June 17, 2024 -- Rebuttal Rule 26 expert disclosure July 1, 2024 -- Discovery to close July 15, 2024 -- Dispositive motions deadline August 5, 2024 Chancellor Senior develops, owns, and operates properties that provide seniors with housing and health care options. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H5oLqR at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Management Plan Entered in Carlier --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CARLIER V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266-RNC (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered a scheduling order regarding case management plan as follows: -- All discovery, including all Jan. 15, 2024 discovery relating to expert witnesses, will be completed (not just propounded) by: -- The Plaintiff will move for Aug. 29, 2023 Class Certification and submit certification expert report by: -- Defendant will file its Oct. 30, 2023 opposition to the motion for class certification and submit rebuttal to the certification expert report by: -- Plaintiff will serve a damages Jan. 15, 2024 analysis on or before: Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ForkTn at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Damages Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW KOTILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FINANCIAL PUBLISHING NETWORK, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00704-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting certification of a damages class defined as follows: "All Michigan residents who, at any point during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, had their Private Reading Information disclosed to third parties by Defendant without consent;" and 2. granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Charter Financial operates as a publishing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uGuigd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: 248-841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305.357.2107 Facsimile: 305.200.8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Suit Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------- Children's Place Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Rael class action is pending at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint sought to represent a class of California purchasers and sought, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28, 2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The Company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval of the class settlement on March 2, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with the amount of attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount has been determined. The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. The Children's Place, Inc. and subsidiaries is the largest pure-play children's specialty apparel retailer in North America. It provides apparel, footwear, accessories, and other items for children and "tweens." CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Berg Dental Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Berg Dental Offices PC filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled Berg Dental Offices PC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01261, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for breach of contract. Berg Dental Offices is a licensed Pennsylvania dentist in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was denied coverage despite the fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common questions of law and that consolidation would further sound administration of justice in those actions. On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order. The appellate case is captioned as Berg Dental Offices PC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3146, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BERG DENTAL OFFICES PC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by: Trisha A. Gill, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 291-8242 CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fifty First Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Fifty First Street LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled Fifty First Street, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company, The Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00386-MRH, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for breach of contract. The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was denied coverage despite the fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common questions of law and that consolidation would further sound administration of justice in those actions. On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order. The appellate case is captioned as Fifty First Street LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3149, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BERG DENTAL OFFICES PC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by: Trisha A. Gill, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 291-8242 CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Richard Gottlieb filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled Dr Richard Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv, Plaintiff v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company and The Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01266-MRH in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for breach of contract. The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, he was denied coverage despite the fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common questions of law and that consolidation would further sound administration of justice in those actions. On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order. The appellate case is captioned as Richard Gottlieb v. Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DR RICHARD GOTTLIEB, Doctor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by: Trisha A. Gill, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 291-8242 CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Hirschfield-Louik Appeals Dismissal Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Betty Hirschfield-Louik filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled BETTY JO HIRSCHFIELD-LOUIK, DMD, t/a UPTOWN DENTAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Lead Case No. 2-20-cv-00816, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Cincinnati's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs consist of dental practices, restaurants, minor league baseball operations organizations, and a salon, all of whom bring claims against their commercial property insurance carrier -- Cincinnati -- alleging that Cincinnati wrongfully denied them coverage for claims stemming from the global coronavirus pandemic. As the Court explained in its Opinion granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in In re: Erie COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, Case No. 21-mc-1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022) -- a multidistrict litigation (MDL) consisting of over 30 cases brought by policyholders of Erie Insurance Group based on nearly identical claims as the Plaintiffs' claims -- the types of claims that the Plaintiffs assert are far from unique, as they mirror those asserted by business owners in thousands of similar cases nationwide. The Plaintiffs allege that starting in March 2020, they began to suffer significant financial consequences when they reduced their business operations or temporarily closed their businesses altogether following the outbreak of COVID-19, which has been one of the most serious public health events in history with devastating consequences across all aspects of life, including the loss of life itself. They filed insurance claims for their business losses with Cincinnati under the commercial property insurance policies Plaintiffs had purchased from it. Cincinnati denied those claims. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the order by Judge Hornak. The appellate case is captioned as Betty Hirschfield-Louik v. Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3143, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] BETTY JO HIRSCHFIELD-LOUIK, DMD, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated trading as UPTOWN DENTAL, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 - and - Howard M. Louik, Esq. ALLEGHENY COUNTY LAW DEPARTMENT 300 Fort Pitt Commons 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by: Michael K. Farrell, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 127 Public Square Key Tower, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 - and - Trisha A. Gill, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 291-8242 - and - Daniel G. Litchfield, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 303 West Madison Street, Suite 303 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 781-6669 - and - Lawrence M. Silverman, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 1515 Market Street, Suite 1220 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 557-0111 CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Walborn Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Teri Walborn filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled Teri Walborn doing business as: TERI'S PLACE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00604-MRH, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for breach of contract. The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff was denied coverage despite the fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common questions of law and that consolidation would further sound administration of justice in those actions. On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applies to all Member Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order. The appellate case is captioned as Teri Walborn v. Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3150, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TERI WALBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, doing business as Teri's Place, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by: Trisha A. Gill, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 291-8242 CNA AND VALLEY: Grant of Ungarean's Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, TIMOTHY A. UNGAREAN, DMD D/B/A SMILE SAVERS DENTISTRY, PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v. CNA AND VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants. TIMOTHY A. UNGAREAN, DMD D/B/A SMILE SAVERS DENTISTRY, PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v. CNA AND VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, Case Nos. 490 WDA 2021, 948 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super.), Judge Jack Anthony Panella of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas' order granting Ungarean's motion for summary judgment and its declaration that Ungarean's direct physical loss to his dental practice is covered by the CNA Policy. Like so many other businesses, the dental practice of Timothy Ungarean, DMD, d/b/a Smile Savers Dentistry, PC, suffered significant losses when business was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ungarean sought coverage for those losses under the business interruption provisions of the business insurance policy he had bought from CNA. The bulk of the factual background leading to this appeal is uncontroverted. Ungarean owns and operates a dental practice, with an office in Pittsburgh and an office in Aliquippa. The practice of dentistry necessarily requires close contact not only between the dentist and his patients, but also between the patients and various staff at the office. To protect himself from unforeseen interruptions of his practice, Ungarean procured an insurance policy from CNA that provided coverage for certain losses associated with the dental practice during the year from April 1, 2019, to April 1, 2020. In March 2020, the state of Pennsylvania was struck by the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 is a novel contagious virus that can cause severe acute respiratory illness. In the first three months of the pandemic, it killed thousands of Pennsylvanians, and over 100,000 people nationwide. After consulting with public health experts, Governor Tom Wolf issued several orders in March 2020 directing that all non-essential businesses should close until further notice. Further, the Governor issued an order directing the residents of Allegheny County, which contains the city of Pittsburgh, to stay at home. In addition to these shutdown orders, public health officials implemented masking and social distancing protocols. Even those businesses that were deemed essential were required to modify their business models by decreasing the number of people allowed in buildings and requiring people to remain masked. Furthermore, in these early months, enhanced cleaning protocols were implemented due to fears that the virus could linger for days on hard surfaces. As a result of the pandemic, Ungarean was forced to close his dental practice to the public except for emergency dental procedures. He claims this caused a drastic loss in income from the practice, causing him to furlough employees and suffer other harmful consequences. As a result, Ungarean filed a claim with CNA for these losses under the CNA Policy which provides coverage for, inter alia, loss of business income due to the physical loss of or damage to covered property. CNA denied coverage on the basis that Ungarean's dental practice did not suffer physical damage. Ungarean filed a class action complaint asserting one count of relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act. In essence, he sought a declaration that his pandemic-related business losses were covered under the CNA Policy's Business Income, Extra Expense and Civil Authority provisions. He subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on the basis that Ungarean had, in fact, suffered a direct physical loss of his dental practice and was therefore owed business insurance coverage under the policy. The trial court declared Ungarean was entitled to business interruption coverage because COVID-19 and the related governmental orders had caused Ungarean to suffer a direct physical loss of his dental practice, which was within the ambit of coverage provided by the CNA Policy. Moreover, the court found that the exclusions CNA tried to invoke to deny coverage were not applicable to Ungarean's claim. CNA filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two issues: a. Whether Ungarean is entitled to business insurance coverage under the CNA Policy as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated orders issued by Governor Wolf where he did not suffer direct physical loss of or damage to property and no order, issued as a result of direct physical loss of or damage to property, prohibited access to his property, which are required to trigger coverage under the policy? b. Whether the Contamination, Consequential Loss, Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot, and Microbes, and Acts of Decisions, Ordinance or Law exclusions in the CNA Policy bar coverage for Ungarean's alleged losses related to the Covid-19 pandemic and associated orders issued by Governor Wolf? At the core, CNA challenges the trial court's declaration under the Declaratory Judgments Act that Ungarean was entitled to coverage under the CNA Policy. Judge Panella reviews the trial court's decision "as he would a decree in equity." As such, he defers to the factual findings of the trial court unless they are unsupported in the record. In contrast, he gives no such deference to the trial court's application of the law. Judge Panella explains that in his action, Ungarean sought to settle whether the CNA Policy covered his losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. This presents a question of law for review. In conducting that review, Judge Panella is mindful that disputes over coverage must be resolved only by reference to the provisions of the policy itself. It is therefore imperative that he looks to the text of the CNA Policy, because just as in every case in which an insured claims business related losses caused by COVID-19, each individual policy must be examined based solely on its own language. Judge Panella recognizes, as CNA has taken great pains to point out, that this conclusion runs against the tide of cases finding an insured was not owed COVID-related business interruption coverage under their policy's provisions. However, his review must be confined to the CNA policy purchased by Ungarean to determine whether coverage has been triggered. He bases his finding that coverage has indeed been triggered on the plain language of the CNA policy, the guiding principle that ambiguities in insurance policies such as the ones he identified in the CNA Policy must be construed in favor of the insured, and the analysis and opinion of the trial court. Ultimately, Judge Panella is in full agreement with the court's conclusions. He is also in full agreement with the court's reasoning in support of those conclusions. Therefore, based primarily on the trial court's thoughtful opinion, he affirms the court's order granting summary judgment and declaring that coverage is owed to Ungarean for his COVID-related business losses under the specific terms of the CNA Policy. Judges Lazarus, Kunselman, Nichols, and McLaughlin join the Opinion. Judge Stabile files a dissenting opinion in which President Judge Emeritus Bender, and Judges Bowes and King join. Judgment is entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/st4st8ma from Leagle.com. CONTRACT LAND: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Weinmann Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEINMANN v. CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that the motion to stay is denied as moot. Turning to the other motions, the Court finds that it is premature to decide the issue of conditional certification. Accordingly, it is further ordered that the motion to certify class and joint motion to set briefing schedule are denied without prejudice as premature. The suit states Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial of overtime compensation. Contract Land provides staffing services.[CC] CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Loses Bid for Production of Questionnaires ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD COE, et al., individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02047-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order denying the defendants' motion to compel production of all executed questionnaires. In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have supported their privilege and work-product assertions over the Questionnaires. Case law supports plaintiffs' position. Courts have persuasively held that witness answers to questionnaires distributed by attorneys in the context of imminent litigation are protected work product. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit just two days after Sweet returned the Questionnaire. Based on these facts, the court finds that Sweet's executed Questionnaire is protected work product. Although Rule 26(b)(3) permits discovery of protected work product if the requesting party that it has a "substantial need" and inability to obtain the equivalent without "undue hardship," defendants do not suggest that either of these circumstances apply here. This is a putative class action brought by elderly and disabled residents of an apartment complex in Kansas City, Kansas, called Cross-Lines Retirement Center. The named plaintiffs, Donald Coe, Linda Smith, and Edward Yost, are Cross-Lines residents who allege that the complex owner, Cross-Lines Retirement Center Inc., and its property manager, Young Management Corporation, failed to provide safe and sanitary conditions. Cross Lines is a Charitable Organization headquartered in Bucyrus, Kansas. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VuIm8f at no extra charge.[CC] DENTON COUNTY, TX: Bid to Stay Class Cert Hearing Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD "TREY" RING v. DENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Case No. 4:21-cv-00917-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sean D. Jordan entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to stay class certification hearing of Defendants Argyle Volunteer Fire Department (AVFD), Denton County Emergency Services District No. 1, and Troy Mac Hohenberger: -- The class certification hearing scheduled for December 8, 2022, is canceled. -- The Plaintiff Harold "Trey" Ring and Defendants shall each file briefs of no more than five pages addressing the procedural effect of the criminal indictment of Defendant Troy Mac Hohenberger on this case, as well as any conflict of interest issues, by no later than Thursday, December 22, 2022. -- The Court will reschedule the class certification hearing after it has received and reviewed the parties' briefing on the issue of the Defendant Troy Mac Hohenberger's criminal indictment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VTArkJ at no extra charge.[CC] DETROIT, MI: Scheduling Order Entered in Howard Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWARD, et al., v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10382-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification Discovery February 15, 2023 Cutoff: -- Briefs on Class Certification by: March 15, 2023 Detroit is a city the midwestern state of Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XSyg2p at no extra charge.[CC] DINGDONG LTD: McCormack's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN MCCORMACK,v. DINGDONG (CAYMAN) LTD., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07273-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying McCormack's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of his choice of lead counsel. As previously ordered, within 21 days, the parties shall submit a proposed schedule for the filing of any amended complaint and subsequent response. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open gavels. McCormack essentially argues that he should be appointed lead plaintiff because no other Dingdong shareholder has sought appointment. McCormack filed the Complaint in this action, and because no one else has come forward, he has the largest financial stake by default. However, "it is well settled that the Court is obligated to evaluate the requirements of the PSLRA, even [if a movant's lead plaintiff] motion is unopposed." Indeed, courts in this Circuit have denied uncontested lead plaintiff motions where the movant does not satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a). Bosch, Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann ruled that a plaintiff did not "preliminarily satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)" where the plaintiff claimed only $621 in losses. Judge Mann found that although the plaintiff "submitted a declaration attesting to his understanding of the responsibilities of a lead plaintiff under the PSLRA and his willingness to oversee the litigation and counsel," he "nevertheless lacked a sufficient financial interest in the outcome of the case to incentivize him to monitor counsel's performance and control the litigation on behalf of the putative class." McCormack claims only $504.40 in losses. In the realm of securities litigation, this is a token amount. Moreover, McCormack does not claim that his losses are similar to, or larger than, the losses of other class members. Additionally, McCormack has submitted only a pro forma certification that includes no details about his background, years of investing experience, or other indicia of sophistication. McCormack has "failed to persuade this Court that he has sufficient interest in the litigation to 'vigorously' pursue the class claims and adequately represent the interests of class members." Furthermore, as a general matter, "losses that may have incurred before a company's misconduct was ever disclosed to the public are not recoverable, because those losses cannot be proximately linked to the misconduct at issue in the litigation." The Plaintiff McCormack brings this securities fraud action against Dingdong and several of its officers and underwriters, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act. ingdong purports to be a leading and the fastest growing on-demand e-commerce company in China." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VPq41k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P. New York, NY The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Osborn Solum, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP New York, NY - and - Joanna Andrea Diakos, Esq. Priya Chadha, Esq. K&L Gates LLP New York, NY EMORY UNIVERSITY: Court Corrects/Amends Sched Order in Schultz -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas J. Thrash entered an order granting consent motion to correct/amend the scheduling order as follows: a. The deadline for Emory to respond Jan. 18, 2023 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and to disclose any expert reports in support of same is: b. The deadline for the close of fact Feb. 17, 2023 discovery and expert discovery concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is: c. The deadline for Plaintiff to file Feb. 17, 2023 a reply in support of class certification and any expert rebuttal reports in support of same is: Emory University is a private research university in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VNdYFU at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Bid to Compel Documents Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be granted in part and denied in part. In November 2017, Energy Transfer's drilling for the ME2 pipeline caused a "frac-out" of underground drilling fluid, creating sinkholes and causing property damage to homes on Lisa Drive in Chester County. The sinkholes allegedly "garnered significant media attention" and "spurred multiple lawsuits from Lisa Drive residents." The Court said, "The Plaintiffs move to compel any document produced in "any litigation related to Energy Transfer's pipeline projects brought by or on behalf of residents near the Lisa Drive site. Yet Plaintiffs' Motion does not specifically explain why documents from these cases are relevant to their claims. The Plaintiffs also do not identify any specific cases filed by Lisa Drive residents, beyond citing to a single paragraph of their Amended Complaint that briefly discusses a class action filed in March 2018." The Plaintiffs in this securities class action move to compel all documents produced by Defendants in previous legal actions and investigations involving the Defendants' pipeline construction activities. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to produce relevant documents contained in these prior productions, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to the entire set of documents produced in each of these prior actions and investigations. This is a class action on behalf of investors in Energy Transfer L.P., a pipeline company whose operations include developing the Mariner East 1 and 2 ("ME1 and ME2") and Revolution pipelines in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants issued a series of false or misleading statements during the class period related to the construction of these pipelines. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UuIh2Z at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Flynn Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial Over Costs Award ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Brian Flynn, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-855-SMY, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against FCA and Harman, asserting consumer fraud claims related to an alleged design defect in the Uconnect system manufactured by Harman and installed in some of FCA's 2013-2015 model vehicles. After over four years of litigation, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal but modified the Judgment to reflect a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without leave to amend. Following the mandate from the Seventh Circuit, the Court granted in part FCA and Harmon's Bill of Costs and corresponding Motions for Taxation of Costs and awarded FCA $86,086.81 in costs and Harman $93,157.96 in costs. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 31, 2022, Judge Staci M. Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs. Judge Yandle held that while the Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's order awarding costs, they failed to identify a manifest error of law or fact committed by the Court in doing so. Accordingly, she denied their motion. The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 22-3075, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas B. Weaver, Esq. Julie Fix Meyer, Esq. Christopher D. Baucom, Esq. Daniel R. O'Brien, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 18900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 621-5070 Facsimile: (314) 621-5065 E-mail: tweaver@atllp.com jfixmeyer@atllp.com cbaucom@atllp.com dobrien@atllp.com - and - IJay Palansky, Esq. Charles Steese, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 4643 S. Ulster, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 200-0676 Facsimile: (720) 200-0679 E-mail: ipalansky@atllp.com csteese@atllp.com - and - Christopher Cueto, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER CUETO, LTD. 7110 W. Main Street Belleville, IL 62223 Telephone: (618) 277-1554 Facsimile: (618) 277-0962 E-mail: ccueto@cuetolaw.com FLRISH INC: Calhoun Bid to File Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA CALHOUN, v. FLRISH, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order granting in part and denying in part administrative motions to consider whether documents should be filed under seal. The administrative motions are therefore denied as to all documents at issue except the agreement and pricing proposal in Exhibit G and the redacted references to Calhoun's cell phone 10 number, and the parties shall file all such documents (including the remainder of Exhibit G) in the public record no later than December 7, 2022. Although Calhoun has not provided a declaration setting forth specific reasons to seal her cell phone number, compelling reasons to seal are apparent, and that request is granted. In a response to Calhoun's motion, non-party Springbig, Inc. asks that the Court allow sealing of a contract and pricing proposal that the Court previously ordered filed under seal in connection with a previous motion. For the reasons stated in the May 4, 2020 declaration of Jeff Harris, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the contract and pricing proposal submitted as parts of Exhibit G to the September 9, 2022 declaration of Avi Kaufman, which are identical to Exhibit B to the April 30, 2020 declaration of Robert Ahdoot, which was filed under seal. Calhoun's administrative motion is granted as to those portions of Exhibit G, which will remain under seal. Springbig does not oppose publicly filing the remainder of Calhoun's motion and supporting materials, including the remaining portion of Exhibit G, consisting of terms and statement of non-opposition to public filing of the documents Calhoun filed provisionally under seal based on FLRish's confidentiality designations except for pricing information in Exhibit G that Springbig also asks to seal. Springbig filed a statement of non-opposition to public filing of the documents FLRish filed provisionally under seal based on Springbig's confidentiality designations. No other party or non-party has filed a response setting forth reasons for sealing. The Plaintiff Gia Calhoun and Defendant FLRish, Inc. each filed motions to consider whether documents submitted in conjunction with Calhoun's pending motion for class certification should be filed under seal based on their opponent's or other non-party entities' confidentiality interests. The Plaintiff also moves in her own right to seal instances of her cell phone number in two exhibits, which she has otherwise filed publicly with the cell phone number redacted. FLRish, Inc. manages the harborside medical cannabis dispensaries. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Haapp1 at no extra charge.[CC] FORSTER & GARBUS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINE FRANCOIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, Case No. 3:21-cv-20664-RLS (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case to proceed as a class action for settlement purposes; and 2. granting final approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement. Forster & Garbus is a New York debt collection law firm. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class action dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Utd6F9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com The Defendant is represented by: Deborah Isaacson, Esq. Rivkin Radler, Esq. 477 Madison Avenue, Suite 410 New York, NY York 10022 Telephone: (212) 455-9549 Facsimile: (212) 687 9044 GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim, et al., Seek to Certify 21 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10562-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and appointing Counsel and Class Representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): -- Nationwide Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, residents of the United States." The Nationwide Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of S. Garrett Beck and Alan Pelletier as the class representatives for the Nationwide Class. -- Alabama Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Alabama residents." The Alabama Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code section 8-19-1, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Walter Goetzman and Chad Reese as the class representatives for the Alabama Class. -- Arizona Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Arizona residents. The Arizona Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona Rev. Stat. section 44-1521, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Michael Lanz, Jack Woodall, Ahmed J. Cannon, Tuan Bui, Russell Christiansen, and the Estate of William D. Pilgrim as the class representatives for the Arizona Class. -- California Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, California residents. The California Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750 et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Valente Moreno as the class representative for the California Class. -- Florida Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Florida residents." The Florida Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. section 501.201, et seq. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Christopher Constantine, Bradley Grant, and Robert L. Briggs as the class representatives for the Florida Class. -- Georgia Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Georgia residents." The Georgia Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. section 10-1-390 et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Roger L. Browning and Robert Edgar as the class representatives for the Georgia Class. -- Illinois Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Illinois residents." The Illinois Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. and 720 ILCS 295/1A. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Lyle Dunahoo as the class representative for the Illinois Class. -- Indiana Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Indiana residents." The Indiana Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code section 24-5-0.5-3 and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Aaron Clark as the class representative for the Indiana Class. -- Maryland Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Maryland residents." The Maryland Class seeks class certification of claims for fraud by concealment. Plaintiffs move for the appointment of David Penrod as the class representative for the Maryland Class. -- Massachusetts Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Massachusetts residents." The Massachusetts Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, section 1, et seq., fraud by concealment, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 106, section 2-314. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Alan Pelletier as the class representative for the Massachusetts Class. -- Michigan Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Michigan residents. The Michigan Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws section 445.903, et seq., fraud by concealment or silent fraud, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Mich. Comp. Laws section 440.2314. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Edwin William Krause, Frank Juzswik, and S. Garrett Beck as the class representatives for the Michigan Class. -- Montana Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Montana residents." The Montana Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Act Of 1973, Mont. Code Ann. section 30-14-101, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of David Sheldon as the class representative for the Montana Class. -- Ohio Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who vare, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Ohio residents." The Ohio Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. section 1345.01, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jared Kiley as the class representative for the Ohio Class. -- Oklahoma Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Oklahoma residents. The Oklahoma Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 Okl.Stat.Ann. section751, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jason Shepherd as the class representative for the Oklahoma Class. -- Pennsylvania Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Pennsylvania residents." The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. section 201-1, et seq. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jeff Kolodzi as the class representative for the Pennsylvania Class. -- South Dakota Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, South Dakota residents." The South Dakota Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law, S.D. Codified Laws section 37-24-6 and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Derek Van Den Top as the class representative for the South Dakota Class. -- Tennessee Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Tennessee residents." The Tennessee Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 47-18-101, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Morris Smith as the class representative for the Tennessee Class. -- Texas Class "All Texas residents that are current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who purchased a class vehicle in the state of Texas. The Texas Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code sections 17.41, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Andres Frey, Shawn Bain, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert Geiss, and the Estate of John LeBar as the class representatives for the Texas Class. -- Utah Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Utah residents." The Utah Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code Ann. section 13-11-1, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Devry Todd Davis as the class representative for the Utah Class. -- Virginia Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Virginia residents." The Virginia Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. 15 sections 59.1-196, et seq. and fraud by concealment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of William Church and Edwin Rojas as the class representatives for the Virginia Class. -- Wisconsin Class "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase or lease, Wisconsin residents. The Wisconsin Class seeks class certification of claims for violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wis. Stat. Section 110.18. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of James Osheim as the class representative for the Wisconsin Class. The Plaintiffs have included sworn interrogatory responses for all plaintiffs that have not submitted a declaration in support of this Motion. The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). This action is brought by vehicle owners of high performance Corvette Z06 or 427 and Camaro models with a 427 cubic inch LS7 engine manufactured and sold by General Motors during the model years 2006 to 2013. These automobiles suffer from a dangerous valve manufacturing defect that first results in excessive engine valve noise, valve guide wear, and then, in catastrophic engine failure, even on cars with very few miles on the odometer. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B76tS6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. Michael D. Carr, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com mdc@kpclegal.com - and - David M. Honigman, Esq. Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com kchadwell@manteselaw.com GEO GROUP: Appeals Summary Judgment in Menocal Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Geo Group, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, LOURDES ARGUETA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO VALEGRA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-02887-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiffs in this case are former immigration detainees at the Aurora Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, a private immigration detention center owned by Defendant The GEO Group, Inc. and operated pursuant to a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The parties have filed a handful of motions related to the sufficiency and type of the evidence supporting Plaintiffs' claims, GEO's status as a government contractor, and ICE's role in the challenged conduct. The Plaintiffs originally brought three claims on October 22, 2014 against GEO for: (1) noncompliance with the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act, Colo. Rev. Stat.; (2) violations of the forced labor provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and (3) unjust enrichment. GEO filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted its motion as to the Colorado minimum wage claim. The Plaintiffs remaining claims challenge two separate policies implemented by GEO at the Aurora Detention Facility. First, Plaintiffs assert that, by forcing detainees at the Facility to clean up the common areas and after other detainees under the threat of segregation, GEO has violated the TVPA. Second, Plaintiffs claim that GEO has been unjustly enriched by paying detainees only $1.00 per day for their participation in the Facility's Voluntary Work Program. The Defendant appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Court's Order on the Parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Decertification of Class entered Oct. 18, 2022. In particular, Defendant appeals the grant of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on GEO's Affirmative Defenses dated April 29, 2020 and denial of GEO's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 25, 2020. The appellate case is captioned as Menocal et al. v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No. 22-1409, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant THE GEO GROUP, INC. is represented by: David G. Palmer, Esq. Naomi Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 E-mail: palmerdg@gtlaw.com beern@gtlaw.com - and - Scott Schipma, Esq. Dominic Draye, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2101 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 331-3141 E-mail: schipmas@gtlaw.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Notice Plan Approved in Staley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley, et al., v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order: 1. granting motion to approve class certification Notice Plan, along with its supporting memorandum and exhibits, and the joint status report regarding class notice, along with its supporting exhibits; 2. approving the proposed form and manner of notice and providing the following directives regarding implementation; and 3. appointing KCC Class Action Services, LLC as the Class Certification Notice Administrator to disseminate notice to the Class and process and engage in follow-up communications. Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Foster City, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqkdKk at no extra charge.[CC] H&K ENGINEERING: Case Management Order Entered in Ledet Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE LEDET, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. H&K ENGINEERING, LLC, ORBITAL ENGINEERING INC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01324-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a case management order: 1. All disclosures required by December 2, 2022 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) have been or will be made on or before: 2. The parties shall complete January 3, 2023 phase I discovery related to conditional class certification by: 3. Plaintiffs have already filed a February 3, 2023 Motion for Conditional Certification. After completing Phase I discovery, Plaintiffs may file an Amended Motion for Conditional Certification. If they choose to do so, they must do so by: 4. In addition, Defendant Orbital February 3, 2023 Engineering, Inc. may file a motion for summary judgment by: 5. Defendant's response to either March 3, 2023 the original motion or amended motion, and any responses to Orbital's Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be filed by: 6. Reply briefs, if any, shall be March 17, 2023 filed by: 7. Sur-reply briefs, if any, March 31, 2023 shall be filed by: 8. Hearing and oral argument April 19, 2023 as to said motion(s) and briefing shall be held on: 9. In the event this action is June 30, 2023 not conditionally certified as a collective action, merits discovery shall be completed by: H&K provides professional engineering services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uocZAh at no extra charge.[CC] HISCOX INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Acosta Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE H. ACOSTA, et al. v. HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC., et al. Case No. 8:22-cv-01812-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery, including discovery Aug. 3, 2023 motions, shall be completed by: -- The parties shall have until Oct. 2, 2023 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings: -- A pretrial conference will be Dec. 4, 2023 held on: -- The case is set for a jury Dec. 12, 2023 trial: -- The parties shall have until Aug. 17, 2023 to conduct settlement proceedings: -- The Plaintiff shall have until March 6, 2023 to file and have heard any class certification motion: Hiscox is a diversified international insurance group. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XWRsw8 at no extra charge.[CC] INCOMM FINANCIAL: Clark Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Incomm Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Carolyn Clark, Shelby Cooper, Sharon Manier, Tarika Stewart, Aquilla Thompson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Incomm Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01839-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. InComm Payments -- https://www.incomm.com/ -- operates as a global payments technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Graham B LippSmith, Esq. Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq. MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq. LIPPSMITH LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 344-1820 Fax: (213) 513-2495 Email: g@lippsmith.com jla@lippsmith.com mb@lippsmith.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEVENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: jdennett@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2130 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 335-6999 Fax: (213) 335-7802 Email: wdelgado@dtolaw.com INTERFACE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS S. SWANSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INTERFACE, INC., DANIEL T. HENDRIX, JAY D. GOULD, BRUCE A. HAUSMANN and PATRICK C. LYNCH, Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-05518-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties conferred and agreed that, subject to approval of the Court, the briefing schedule on the Class Motion should be modified as follows: 1. The Class Motion shall be January 12, 2023 filed on or before: 2. The Defendants' opposition to the Class Motion shall be filed by the later of: (i) sixty (60) days after the filing of the Class Motion; (ii) if the Motion to Compel is granted in whole or in part, 45 days after Defendants' receipt of all of the compelled discovery; or (iii) 30 Days after an order denying the Motion to Compel in full. 3. Lead Plaintiff's reply in further support of the Class Motion shall be filed no later than 45 days after Defendants' opposition to the Class Motion is filed. Interface is a global manufacturer of commercial flooring with an integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring, including luxury vinyl tiles and nora brand rubber flooring. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EWR3Rt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. Harris Fischman, Esq. Shane D. Avidan, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3306 E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com hfischman@paulweiss.com savidan@paulweiss.com ISRAMCO INC: Special Committee Defendants Dismissed From Ligos Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH LAWRENCE LIGOS, Plaintiff v. HAIM TSUFF, MAX PRIDGEON, ASAF YARKONI, and NIR HASSON, Defendants, C.A. No. 2020-0435-SG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware grants Defendants Max Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkom, and Nir Hasson's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Verified Shareholder Class Action Complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). In 2019, Isramco, a Delaware corporation, was acquired by former Defendant Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and its affiliates (collectively, "Naphtha"). All entities on both sides of the transaction were indirectly controlled by Defendant Tsuff. Ligos is a former stockholder of Isramco. He continuously owned shares of Isramco stock from the announcement to the consummation of the Merger. Non-party Isramco is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. In October 2019, Isramco's controller -- Defendant Naphtha -- and its affiliates consummated a going-private transaction by purchasing all of Isramco's unaffiliated stock for cash consideration. Prior to the consummation of the Merger, Isramco was publicly traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market. Non-party Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is an Israeli public company whose securities trade on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Its principal businesses are exploration and production of oil and natural gas. That company beneficially owned 70.74% of Isramco's outstanding common stock in September 2019 prior to the Merger. Tsuff served as Isramco's President and the Chairman of its Board of Directors from May 1996 until consummation of the Merger on Oct. 25, 2019. He served as the company's Chief Executive Officer from May 1996 until November 2017, and as Co-Chief Executive Officer from November 2017 until consummation of the Merger in October 2019. Tsuff serves as the Chairman of Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corp. Ltd.'s board and sits on the boards of several of that company's subsidiaries. Prior to the Merger, Tsuff owned 61,679 shares of Isramco common stock and, through his interest in Naphtha, indirectly owned an additional 1,922,517 shares, which collectively totaled approximately 73% of the Isramco's outstanding shares. Pridgeon served as a member of the Isramco Board from April 2001 until the closing of the Merger. From 2015 until Oct. 25, 2019, Pridgeon also served as a member of Isramco's two-member Conflict Committee of the Board. Pridgeon was a member of the special committee formed to negotiate on behalf of Isramco in the proposed Merger. Yarkoni served as a member of the Board from December 2010 until the closing of the Merger on Oct. 25, 2019. He also served as a member of the Conflict Committee from 2012 to Oct. 25, 2019 and as a member of the Special Committee. Hasson served as a member of the Board from August 2014 until the closing of the Merger on Oct. 25, 2019. He also served as a member of the Special Committee. Ligos contends that the transaction was not fair to the minority stockholders. He brought this action against, among others, Tsuff and the Defendant directors of Isramco who comprised a special committee that negotiated the transaction (collectively, the "Special Committee Defendants"). Isramco attempted to fit the transaction under the MFW rubric, to qualify for application of the business judgment rule. The Plaintiff filed his complaint June 4, 2020. The Complaint alleges that Tsuff, Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Naphtha Holding LTD. ("NHL"), I.O.C. -- Israel Oil Co., LTD., Naphtha US Oil, Inc. ("US Oil"), United Kingsway Ltd., YHK Investment L.P., YHK General Manager Ltd. ("YHK Manager"), Equital, Ltd., and J.O.E.L Jerusalem Oil Exploration Ltd. breached their fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched (Counts I and III), Tsuff, Joseph From, Frans Sluiter, and the Special Committee Defendants breached their fiduciary duty (Count II), Isramco Negev 2 Limited Partnership aided breaches of fiduciary duty (Count IV), and Kingsway, YHK, YHK Manager, Equital, JOEL, Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., I.O.C., and US Oil aided breaches of fiduciary duty (Count V). On Aug. 5, 2020, the Plaintiff dismissed his claims against JOEL, Equital, YHK, YHK Manager, and Kingsway without prejudice. On Sept. 21, 2020, three groups of defendants filed separate motions to dismiss: (i) Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., NHL, I.O.C., US Oil, and Tsuff; (ii) From, Sluiter, and Isramco (the "Isramco Motion"); and (iii) Pridgeon, Yarkoni, and Hasson. Negev 2 moved to dismiss on Dec. 14, 2020. The parties completed briefing these motions by Feb. 26, 2021. Judge Glasscock heard oral argument on all motions on May 21, 2021. The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed From, Sluiter, and Isramco on May 26, 2021. That dismissal mooted the Isramco Motion. On Aug. 31, 2021, Judge Glasscock denied Tsuff's motion to dismiss. In a memorandum opinion, he found that, although a majority of the minority stockholders in Isramco voted in favor of the merger, the facts pled rendered it plausible that the vote was not fully informed. Negotiations ensued. The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., NHL, I.O.C., US Oil, and Negev 2 on March 1, 2022. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Special Committee Defendants and the Plaintiff informed the Court that they could not reach an agreement and stated no further argument was necessary for it to rule on the Special Committee Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Glasscock considers the matter fully submitted as of that date. Judge Glasscock's Memorandum Opinion deals exclusively with the motion of Max Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkoni, and Nir Hasson (together, the Special Committee Defendants) to dismiss Ligos' claims stemming from Isramco's completed cash-out merger with its controller, Naphtha. The denial of Tsuff's motion to dismiss surveys the notably complex entity structures and Tsuff's role in the transaction. Though the Plaintiff's claims against Tsuff survived the motion to dismiss, Judge Glassock holds that Ligos has not pled sufficient allegations against the Special Committee Defendants to sustain a claim. Specifically, the Plaintiff failed to plead with specificity any facts impeaching the loyalty of the Special Committee Defendants. Even under the plaintiff-friendly inferences applicable, Judge Glasscock cannot find it reasonably conceivable that any Special Committee Defendant lacked independence from Tsuff. Although the complaint alleges that these Defendants were selected (presumably by Tsuff) to perform inadequately at their jobs, if true this does not implicate their duty of loyalty. There is also no indication that the Special Committee acted in bad faith in the negotiations with Naphtha. Allegations of the bad faith omission of material from the Merger proxy also fail. As no unexculpated claims survive, the Complaint fails to state a claim. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Glasscock grants the Special Committee Defendants' Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/26k63fr4 from Leagle.com. Corinne Elise Amato -- ceamato@prickett.com -- Kevin H. Davenport -- khdavenport@prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic -- slclosic@prickett.com -- and Jason W. Rigby -- jwrigby@prickett.com -- of PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Eric L. Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- and J. Daniel Albert -- dalbert@ktmc.com -- of KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Radnor, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Joseph Lawrence Ligos. William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- Brad D. Sorrels -- bsorrels@wsgr.com -- Daniyal M. Iqbal -- diqbal@wsgr.com -- and Nora M. Crawford -- ncrawford@wsgr.com -- of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Steven Guggenheim -- sguggenheim@wsgr.com -- of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for Defendants Max Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkoni, and Nir Hasson. S. Mark Hurd -- shurd@morrisnichols.com -- and Miranda Gilbert -- mgilbert@morrisnichols.com -- of MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNEL, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Danny David -- danny.david@bakerbotts.com -- and Amy Pharr Hefley -- amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- of BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Houston, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Haim Tsuff. JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jensen-Lewis Co., Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jensen-Lewis Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07200 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jensen-Lewis -- https://www.jensen-lewis.com/ -- is New York's best contemporary and modern furniture store for bedroom, dining room and living room.[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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Noohi -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for class certification. -- The class shall be defined as all consumers who purchased Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisture Sensitive Skin in California between April 17, 2016 and November 30, 2022. -- It is further Ordered that Plaintiff Narguess Noohi is appointed as the named class representative. -- It is further Ordered that Todd M. Friedman of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC be is Appointed as class counsel. The Court has considered Plaintiff Narguess Noohi's motion for class certification, together with the moving and opposing papers. In her Second Amended Complaint ["SAC"], Noohi alleged that, on March 23, 2020, she purchased Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin, manufactured by Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. Noohi alleged that she purchased the Product because of a representation on the packaging that the Product was oil-free. Later, Noohi learned that the Product contained ethylhexl palmitate and soybean sterols, which, allegedly, are oils or byproducts of oils. The SAC alleged four claims: Common law fraud; Violation of California's False Advertising Law; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Unx5Fb at no extra charge.[CC] KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kohl's Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Shanaphy class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On September 2, 2022, Sean Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company, its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Shanaphy v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, interest, fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that members of the putative class suffered losses as a result of (1) false or misleading statements and withholding of information regarding the conception, execution, and outcomes of the Company's strategic plan announced on October 20, 2020 and the Company's financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2022 and (2) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, disclosure controls, and corporate governance mechanisms. The case is in its early stages. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted on November 1, 2022, and a lead plaintiff has not yet been selected. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and to vigorously defend against these claims. Kohl's Corporation operates as an omnichannel retailer. The Company's stores and website sells private and national brand apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products, as well as offers online shopping and store credit cards. Kohl's serves customers in the United States. [BN] KPS AFFILIATES: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert Bid Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monalisa Johnson-Cradle vs. KPS Affiliates Inc., PPB Inc. d/b/a Prime Protective Bureau, and Terry English, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC 1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a second extension of time of one week (to December 7, 2022) to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The reason for this extension is the unexpected announcement of the departure of lead counsel in this action (Vincent Avery, Esq.) and the need for replacement counsel to step in to review and complete the response, the Defendants' counsel says. KPS is a security agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isGL45 at no extra charge.[CC] KRUGER FOODS: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kruger Foods, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Douglas Ball, on behalf of himself, the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Kruger Foods, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011019 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 30, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Kruger Foods, Inc. -- https://www.krugerfoods.com/ -- provides food products. The Company offers pickles, peppers, mayonnaise and dressing, pumpables, and refrigerated products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com KUNES AUTO GROUP: Fairchild Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kunes Auto Group. The case is styled as Travis Fairchild, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kunes Auto Group, Kunes Country RV of Green Bay Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01235-WCG (E.D. Wis., Oct. 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kunes Auto Group -- https://www.shopkunes.com/ -- is a car dealer in Macomb, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Potteiger, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC 235 N Executive Dr-Ste 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Loses Bid to Junk Gwinn Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOVELYNN GWINN, v. LAIRD SUPERFOOD, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02883-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff Lovelynn Gwinn has brought this suit, on behalf of putative classes of similarly situated consumers, against Laird for inaccurately describing the serving size of its powdered creamer products on their nutrition labels. Gwinn alleges that a teaspoon of each Product in fact weighs more than 2 grams, and that the nutrition labels therefore exaggerate the number of teaspoon -- or 3/4-teaspoon -- sized servings in each container. Gwinn brought claims for false or deceptive advertising in violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiff opposed the motion on July 6, but agreed to dismiss without prejudice its claim for breach of implied warranty and its request for injunctive relief. Laird sells powdered coffee additives, including six Superfood Creamer products described as Unsweetened, Original with Functional Mushrooms, Original, Chocolate Mint, Turmeric, and Pumpkin Spice, as well as Performance Mushrooms. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ba9qRX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP 445 S. Figueroa St. Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 The Defendant is represented by: Jacob Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Mohammed Basim Pathan, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor New York, NY 10020 LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Sched Order Entered in COI Rate Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL 2017 COST OF INSURANCE (COI) RATE LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-04150-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for February 21, 2023 Class Certification shall be filed on or before: 2. Opening expert reports on issues February 21, 2023 where parties have the burden of proof due on or before: 3. The parties' shall produce February 23, 2023 materials relied on by experts in opening reports on or before: 4. Rebuttal expert reports due May 2, 2023 on or before: 5. The parties' shall produce May 4, 2023 materials relied on by experts in rebuttal reports on or before: 6. Expert Discovery shall be June 26, 2023 completed on or before: 7. Defendants' opposition to July 17, 2023 New Motion for Class Certification, and any Daubert Motion relating to expert opinions relied upon by Class Plaintiffs in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in August 7, 2023 Support of New Motion for Class Certification, and Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion(s) shall be filed on or before: 9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert August 7, 2023 Motion(s) relating to expert opinions relied upon by the Defendants in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 10. Defendants' Reply in support August 21, 2023 of any Daubert Motion and Opposition to any Daubert Motion Plaintiffs file shall be filed on or before: 11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support September 6, 2023 of any Daubert Motion shall be filed on or before: Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses through subsidiary companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gWJPVO at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Conestoga --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONESTOGA TRUST, et al., v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION and LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02379-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for February 21, 2023 Class Certification shall be filed on or before: 2. Opening expert reports on issues February 21, 2023 where parties have the burden of proof due on or before: 3. The parties' shall produce February 23, 2023 materials relied on by experts in opening reports on or before: 4. Rebuttal expert reports due May 2, 2023 on or before: 5. The parties' shall produce May 4, 2023 materials relied on by experts in rebuttal reports on or before: 6. Expert Discovery shall be June 26, 2023 completed on or before: 7. Defendants' opposition to July 17, 2023 New Motion for Class Certification, and any Daubert Motion relating to expert opinions relied upon by Class Plaintiffs in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in August 7, 2023 Support of New Motion for Class Certification, and Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion(s) shall be filed on or before: 9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert August 7, 2023 Motion(s) relating to expert opinions relied upon by the Defendants in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 10. Defendants' Reply in support August 21, 2023 of any Daubert Motion and Opposition to any Daubert Motion Plaintiffs file shall be filed on or before: 11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support September 6, 2023 of any Daubert Motion shall be filed on or before: Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses through subsidiary companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H72mt9 at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in LSH Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LSH CO, et al,, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-05529-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for February 21, 2023 Class Certification shall be filed on or before: 2. Opening expert reports on issues February 21, 2023 where parties have the burden of proof due on or before: 3. The parties' shall produce February 23, 2023 materials relied on by experts in opening reports on or before: 4. Rebuttal expert reports due May 2, 2023 on or before: 5. The parties' shall produce May 4, 2023 materials relied on by experts in rebuttal reports on or before: 6. Expert Discovery shall be June 26, 2023 completed on or before: 7. Defendants' opposition to July 17, 2023 New Motion for Class Certification, and any Daubert Motion relating to expert opinions relied upon by Class Plaintiffs in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in August 7, 2023 Support of New Motion for Class Certification, and Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion(s) shall be filed on or before: 9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert August 7, 2023 Motion(s) relating to expert opinions relied upon by the Defendants in connection with class certification shall be filed on or before: 10. Defendants' Reply in support August 21, 2023 of any Daubert Motion and Opposition to any Daubert Motion Plaintiffs file shall be filed on or before: 11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support September 6, 2023 of any Daubert Motion shall be filed on or before: Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses through subsidiary companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OWo9Wg at no extra charge.[CC] LITIGATION PRACTICE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath entered an order that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is April 17, 2023. The nature of suit states other statutory actions.[CC] MAJSETIC STAR: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in Rodriguez ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE MAJSETIC STAR CASINO, LLC, d/b/a HARD ROCK CASION NORTHERN) INDIANA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00198-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge John E. Martin entered an order regarding class certification related deadlines as follows: 1. Rule 26(a)(1) initial exchanges December 9, 2022 must be completed, but not filed with the Court, by: 2. The deadline for the parties to February 15, 2023 seek leave to amend the pleadings is: 3. The deadline to complete all June 1, 2023 discovery for the initial bifurcated stage of discovery is: 4. The Plaintiff's motion for June 30, 2023 conditional certification and/or Rule 23 class certification is to be filed by: Majestic Star was a gaming holding company founded in Gary, Indiana by Don H. Barden and was based in Las Vegas, Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VPIxKO at no extra charge.[CC] MARINOSCI LAW: Burke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY M. BURKE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C., P.A., Case No. 9:22-cv-80725-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) action as a class action under Rule 23: "All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom Marinosci Law Group, P.C., P.A. mailed a "debt validation notice," (c) which was not returned undeliverable, (c) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) between April 26, 2021 and April 25, 2022, (e) which debt validation notice listed at least three entities other than Marinosci Law Group, P.C., P.A. under the heading "our information shows."" 2. appointing him as class representative; and 3. appointing his counsel as class counsel. On March 26, 2022, the Defendant sent a "debt validation notice" to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The March 26, 2022 letter was the first written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant. The Plaintiff did not receive any other written communications from Defendant within five days of the March 26, 2022 communication. Here, Plaintiff has diligently pursued this case—including responding to written discovery and sitting for deposition—with the goal of obtaining relief for the members of the class and forcing Defendant to comply with the law. Marinosci is a law practice company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VyUi94 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson Jesse S. Johnson GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Matisyahu H. Abarbanel Matthew Bavaro LOAN LAWYERS 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 523-4357 E-mail: Matthew@Fight13.com MELINDA MASTERS: Court Junks Longino Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LONGINO AND WILLIS BAILEY, v. MELINDA MASTERS, JON CARNER, COURTNEY JONES, AND KERI FITZPATRICK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00672-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John E. Steele entered an order: 1. dismissing Plaintiffs' class action complaint without prejudice to any individual resident filing his own complaint along with a filing fee or motion to proceed as a pauper; and 2. directing the Clerk of Court to deny any pending motions as moot, close this case, and enter judgment. The Court said, "Because they have not alleged an actual or imminent injury, the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action capacity. In addition, Plaintiffs may not bring a class action case on behalf of other residents of the FCCC. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Because this dismissal is based on circumstances that cannot be changed in an amended complaint (standing and class certification), providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile, the Court adds. The Plaintiffs complain that the FCCC does not have an adequate law library. Instead, the facility has a computer lab with twenty computers for the entire resident population, with only ten of those designated as legal computers. Moreover, the FCCC employee who runs the lab is untrained in the law and has no experience in conducting legal research via Lexis Nexis, and FCCC residents residents. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OVZj8V at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------- John Doe & Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07557 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Meta's "Pixel" is piece of code that logs users' activities on third-party websites and sends the details back to Meta. It has now emerged that major online tax-filing services such as H&R Block, TaxAct, and TaxSlayer embedded the Pixel in their websites and sent tens of millions of filers' tax-return data to Meta without their consent in violation of federal law. The Pixel sent Meta the tax-filers' names, email addresses, adjusted gross incomes, tax-filing statuses, refund amounts, dependents' college scholarship amounts, and their dependents' names--and perhaps more. It did so regardless whether the filer had an account on Meta's social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram. And even when filers expressly declined to share their information, the Pixel collected it anyway. In its contract with Facebook users, Meta promised that it "requires" businesses that use the Pixel "to have lawful rights to collect, use, and share your data before providing any data to us." In actuality, Meta makes no effort to enforce that promise--relying on a broken honor--system that has resulted in repeated, documented violations of Meta's own contractual promises and state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were amongst the Americans whose confidences were breached. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811 Houston, TX 77080 Phone: (832) 848-0036 Email: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Steven C. Vondran, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN, PC One Sansome Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (877) 276-5084 Email: steve@vondranlegal.com METROPOLITAN TOWER: Court Junks Pitt Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN A. PITT, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Michael A. Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Michael A. Pitt, and on Behalf of the Class, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies that were renewed, issued, or delivered by the Defendant in California, and in force on or after January 1, 2013, and which the Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium without Defendant first providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72." The Court said, "The Plaintiff's suggestion that the Court "certify a legal issue" in lieu of certification of the "entire class" does not make sense. To the extent that the Plaintiff is proposing a Rule 23(c)(4) class, the scope of that proposed class is unclear, and the Plaintiff has failed to establish that such a certification would materially advance the disposition of the litigation. The Court declines Plaintiff's alternative proposal." The Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief is likewise not a basis for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that "Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 applied as of January 1, 2013, to the Defendant's California policies in force as of or at any time after January 1, 2013, including Plaintiff's Policy." In October 2003, while living in Illinois, Michael Pitt purchased a $2 million term life insurance policy from Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company. In September 2016, Mr. Pitt applied for reinstatement and tendered the full annual premium amount of $7,290. In February 2017, Tower rejected Mr. Pitt's reinstatement application. In May 2018, Michael Pitt passed away. ECF No. 76-2 ¶ 9. In August 2018, Plaintiff Susan Pitt, the named beneficiary under the Policy, filed a claim with Tower for death benefits. Tower denied her claim. Metropolitan Tower provides life, health, auto, dental, home, vision, accident, and disability insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FpTNZ9 at no extra charge.[CC] MIRAPATH INC: Liendo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diego Gonzalo Lluen Liendo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MIRAPATH, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 22CV404785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 17, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violations of California's laws by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class Members, as a class action, against Defendants for: failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants within the State of California. The Defendants were authorized to and doing business in Santa Clara County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Megan E. Ross, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com megan@melmedlaw.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Mills Seeks to Certify ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Mills, et al., v. Molina Healthcare, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01813-SB-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying case as a class action; and "All participants and beneficiaries of the Molina Healthcare Salary Savings Plan from March 18, 2016 through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants;" and 2. appointing Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP as class counsel. The Plaintiffs Michelle Mills, Coy Sarell, Chad Westover, Brent Aleshire, Barbara Kershner, Paula Schaub, and Jennifer Silva are participants in the Molina Salary Savings Plan (the Plan), a defined contribution plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Defendants are current and former fiduciaries of the Plan, who owe ERISA-imposed duties to the Plan and all participants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and caused prohibited transactions by causing the Plan to include imprudent investment options and to incur unreasonable and excessive fees. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) and seek to recover all losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' ERISA violations, as well as equitable relief as provided for in 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XVP5tl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Nathan D. Stump, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com nstump@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com - and - William H. Edmonson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILL EDMONSON 9157 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 213 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (424) 248-9581 E-mail: will@whelawfirm.com NCINO INC: Continues to Defend Live Oak Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- nCino Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Company continues to defend the Live Oak class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (the "District Court"). The sole class representative in the suit is one individual alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among the Company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not to solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. §§ 75-1 and 75-2. The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees, the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The complaint does not allege any specific damages. On April 28, 2022, the District Court approved settlements between the plaintiff and defendant Live Oak in the amount of approximately $3.9 million and unnamed party Apiture in the amount of approximately $0.8 million. Although there can be no assurance with respect to the outcome of this matter, the Company believes the alleged claims are not meritorious and intends to defend itself vigorously. nCino Inc. is a financial technology company. NESTLE PURINA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salinas v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01140 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order setting class certification deadlines and hearings: -- The parties shall have until December 12, 2022, to file a joint status report informing the Court of the status of mediation and to submit their proposals regarding deadlines concerning class certification or a motion for approval of settlement. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. Nestle Purina Petcare, or simply Purina, is an American subsidiary of the Swiss corporation Nestle, based in St. Louis, Missouri. It produces and markets pet food, treats, cat and dog litter. Some of its pet food brands include Purina Pro Plan, Purina Dog Chow, Friskies, Beneful and Purina One.[CC] NETAPP INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- NetApp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a securities class action suit with prejudice on September 1, 2022. On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of our executive officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided on May 22, 2019. Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020. The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of our shares following the issuance of the revised guidance on August 1, 2019. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted and on February 26, 2021 and the judge entered judgment in favor of NetApp and the other defendants. On March 26, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions, and on July 30, 2021 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for the settlement of the class action. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, NetApp has agreed to pay approximately $2.0 million in connection with the settlement, and this amount was accrued during the three months ended July 30, 2021. The parties subsequently executed a stipulation of settlement, which contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties, and which provides that the class action will be dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases by all parties, upon final court approval. On September 24, 2021, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking court approval of the settlement. On May 2, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On September 1, 2022, the court held a final approval hearing, approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. NetApp is a global cloud-led, data-centric software company based in California. NETFLIX INC: Maple Heights Can't Enforce Ohio's FCCOA, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS v. NETFLIX, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2021-0864 (Ohio), Judge Michael P. Donnelly of the Supreme Court of Ohio answers "no" to the following certified state-law questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, for review: (1) Are Netflix and Hulu video service providers under Ohio law? and (2) Can Maple Heights sue Netflix and Hulu to enforce Ohio's video service provider provisions? Respondent Maple Heights filed a federal class-action and declaratory-judgment lawsuit against petitioners, the video-streaming services Netflix and Hulu. In that lawsuit, Maple Heights asserts that Netflix and Hulu are in violation of the Fair Competition in Cable Operations Act, R.C. Chapter 1332.21, 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 117 ("the Act"). Specifically, Maple Heights argues that Netflix and Hulu are illegally providing video services in Ohio -- including in Maple Heights -- without authorization from the director of commerce and without paying the requisite fees to Maple Heights. Netflix and Hulu separately filed motions to dismiss Maple Heights's complaint against them in federal court, arguing that their streaming services do not fall within the Act. Netflix and Hulu are video-content providers that stream on-demand shows and movies to their subscribers over the Internet. Netflix's and Hulu's members may stream as much content as they want -- anytime, anywhere, and on any public Internet-connected device. Because Netflix and Hulu make their content available through the public Internet, they do not maintain wires, cables, or other infrastructure in any Ohio public rights-of-way. Netflix began its streaming media service in 2007. Hulu began streaming to the public in 2008. Netflix and Hulu claim that the Act does not pertain to them because neither Netflix nor Hulu construct or operate wires, cables, facilities, or networks in the public rights-of-way. Rather, subscribers connect to Netflix's and Hulu's services through the subscribers' own Internet-connected devices. They further argue that because they have never held video-services authorizations pursuant to R.C. 1332.21 through 1332.34, they do not meet the statutory definition of a video-service provider. Netflix and Hulu each assert that a business without that authorization is, by definition, not a video-service provider. The parties agree that neither Netflix nor Hulu have a video-service authorization. In Netflix's and Hulu's motions to dismiss in federal court, they each asserted that (1) they do not offer video-programming services that are comparable to broadcast television under R.C. 1332.21(I), (2) they offer their programming and content over the public Internet, which they assert is exempted from the definition of "video service" under R.C. 1332.21(J), and (3) they do not own, operate, or use video-service networks in the public-rights-of-way under R.C. 1332.21(J). Maple Heights countered that even if Netflix and Hulu do not own, operate, or use video-service networks, they are video-service providers as defined by R.C. 1332.21(J) because the services that they provide -- i.e., shows, movies, and other similar content -- are comparable to broadcast television as provided in R.C. 1332.21(I). Maple Heights also asserted that Netflix and Hulu do not offer programming over the public Internet and, even if they did, their programming is not offered as "part of and via a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the public internet," as required by R.C. 1332.21(J) to be excluded from the definition of "video service." The parties also disagree about the reach of R.C. 1332.32, which imposes a quarterly fee that video-service providers owe to municipalities. As to the first certified state-law question, the federal court asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Netflix and Hulu are video-service providers under the Act. As to the second certified state-law question, the federal court asks to determine whether Maple Heights may sue Netflix and Hulu as a means of enforcing the Act, particularly in light of Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), and Anderson v. Smith, 196 Ohio App.3d 540, 2011-Ohio-5619, 964 N.E.2d 468 (10th Dist.), which consider the circumstances under which a statute implies a private right of action. Judge Donnelly holds that (1) Netflix and Hulu are not video-service providers under the Act and (2) the Act does not expressly or impliedly give Maple Heights the authority to bring a cause of action such as the one at issue. He states that Netflix and Hulu are online-streaming businesses that service their subscribers over the public Internet. The General Assembly defined video service to the exclusion of those who provide "video programming * * * solely as part of and via a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the public internet." And the purpose of the Act as expressed by its language is to eliminate the authority of local governments, like Maple Heights, over video-service franchises. The director of commerce has the sole authority to grant video-service authorizations and to investigate allegations that a video-service provider is violating or failing to comply with the Act. To read the Act as granting Maple Heights an implied right to bring the underlying action under Cort would be contrary to its stated intent. Therefore, Judge Donnelly answers both certified state-law questions in the negative. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytzj2du7 from Leagle.com. DiCello, Levitt & Gutzler, L.L.C., Mark A. DiCello -- madicello@dicellolevitt.com -- and Justin J. Hawal -- jhawal@dicellolevitt.com -- for the Respondent. Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Amanda Martinsek -- amartinsek@ulmer.com -- and Gregory C. Djordjevic -- gdjordjevic@ulmer.com; and Latham & Watkins, L.L.P., Mary Rose Alexander -- mary.rose.alexander@lw.com -- Robert C. Collins III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- and Jean A. Pawlow -- jean.pawlow@lw.com -- for Petitioner Netflix, Inc. Brouse McDowell and Kerri L. Keller -- kkeller@brouse.com; and Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Victor Jih -- vjih@wsgr.com -- and Eric T. Kohan -- ekohan@wsgr.com -- for Petitioner Hulu, L.L.C. Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. -- jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com; and Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton, L.L.P., and Adam H. Charnes, in support of petitioners for amicus curiae DIRECTV, L.L.C. Public Knowledge and John Bergmayer -- john@publicknowledge.org; and Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., James F. Lang -- jlang@calfee.com -- and Colleen M. O'Neil -- coneil@calfee.com -- in support of petitioners for amicus curiae Public Knowledge. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., James F. Lang, Colleen M. O'Neil, and Madeline H. Shanahan -- mshanahan@calfee.com; Steptoe & Johnson, L.L.P., Pantelis Michalopoulos -- pmichalopoulos@steptoe.com -- and Matthew R. Friedman -- mfriedman@steptoe.com; and Crosscastle, P.L.L.C., and Jared R. Butcher, in support of petitioners for amici curiae DISH Network Corp. and DISH Network, L.L.C. Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, and Mathura J. Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General, in support of petitioners for amicus curiae state of Ohio. NEW JERSEY: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Jan. 4, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALICKI et al., v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order setting oral argument on the motion to certify class for Jan. 4, 2023. New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of Atlantic coast. Jersey City, across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan, is the site of Liberty State Park, where ferries embark for nearby Ellis Island, with its historic Immigration Museum, and the iconic Statue of Liberty. The nature of suit states Conspiracy/Deprivation Civil Rights..[CC] NFL: Application to File Documents Under Seal Submitted ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE'S "SUNDAY TICKET" ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an application requesting that the Court lodge provisionally under seal the following documents: 1. The sealed Declaration of Ian M. Gore in Support of Plaintiffs' 2. The unredacted version of the Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 3. The Rebuttal Declaration of Sarah Butler 4. The Rebuttal Declaration of Doug Zona 5. The Rebuttal Declaration of Daniel Rascher 6. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief 7. Class Certification Reply Brief 8. Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief 9. Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief 10. Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief 11. Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' 12. Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief The National Football League is a professional American football league that consists of 32 teams A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iwCFbc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. William C. Carmody, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Tyler Finn, Esq. Ian M. Gore, Esq. Armstead Lewis, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com tfinn@susmangodfrey.com igore@susmangodfrey.com alewis@susmangodfrey.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. Farhad Mirzadeh, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com sgosselin@hausfeld.com fmirzadeh@hausfeld.com - and - Howard Langer, Esq. Edward Diver, Esq. Peter Leckman, Esq. Kevin Trainer, Esq. LANGER GROGAN AND DIVER PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 Facsimile: (215) 320-5703 E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com ndiver@langergrogan.com pleckman@langergrogan.com ktrainer@langergrogan.com NIGHT TEETH INC: Zucker Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Night Teeth, Inc. The case is styled as B. Zucker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Night Teeth, Inc., Benjamin R. Pugh and Doe One through and including Doe Ten, Case No. 2:22-cv-07551-FMO-AFM (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Fl. Glendale, CA 91203 NOMI HEALTH: Servidori Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SERVIDORI, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. NOMI HEALTH, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01475-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action: -- VRE Collective "All Couriers employed by Defendant in the State of Florida during the previous 3-years who were required to utilize their own person vehicle and incur expenses in any week in which they worked more than 40 hours;" and -- Non-Discretionary Bonus Collective "All Couriers employed by Defendant in the State of Florida during the previous 3-years who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and whose non-discretionary bonuses were not calculated into the overtime compensation paid." The Defendant owns and operates a direct healthcare company that employs Couriers like Plaintiff to deliver medical packages throughout the State of Florida. The Plaintiff worked as a Courier for Defendant from on or about October 25, 2021 until August 8, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a Collective Action seeking overtime wages for himself and similarly situated Couriers on August 18, 2022. On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff, Servidori, and Opt-In Plaintiffs Christine Byron, and Ruth Rowe, filed their consents to sue under the FLSA and joined this lawsuit. The Plaintiff contends that all Couriers have substantially similar duties, were required to possess and utilize their own personal vehicle for Defendant's benefit, incurred expenses in the operation and maintenance of their vehicle which were not reimbursed, and regularly performed more than 40 hours of work per week. Nomi Health is a direct healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUUywq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Mckinley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: amckinley@seyfarth.com NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY: Challender Seeks Conditional Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA CHALLENDER, JESSICA GREENE, BRITTANY KRITZ, DARNELL MUDGETT, and ASHLEY TRYLCH, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY CENTER, L.L.C. d/b/a COPPER RIDGE SURGERY CENTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00459-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying and allowing judicial notice of this action to be sent to the following potential collective members: "Defendant Northwest Michigan Surgery Center, L.L.C. d/b/a Copper Ridge Surgery Center's employees who worked any time during the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint (i.e., since May 20, 2019), who received overtime pay and at least one (1) quarterly bonus pursuant to Defendant's Performance Incentive Bonus (PIB) Policy, and whose bonus(es) were not included when determining the rate on which the employee's overtime pay was based." The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against Northwest Michigan Surgery alleging failure to pay sufficient overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) Northwest Michigan is an Ambulatory Surgical Center in Traverse City, Michigan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BvL71d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Kara F. Krause, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 617 Detroit St. Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 487-9484 E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com kara@hurwitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory M. Meihn, Esq. Matthew T. Wise, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 37000 Woodward Ave., Ste. 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (313) 426-9815 E-mail: gmeihn@grsm.com mwise@grsm.com NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seth Villafan, a single man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but separated man, v. Northwest Motorsport LLC, et al., Case No.2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion for the extension of: -- The deadline for filing motions related to class certification from current deadline of Dec. 1, 2022 to a proposed deadline of Dec. 29, 2022. The Defendants include NORTWE3T MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington limited liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING, residents of Texas, and the marital community composed thereof; NORTHWEST MOTOSPORT, INC., a Washington limited liability company; RICHARD FORD and JANE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital communities composed thereof; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation. Northwest Motorsport was founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of used cars. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iqfNKi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR. 144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone:(425) 582 8165 Facsimile:(888) 527 2710 E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul Smith, Esq. Martin J. Pujolar, Esq. FORSBERG & UMLAUF 901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 689 8500 Facsimile: (206) 689 8501 E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law psmith@foum.law OKTA INC: Continues to Defend O'Dell Shareholder Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the O'Dell shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 28, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors, captioned O’Dell v. McKinnon et al., No. 3:22-cv-07480. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company’s integration of Auth0, Inc. The lawsuit seeks an order permitting the plaintiff to maintain this action derivatively on behalf of the Company, awarding unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the Company, awarding restitution from the individual defendants, and requiring the Company to make certain reforms to its corporate governance and controls. The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Okta, Inc. is an independent identity Provider based in California. OKTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Securities class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executive officers, captioned In re Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-02990. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company's integration of Auth0, Inc. The lawsuit seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action and unspecified damages. The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Okta, Inc. is an independent identity Provider based in California. PARAMOUNT FLORIDA: Cerda Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura M. Cerda, for herself, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT FLORIDA SECURITY GROUP INC, GOLDEN SECURITY GUARD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC, and PEDRO MORA, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-23884-JEM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. During the Plaintiff's employment time, she always worked more than 40 hours every week. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff never was adequately compensated for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch periods. Furthermore, during her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was paid less than the required minimum wages required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours worked by the Plaintiff. Therefore, during the relevant period of time, Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had security guard duties working at La Belle Perfume Distributor, located in Miami, Florida. The Defendants are companies providing security and surveillance services that provide security services to businesses, residential communities, construction sites, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PENN CREDIT: Messinger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit Corporation. The case is styled as Yisroel Messinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penn Credit Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-10153 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Penn Credit -- https://penncredit.com/ -- is a nationwide accounts receivables management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Communication Time ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Beadle, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY PARENTS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Case No. 159750366 (Fla. 12th Judicial Cir. Ct., Sarasota Cty., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act as a result of unlawful communication time. The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor. On August 30, 2021, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication advised that "Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is attempting to contact you regarding your past due student loan account. Options are available to resolve this issue, but you must call one of our representatives immediately." The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 10:37 PM in Plaintiff's zone. As a result, the Defendants violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Sarasota County, Florida. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com PERATON INC: Ewers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Ewers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERATON, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01374 (E.D. Va., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant does not pay overtime to its technicians. Instead, the Defendant pays them by the hour at the same hourly rate for all hours worked, even though they work many hours in excess of forty hours per week. Because this pay practice, commonly known as "straight time-for-overtime," results in non-payment of overtime wages to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electrician Technician. Peraton is a national security company headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804-648-4848 Facsimile: 804-237-0413 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paschal, et al., Seek to Certify Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE PASCHAL and PEDRO ZARAZUA JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying and sending court-authorized notice to the proposed collective of similarly situated employees defined as: "All individuals who worked as servers for Defendants in Texas at any time during the three year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit and were paid a direct cash wage of less than minimum wage." The Plaintiffs and Collective Members were all paid a direct subminimum hourly wage of less than $7.25 per hour and, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Perry's Restaurants provides grilled food processing services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VvGI6e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Edward F. Martin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-06925 (D.N.J., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought to redress violations by the Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, or, in the alternative, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay proper overtime compensation. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation in violation of said laws. The Defendants failed to pay overtime on commission to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individual. As a result of the aforesaid unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs have suffered harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from December 2019 until July 2022. PHH Mortgage Corporation is an entity located in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner St. Ste 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 PIERRE FABRE: Bojko Sues Over Defective Products ------------------------------------------------- Magdalena Bojko and Courtney Heeren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIERRE FABRE USA INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06728 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought on behalf of persons who purchased for normal household use the Defendant's dry shampoo products that are defective because they contain benzene, and which were formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across the United States, both in retail establishments and online, including in Illinois, certain dry shampoo products under the "Klorane" brand (the "Products"). The Products are adulterated and/or contaminated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The Products are defective because they contain significant amounts of the chemical benzene, a known human carcinogen; yet despite the presence of benzene, Defendant represents that the Products are safe and effective for their intended use. The presence of benzene in the Defendant's Products was not disclosed to consumers in the Products' labeling, advertising or otherwise, in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiffs and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendant's misconduct and seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the Products. The Plaintiffs allege the following based upon personal knowledge as well as investigation by counsel, and as to all other matters, upon information and belief. Plaintiffs further believe that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have purchased for household use Defendant's dry shampoo Products. Pierre Fabre Group, also known as Laboratories Pierre Fabre, is a French multinational pharmaceutical and cosmetics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS Grossman, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: eruben@milberg.com - and - Alex Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com PORSCHE AG: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, et al. The case is styled as Peter Grayson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-06105-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, usually shortened to Porsche -- http://www.porsche.com/international-- is a German automobile manufacturer specializing in high-performance sports cars, SUVs and sedans, headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 421-6492 Fax: (212) 421-6553 Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lapides Sues Over Incorrect Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Esther Lapides, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 534719/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants incorrect and deceptive statements in collecting debt. On December 21, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a debt validation letter regarding the alleged debt originally owed to Synchrony. The letter ostensibly provides the Defendant Portfolio's response as required by the FDCPA regarding the Plaintiff's dispute of the debt. However, the balance stated on the Defendant's Letter is not reflected within any of the alleged proofs and/or statements provided by the Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant's Letter indicates a "Balance" of $833.26." Despite providing what it asserted to be verification of the disputed debt, the figure "$833.26" is not reflected within the actual proofs provided. Rather, Defendant Portfolio included a single letter from Synchrony which indicated a balance of "$833.26" along with three separate statements, none of which include a reference to the amount of "$833.26." The first statement, with a closing date of November 27, 2019, notes a "New Balance" of "$562.67." The next statement, with a closing date of April 27, 2020, notes a "New Balance" of "$793.26." The final statement, with a closing date of May 26, 2020, appears to reflect a charge off of the account and notes a "New Balance" of $0.00 while indicating both a "Prior Balance" and a "Credit" of "$793.26." The Letter, nor the allegedly supporting documentation provided, attempt to explain the difference between the two amounts quoted or provide instructions concerning which amount is the accurate amount due. Based on the documentation provided by Defendant in response to the Plaintiff's dispute letter and request for verification, it is apparent that the amount stated as owed is incorrect, deceptive, and not supported by the actual statements associated with the account. Specifically, the highest amount owed, including at the time of the apparent charge off of the account, was $793.26; however, the Defendant now improperly seeks to collect $833.26. The Defendant provided as part of its alleged investigation into the Plaintiff's dispute, the Plaintiff was misled and made uncertain as to what was the correct balance of debt. The deceptive accounting of the debt left the Plaintiff wary of potential fraud and fearful as to how to proceed. Listing conflicting balances between the correspondence sent by the Defendant and the statements provided by its predecessor in interest, without further clarification, misled the Plaintiff as to the proper payment amount for the alleged debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201)282-6500 Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pierni Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Pierni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-12020-LTS (D. Mass., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola S. Yousif, Esq. 157 Belmont Street Brockton, MA 02301 Phone: (508) 588-7300 Email: nick@yousiflaw.com PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Files Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN GRAINGER, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02043-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification on all his claims: The Plaintiff contemporaneously is filing a brief containing a statement of the grounds for class certification and citations to authorities upon which Plaintiff relies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h1PSs1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. 115 First Avenue SE, Suite 201 P. O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637 Telephone (319) 363-5209 Facsimile (319) 363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Suit Removed to D. Maine ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Thurston, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, United Financial Casualty Co., Case No. ELLSC-CV-22-00034 was removed from the Hancock County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on Nov. 30, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00375-NT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Z. Steed, Esq. ISLAND JUSTICE P.O. BOX 771 Stonington, ME 04681 Phone: (207) 374-2573 Email: jsteed@ellenbestlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas S. Marjerison, Esq. NORMAN, HANSON & DETROY Two Canal Plaza P. O. BOX 4600 Portland, ME 04112 Email: tmarjerison@nhdlaw.com PROSPECT HOTEL: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Hotel Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Flor Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prospect Hotel Management LLC doing business as: AutoCamp, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-07679-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prospect Hotel Management LLC doing business as AUTOCAMP -- https://autocamp.com/ -- is a camping ground often provided with cabins or tents and designed for the accommodation of automobile tourists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOCORRO MORELAND, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation; PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-04336-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certify the proposed Class: "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of the Defendants' individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that Defendants lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first complying with all the requirements of California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72;" 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Nicholas & Tomasevic as well as Winters & Associates as Class Counsel. The Prudential Insurance Company of America operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B8Lrmc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net sball@einsurelaw.com QUAID HARLEY: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hill Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA HILL, Plaintiff and Respondent v. QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D080076 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One, affirms the trial court's order denying Quaid's petition to compel arbitration of the claims of a subset of the class. In a second amended complaint (complaint) filed in May 2019, Hill asserted causes of action against Quaid arising from her purchase of a motorcycle from Quaid. Her complaint included individual claims as well as proposed class claims. In support of the proposed class claims, Hill alleged, among other things, that Quaid charged her a $1,299 dealer preparation fee (also referred to as a "pre-delivery inspection and setup fee") in connection with her motorcycle purchase. Unknown to Hill, Quaid was already being compensated for the dealer preparation work by Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. She alleged Quaid routinely and systematically charged its customers dealer preparation fees without disclosing that it was being paid twice for the same work. Hill alleged such "'double-billing' schemes" are prohibited by title 13, section 262.03 of the California Code of Regulations, which provides that "a dealer may not identify a separate charge or charges for services performed on vehicles prior to delivery to the extent the dealer is or will be reimbursed for such expenditures by another party." On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Hill stated causes of action for false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17500), violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Section 1750), unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200), negligent misrepresentation (Civ. Code, Sections 1572, 1709, 1710), fraud, and unjust enrichment. On behalf of the class, Hill sought damages, restitution, and an injunction. Quaid filed an answer to the complaint in which it asserted failure to arbitrate as its eighteenth affirmative defense to Hill's individual claims. The parties then engaged in written discovery and depositions to investigate the class claims and prospects for certification. Quaid did not contend in its responses to written discovery that the class members other than Hill had signed arbitration agreements. In May 2021, Hill moved for certification of a proposed class consisting of consumers who purchased or leased a new motorcycle from Quaid from Oct. 5, 2014, through the date of final class notice, or trial. In June 2021, the trial court issued an order certifying the following class: "All consumers who purchased or leased a new motorcycle from Quaid Harley-Davidson and were charged a pre-delivery inspection and set up fee or 'DLR PREP' fee between March 4, 2015 and the day before the class notice is mailed." It appointed Hill's counsel, Ross Hyslop, to serve as the class counsel, and directed the parties to meet and confer and present a joint motion on the subject of class notice. In August 2021, the court approved a class notice that was to be sent to the class members in September that year. Before class notice was served, Quaid filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to section 1281.2. It sought an order compelling class members who signed sales contracts containing or incorporating arbitration agreements to arbitrate their disputes. Hill filed an opposition to Quaid's petition. She argued, among others, Quaid failed to establish a prior demand and refusal to arbitrate as required by section 1281.2 and Quaid waived its right to arbitrate disputes of unnamed members by taking actions inconsistent with assertion of a right to arbitrate. The trial court heard Quaid's petition to compel arbitration on Oct. 4, 2021. That same day, it issued a minute order denying Quaid's petition. The order simply stated, "Quaid's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied." On Oct. 18, 2021, Quaid filed an ex parte application for an order extending the time for requesting a statement of decision. It stated it wanted to request a statement of decision to address "the principal controverted factual issues determined by the court." It argued it would be irreparably harmed if it was not granted an extension of time to request a statement of decision because the absence of factual detail in the Minute Order may result in the Appeals Court making implied factual findings. On Oct. 19, 2021, the trial court denied the ex parte application. Quaid then filed a notice of appeal of the October 4 minute order denying its petition to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court impliedly found that Quaid's petition to compel arbitration was not preceded by a demand and refusal to arbitrate by class members purportedly bound by arbitration provisions, and that Quaid waived the right to compel arbitration through conduct inconsistent with assertion of a right to arbitrate. These implied factual findings are subject to substantial evidence review. Quaid fails to establish otherwise. For these reasons, Quaid has forfeited its challenges to these findings on appeal. Either of these issues, on its own, would support affirmance of the court's denial of Quaid's petition. As a result, the Court of Appeals' finding of forfeiture compels affirmance of the trial court's ruling. Even if the Court of Appeals were to overlook Quaid's forfeiture and reach the merits of its appeal, it opines that the result would be no different. It is required to uphold the trial court's ruling if it was correct on any ground. Even if Quaid had not forfeited its challenges to the foregoing issues, the Court of Appeals would uphold the trial court's ruling on the ground it did not err in impliedly finding Quaid's petition was not preceded by a demand and refusal to arbitrate. In sum, the Court of Appeals concludes that Quaid neglected to request the trial court issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal bases of its order. It did not address the consequences of this omission in its opening brief on appeal. The Court of Appeals concludes Quaid has forfeited two of its appellate challenges by failing to articulate and tailor its arguments to the correct standard of review, and by failing to acknowledge evidence unfavorable to its position. It further concludes Quaid's appeal lacks merit notwithstanding any forfeiture. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's implied determination that Quaid's petition was not preceded by a demand and refusal to arbitrate. It did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the order denying Quaid's petition to compel arbitration. Hill will recover her costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdeyvskp from Leagle.com. Scali Rasmussen, Halbert B. Rasmussen -- hrasmussen@scalilaw.com -- and Juliet S. Pearson -- jpearson@scalilaw.com -- for the Defendant and Appellant. Pestotnik and Ross H. Hyslop, for the Plaintiff and Respondent. REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------- Lena Armas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, CH REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., B/T WASHINGTON, LLC D/B/A BLANTON TURNER, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and UDR, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07543 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought as an antitrust class action alleging that certain major residential landlords illegally exchanged and agreed on prices through a data analytics software rather than compete to attract renters, and is brought against the Defendants' price fixing conspiracy. The RealPage Platform works by collecting vast amounts of non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every other possible data point relevant to rent prices. This data is fed into an algorithm, along with additional data collected from RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management software products. The algorithm then generates a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units, which is updated daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental price at least 80-90 percent of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue Management Advisors" monitor clients to ensure compliance. As the allegations and evidence set forth below demonstrate, RealPage and the property managers who use the RealPage Platform constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through coordinated price setting. In 2016, Defendants replaced these independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. With its growing popularity within the industry, Lessors agreed to use the RealPage Platform. Defendants agreed to follow RealPage Platform's rental pricing recommendations 80-90 percent of the time and faced disciplinary action for non-compliance based on the expectation that competing Defendants would do the same. As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet, RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices across the board and understood that RealPage--which has been explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which to do it. RealPage's clients include many of the nation's largest property managers who often control a majority of rental units in desirable neighborhoods of major cities. A recent analysis conducted by ProPublica showed that rents in areas where RealPage clients control a high percentage of rental units have increased at a significantly higher rate than those where the company's influence is weaker. The Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of affordable rental units. As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class, who rent in residential markets throughout the United States from property managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges on rent and suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental units they could reasonably afford, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina who rented a multifamily residential unit. RealPage is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson, Texas and has nearly 31,700 customers that together control the critical mass of rental real estate in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jsmith@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com REALPAGE INC: Uses Software to Raise Rent Prices, Silverman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAINA SILVERMAN and TYLER KIMBROUGH, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; TF CORNERSTONE, INC.; and ROSE ASSOCIATES INC.; Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09850 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to recover damages, as well as trebled damages, and injunctive relief, on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs Silverman and Kimbrough bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons in the New York City-metro area who have leased multifamily residential real estate units (or, "rental units") directly from a Defendant or a co-conspirator from as early as November 18, 2018 through the present. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, prices for rental units in the New York City-metro area, which is already among the most expensive housing markets in the United States, have been artificially higher than they otherwise would have but for the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, stabilize, or increase prices artificially. The way that the conspiracy operates is as follows: Lessor Defendants, who are property managers, owners, and operators in the geographic area, like Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC, subscribe to a software platform produced by Defendant RealPage, Inc. called YieldStar. YieldStar, which is applied to tens of thousands of apartments in the geographic market, assesses hundreds of variables particular to each unit and proposed lease offered by the Lessor, like Defendant Greystar. Then YieldStar uses an algorithm to determine pricing for each unit - and said pricing is shared amongst the Lessor Defendants. YieldStar advertises itself as having the ability to "track your competition's rent with precision." And, as YieldStar pushes prices higher, the participating Lessors reap supracompetitive profits, says the suit. RealPage, Inc. provides products and services to the multifamily real estate industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 Facsimile: (212) 739-0628 E-mail: israel@israeldavidllc.com RED APPLE GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Apple Group, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Red Apple Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07270 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Red Apple Group is a conglomerate that owns and operates assets in the energy, real estate, finance, insurance, and supermarket industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Discovery Deadline Extended in Ford Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Christian F Hummel entered an order granting in part Letter Motion from Donald W Boyajian for Ethan Deecher, Morgan Ford, Grady Habicht requesting 60 Day extension of the Discovery deadline: The Deadlines are extended about 45 days and are reset as follows: -- Discovery now due by: Jan. 17, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Jan. 15, 2023 Deadline is: -- The Defendants Expert Disclosure March 1, 2023 Deadline is: -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure March 28, 2023 Deadline is: -- Motions to be filed by: May 30, 2023 -- Motion for Class Certification April 28, 2023 is due: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Rensselaer is a private research university in Troy, New York, with an additional campus in Hartford, Connecticut. A third campus in Groton, Connecticut closed in 2018. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] RIDDLE'S GROUP INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riddle's Group, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Riddle's Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10169 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Riddle's Jewelry -- https://www.riddlesjewelry.com/ -- is a local jewelry store with men's and women's watches, diamond engagement & wedding rings, necklaces, earrings and more.[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 SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Class Action Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLIS RAY HICKS JR v. SAM DOWIES, Case No. 5:21-cv-01896-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Mark L. Hornsby entered an order that there is no basis for granting class action status, which the court discussed in more detail in an order issued in September 2022. The court has previously specifically addressed Plaintiff's complaints about the discovery process, and relief has been afforded Plaintiff in some respects. The filing also asks for summary judgment, but it merely quotes Rule 56 and asks for judgment in favor of Plaintiff. That is insufficient to warrant any relief. Mr. Hicks filed this civil action in June 2021. He alleges that an inmate at the Claiborne Parish Detention Center called him and passed on a message from Sheriff Sam Dowies that included a threat that Plaintiff get out of Louisiana or be arrested, that Plaintiff drop or dismiss a civil rights complaint, and that Plaintiff not contact certain individuals to assist him. The Plaintiff filed in June 2022 a document titled Omnibus Petition for: Motion to Contest for Disposition by Defendant's Counselor(s); Motion Seeking Summary Judgment; and Class Action Status. The filing argues that the sheriff's attorneys have attempted to thwart Plaintiff from receiving discovery, that class action status is warranted because the issues affect a number of citizens in Claiborne Parish, and that summary judgment is appropriate. The motion is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vu2Uxp at no extra charge.[CC] SAYBONE INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saybone, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Saybone, Inc. doing business as: Capitol, Case No. 3:22-cv-00560-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C., Oct. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saybone, Inc. doing business as Capitol -- https://www.shop-capitol.com/ -- is a luxury clothing boutique in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Phone: (704) 814-0729 Fax: (704) 814-0730 Email: srg@gohillaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amanda Pickens Nitto, Esq. Cary Baxter Davis, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 Phone: (704) 377-8184 Fax: (704) 373-3984 Email: anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com cdavis@robinsonbradshaw.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Vega Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-JBA (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint Dec. 12, 2022 2. Motion to Dismiss shall be filed by: Dec. 27, 2022 3. Any opposition shall be filed by: Jan. 10, 2023 4. Any reply shall be filed by: Jan. 20, 2023 5. Motion for Class Certification Jan. 0, 2023 shall be filed by: 6. Opposition will be filed by: Feb. 20, 2023 7. Reply, if any, shall be filed by: March 2, 2023 8. Plaintiffs' medical expert Jan. 30, 2023 reports will be served by: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H93755 at no extra charge.[CC] SENTINEL INSURANCE: Zunino Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff PAULINA F ZUNINO DMD LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Order dated Oct. 14, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled Paulina F. Zunino DMD LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Co Ltd., Case No. 2-20-cv-01260, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Paulina F. Zunino, DMD, LLC, a licensed dental office located in Pennsylvania, alleges that its commercial property insurer, Sentinel, wrongfully denied its claims for business losses that it sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or government orders issued to mitigate the COVID-19 virus's spread. The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. The Plaintiff's claims and supporting factual allegations, the arguments that the Defendant has advanced in its Motion to Dismiss, and the arguments that the Plaintiff has advanced in opposing the Motion are all substantially similar to the claims, factual allegations, and arguments advanced by the parties in three other COVID-19 business interruption insurance matters before the Court and in a multitude of actions in state and federal courts -- In re: Erie COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, No. 21-mc-1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022) and Hirschfield-Louik v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-816 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022). As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered an Order dated Oct. 14, 2022 granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Hornak held that the terms of the Plaintiff's insurance Policy with the Defendant, the Plaintiff's factual allegations, and its legal arguments are substantially similar to those in In re: Erie and in Hirschfield-Louik. Thus, for the reasons explained in the Opinions as to the Motions to Dismiss in those cases, the Plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded that the COVID-19 pandemic caused "direct physical loss of or damage to" its property such that it was entitled to coverage for its business losses. Judge Hornak further concluded that given the basis for the Court's decision, the Plaintiff could not amend their complaint to allege additional facts or law that would plausibly show that they are entitled to such coverage. Thus, any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. The appellate case is captioned as Paulina F. Zunino DMD LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Co Ltd., Case No. 22-3154, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PAULINA F ZUNINO DMD LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 - and - Howard M. Louik, Esq. 750 Washington Road Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 889-7541 Defendant-Appellee SENTINEL INSURANCE CO LTD is represented by: Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1265 - and - Ryan M. Chabot, Esq. Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 295-6513 - and - Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG 1818 Market Street Suite 2740 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 405-9191 - and - Sarah D. Gordon, Esq. Caitlin R. Tharp, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-8005 SEPM MARKETING INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SEPM Marketing, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. SEPM Marketing, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10081 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SEPM Marketing Inc. -- http://www.sepmmarketing.com/-- is a company that operates in the Marketing and Advertising industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SEROOGY'S HOLIDAY HOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seroogy's Holiday House, Ltd. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Seroogy's Holiday House, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-10171 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seroogy's Holiday House, Ltd. -- https://seroogys.com/ -- are proud to continue our grandfather's 1899 legacy of traditional homemade chocolates.[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 SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Seagate Resident Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER CHOW, as Administrator of the Estate of LEROY CHOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING LLC d/b/a SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO; ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN; DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN; DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER; JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY LLC; SENTOSACARE, LLC; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b) (3); and 2. appointing Walter Chow and Rita Skolkin as class representatives. The Plaintiff seeks the certification of a class comprising all residents of the Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (Seagate) from November 27, 2015 to the present. The Plaintiff brings a one count claim arising under New York's Public Health Law (PHL) section 2801-d, because he and every other resident of Seagate suffered injury caused by Defendants' callous decision to prioritize profits over paying for sufficient nursing staff to care for residents' needs. Shorefront Operating is a Skilled Nursing Facility (organization) practicing in Brooklyn, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XU1cHg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. John D. Sardesai-Grant, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com SIDNEY FEDERAL CREDIT: Brasiel Files Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sidney Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Dewayne Brasiel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sidney Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:22-cv-01276-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Other Contract. Sidney Federal Credit Union -- https://sfcuonline.org/ -- is a credit union in Sidney, New York who provides personal & business financial tools to make our community stronger.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street-Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com SIRIUS XM RADIO: Campbell Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Campbell, Keith Sadauskas, Diana Bickford and Kerrie Mulholland, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02261-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to try to stop the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls and/or harassing calling practices in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Defendant has engaged in a business model of placing unsolicited telemarketing calls urging persons who own or lease cars to sign up for the Defendant's satellite radio service. The Defendant, or companies acting on its behalf, made these calls in violation of the TCPA. Among other things, the TCPA and its accompanying regulations prohibit telemarketers from making telephone solicitations to persons who have listed their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement. It also requires companies like the Defendant to maintain and use an Internal Do-Not-Call Registry to record and honor requests from individuals who ask the Defendant to stop calling them. Each of the Plaintiffs has spent years receiving unwanted telemarketing calls from the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received dozens of calls from the Defendant. The Defendant and is in the business of providing satellite radio programming for a fee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Laura M. Carroll, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com lcarroll@sirillp.com - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford St, Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: Jarrett@ellzeylaw.com - and - Carl R. Draper, Esq. FELDMAN WASSER 1307 South 7th Street Springfield, IL 62703 Phone: 217-544-3403 Email: cdraper@feldman-wasser.com SK TRADING: Amended Class Certification Schedule Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GASOLINE SPOT MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order amending the class certification schedule as follows: -- Class Certification/Supporting January 6, 2023 Expert Report(s) Due: -- Class Certification April 14, 2023 Opposition/Supporting Expert Report(s) Due: -- Class Certification Reply Due: June 5, 2023 -- Class Certification Hearing: July 12, 2023 The Court will hold a further video case management conference on February 9, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. with an updated joint case management conference statement due one week in advance. The. Plaintiffs filed this class action bringing federal and state antitrust claims as well as state law unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims against SK Trading International Co., Ltd., SK Energy Americas, Inc., Vitol Inc., and two individual defendants. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XY4Ksj at no extra charge.[CC] SORELLAS PIZZA: Cuahquensi Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sorellas Pizza & Pasta, Inc. The case is styled as Pascual Cuahquensi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sorellas Pizza & Pasta, Inc., Raffaele S. Barca, Case No. 3:22-cv-06134-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sorellas Pizza & Pasta, Inc. -- https://sorellaspizzaandpasta.com/ -- specialize in a wide variety of gourmet pizzas and fine Italian food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ganzfried Sues Over Deceptive Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Ganzfried, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., Case No. 534754/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants inaccurate and deceptive statements in collecting debt. On April 11, 2022, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter ("Letter") purporting to validate the subject debt. The Letter sets forth a charge off amount of $371.19. The Letter also sets forth the total adjustments made since charge off for $2.74. However, the Letter's accounting of the current balance does not make mathematical sense. Specifically, the Letter goes on to provide a total current balance of $371.19, despite the $2.74 adjustment(s) since charge off. Thus, the Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation of the amount due, at least one of which is inaccurate. The Letter leaves the Plaintiff with only one option which is to call the Defendant to get even the most basic information about this debt. Plaintiff was fearful to call and be pressured to take an action he may not have wanted to take. The conflicting nature of the Letter left the Plaintiff concerned that the Letter was fraudulent and/or a scam. As a result of the Defendant's multiple FDCPA violations, Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this debt. Because of this, the Plaintiff expended time, money, and effort in determining the proper course of action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York. The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Speedway Motorsports, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Speedway Motorsports, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10086 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Speedway Motorsports, LLC -- https://www.speedwaymotorsports.com/ -- is a leading marketer, promoter and sponsor of motorsports entertainment in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com SPINX GAMES: Class Action Settlement in Croft Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALMA SUE CROFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPINX GAMES LIMITED, GRANDE GAMES LIMITED, and BEIJING BOLE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-01310-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. -- Class Certification The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All Persons who played the Applications on or before January 31, 2022, while located in the state of Washington." -- Settlement Approval The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. -- Objections or Exclusions from the Settlement Class Class Members were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to object to the settlement. Two members of the Class have timely and validly requested to be excluded from the Class and the Settlement. -- No Admission Neither this Final Judgment nor the fact or substance of the Settlement Agreement shall be considered a concession or admission by or against Defendants or any other related party, nor shall they be used against Defendants or any other released party as an admission, waiver, or indication with respect to any claim, defense, or assertion or denial of wrongdoing or legal liability. -- Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action (including all individual claims and class claims) is dismissed with prejudice on the merits, without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Award. -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Award, the Court awards $875,000 in attorneys' fees and $22,295.01 in costs and expenses to Class Counsel. -- Incentive Award Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Award, the Court awards $5,000 to Alma Sue Croft for her services as a Class Representative. -- Continuing Jurisdiction Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to the Settlement Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the Settlement and this Order. SpinX Games is a game development company that offers casino game mobile apps. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FzbFkB at no extra charge.[CC] SPLUNK INC: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 15, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Splunk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the Defendant's response to class certification motion is due on February 15, 2023. A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer. The initial complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding our financial guidance and asserted a putative class period of October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020. On March 16, 2021, the Court appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead plaintiff counsel in the case. On June 7, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which expanded the putative class period to run from March 26, 2020 to December 2, 2020 and alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding our marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 27, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 21, 2022, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify a class of investors who purchased Company stock between May 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020. Defendants' response to the motion for class certification is due February 15, 2023. Splunk Inc. provides innovative cloud services and licensed software solutions that deliver and operationalize insights from the data generated by digital systems. STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Negreanu Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks Corporation. The case is styled as Donnie Negreanu, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-02421-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Starbucks Corporation -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bogdan Enica, Esq. PRACTUS, LLP 66 West Flagler, Suite Unit # 937 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 539-9206 Email: bogdan.enica@practus.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. PRACTUS, LLP 490 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Phone: (630) 677-6745 STUDENT LOAN: Shadrin, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YURY SHADRIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-03641-CCB (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting final approval of the certification of the Class for settlement, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative; 2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel; and 3. finally approving the Class Settlement and allow entry of a dismissal with prejudice of the Claims asserted for the Class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulYDjJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Holland, Esq. Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Rd. Ste 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com STUDIO FOUR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Studio Four NYC, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Studio Four NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07274 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Studio Four NYC -- https://studiofournyc.com/ -- is a New York City textile design studio & showroom located near Union Square.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SUTTER VALLEY: Wins Bid to Strike Tinnin Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order: 1. granting the defendant's ex parte application; 2. granting defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 3. setting the following briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification: -- Deadline to file renewed Dec. 5, 2022 motion for class certification: -- Deadline for opposition: March 24, 2023 -- Deadline for reply: April 14, 2023 -- Hearing date: April 28, 2023 On November 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On November 23, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to strike, or in the alternative, stay Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On that same day, the Defendant filed an ex parte application requesting the Court to suspend all deadlines connected to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A Joint Statement, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, must be filed 7 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date. Prior to the filing of the Joint Statement, the parties must meet and confer as set forth in Local Rule 251(b). In addition to filing the Joint Statement electronically, a copy of the Joint Statement in Word format must be sent to Magistrate Judge Grosjean's chambers via email to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Courtesy copies for any pleading in excess of 25 (including exhibits) shall also be delivered to chambers via US mail, or hand delivery, at the time the Joint Statement is electronically filed. Sutter Valley offers urgent care, physical therapy, radiology, health tips, research and clinical trials, ebola update, as well as hospital management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F3eI2D at no extra charge.[CC] TCP HOT: Prelim Approval of Rider to Class Settlement Deal Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN, MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, and ANDREA FAHEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-09569-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the rider to the previously preliminarily approved Settlement Agreement nunc pro tunc; 2. granting approval of the revised Long Form Notice and Short Form Notice nunc pro tunc; and 3) fully incorporating this approval to the previously issued Preliminary Approval Order nunc pro tunc. By way of background, the Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement fully executed on October 14, 2022. The Plaintiffs moved this Court for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, certification of the Settlement Class, and approval of the Notice Plan on October 20, 2022 which attached the executed Settlement Agreement with exhibits. Individuals who submitted for a refund for that product through the voluntary recall, however, received direct email notice of the Settlement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDh8Oh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-Mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, 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 swestcot@bursor.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Nick Suciu, III, Esq. Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com jczeisler@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com rbusch@milberg.com TOOTSIE ROLL: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Beasley Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAXINE BEASLEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A164199 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Four, affirms the trial court's judgment in favor of Tootsie Roll. In this putative class action, Beasley sued Tootsie Roll, alleging violations of federal and state law arising from the use of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in Tootsie Roll's products between 2010 and 2016. In her operative first amended complaint (FAC), Beasley asserted the use of PHOs was unlawful and unfair under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) and breached the implied warranty of merchantability. Beasley alleged in the FAC that, during the proposed class period -- Jan. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2016 -- Tootsie Roll manufactured, distributed, and sold products (Tootsie Rolls and Tootsie Pops) that contained artificial trans fats in the form of PHOs. The FAC alleged trans fats are harmful and cause cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and organ damage. Beasley alleged she purchased Tootsie Roll products containing PHOs during the class period. She sought to represent a class defined as: "All citizens of California who purchased Tootsie Products containing partially hydrogenated oil in California between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2016." As to injury, Beasley alleged she had suffered physical injury in the form of harm to her cells and her cardiovascular and other systems. She also alleged her consumption of Tootsie Roll's products placed her at increased risk of disease and death. Finally, Beasley alleged she sustained economic injury in the amount she paid for Tootsie Roll's products. She would not have purchased the products if she had known of Tootsie Roll's conduct. Beasley also stated her economic injury included "medical monitoring costs," but she did not include any details about such costs. Beasley asserted claims for violation of the UCL (first cause of action) and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (second cause of action). In her UCL claim, Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll's use of PHOs was both "unfair" and "unlawful" within the meaning of that statute. As to unfairness, Beasley alleged in part that the harmful health effects of PHOs outweigh any utility they may have, and that their use violated public policy as reflected in federal and state statutes. As to the unlawful prong of the UCL, Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll's use of PHOs violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or federal FDCA) (21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq.) and California's Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Health & Saf. Code, Section 109875 et seq.) (Sherman Law). Finally, in her warranty claim, Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll breached the implied warranty of merchantability because its products containing PHOs were not fit for their ordinary purpose in that they were not safe, wholesome, and legal food products. Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll's products were not fit for human consumption and had a value of $0. Beasley and the class did not receive goods as impliedly warranted by Tootsie Roll to be merchantable in that they were not fit for their ordinary purpose of human consumption. The FAC sought damages, restitution, and other relief. Beasley filed her initial complaint in this matter on Jan. 25, 2021. Tootsie Roll demurred, arguing (1) Beasley had not pleaded a cognizable injury, (2) her claims were preempted by federal law, (3) her claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, and (4) she failed to state a claim under the UCL or for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court sustained Tootsie Roll's demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend, concluding (1) Beasley failed to allege cognizable injury, (2) her claims were barred by statutes of limitations, and (3) her claims were preempted by federal law (specifically a congressional enactment providing the use of PHOs is not to be deemed violative of food additive standards until June 18, 2018). Beasley appeals, and the parties have joined issue on the grounds for demurrer reached by the trial court -- preemption, injury, and the statutes of limitations -- as well as the question whether the FAC states a claim for violation of the UCL or breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The Court of Appeals concludes that the FAC does not state a claim under the UCL and that portions of that claim are preempted by federal law. It explains that the UCL defines "unfair competition" to include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." Beasley failed to state a cause of action under either "unlawful" and "unfair" prong and that portions of her claim are preempted by federal law. Pursuant to section 754, Tootsie Roll's use of PHOs in its products prior to the June 18, 2018 compliance date specified by the FDA and confirmed by Congress did not violate the FDCA's prohibition on adulterated food (the theory of federal liability asserted by Beasley). Because Beasley alleges only that Tootsie Roll used PHOs before the June 18, 2018 compliance date (i.e., during the 2010 to 2016 class period), she has failed to state a cause of action under the unlawful prong of the UCL predicated on a violation of the federal FDCA. Moreover, Beasley's invocation of general Sherman Law provisions about the meaning of "adulterated" food is not sufficient to show Tootsie Roll's use of the same PHOs during the same time period violated the Sherman Law. She failed to state a cause of action under the unlawful prong of the UCL. As an alternative ground for affirmance, even assuming the provisions of the Sherman Law cited by Beasley could support a cause of action under the unlawful prong of the UCL, that claim would be preempted by federal law. Construing California statutory or common law to penalize PHO use before the compliance date selected by the FDA and ratified by Congress would present an obstacle to the accomplishment of the objectives of federal law. The Court of Appeals also concludes that the claim for breach of warranty is preempted. It holds that federal law permitting PHO use before the 2018 compliance date preempts Beasley's attempt to use a general state law doctrine (in the case, the implied warranty of merchantability) to impose liability for the same conduct. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's judgment in favor of Tootsie Roll. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypc9b7ck from Leagle.com. The Weston Firm, Gregory S. Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- for the Plaintiff and Appellant. Donahue Fitzgerald, David M. Jolley -- djolley@donahue.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent. TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Coffey Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN COFFEY v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00271-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves entered a scheduling order as follows: -- No later than July 7, 2023, the plaintiff is directed to disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial and written reports by the expert witnesses as required by Rule 26(a)(2). -- No later than September 1, 2023, the defendants are directed to disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial and written reports by the experts as required by Rule 26(a)(2). -- No later than October 31, 2023, the parties are directed to complete all discovery (with discovery requests served in a manner calculated for responses compliant with this deadline). -- No later than February 1, 2023, the parties are directed to file any motions to amend pleadings and/or join additional parties. -- The plaintiff may file a motion for conditional certification or class certification no later than December 1, 2023. -- The parties are directed to file all dispositive motions and Daubert motions no later than December 1, 2023. Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and credit alert. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VxhWCP at no extra charge.[CC] UMITJON KAMOLOV: Kargar, et al., Seek to Proceed Collectively ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINA KARGAR, SERGIO PEREZ DIAZ, and SHAINA FOSTER, in their individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UMITJON KAMOLOV FARIDA GABBASSOVA-RICCIARDELLI, FV COM CORPORATION, d/b/a Farida UMKA PUFF PIES, and FARIDA ONLINE KITCHEN, d/b/a Farida Authentic Delicious Food 24/7, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-00664-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to proceed collectively, requiring the Defendants to provide complete contact information for similarly situated individuals, issuing judicial notice of this action, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vt2VSk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penn Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON , P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 Facsimile: (646) 998-8051 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com VENICE HMA: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITA KENT, INGRID TETREAULT, MARITZA SAAVEDRA, DEBRA CATLETTE, CATHERINE CLOUTIER, and CALLIE WHITE, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VENICE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, VENICE HMA, LLC, d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH VENICE, Case No. 8:22-cv-01989-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay discovery and class certification briefing pending resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court decide these jurisdictional issues before Defendants are required to endure the burdens of discovery and briefing concerning class. Due to threshold issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction that should be resolved prior to the commencement of discovery, this Court should stay discovery and briefing concerning class certification in this case pending its ruling on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss. On August 29, 2022, the Plaintiff White filed a class action Complaint on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, which purports to assert a cause of action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). Thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint for lack of standing and sought a stay of discovery pending the resolution of these jurisdictional issues. Following the filing of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on November 14, 2022, the court dismissed Defendants' Motion as moot. On November 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, which similarly asserts that fundamental questions continue to exist concerning Plaintiffs' WARN act claim despite the addition of new Plaintiffs and allegations, specifically that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim because it is not ripe and thus plaintiff lacks standing as a proper class representative. Venice HMA provides health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vt0VcM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Tracey K. Jaensch, Esq. Emily Chase-Sosnoff, Esq. Shannon L. Kelly, Esq. FORD H ARRISON LLP 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2500 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-261-7800 Facsimile: 813-261-7899 E-mail: tjaensch@fordharrison.com echase-sosnoff@fordharrison.com skelly@fordharrison.com VF OUTDOOR: Court Junks Valencia Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 23, 2022 are adopted in full; 2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied. 3. The Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is denied; and 4. The Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied as moot. On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff Briana Valencia filed this putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner; and (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Defendant removed the action to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Defendant then filed a motion to transfer the action to this Court, which was granted on December 17, 2020. On November 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. VF Outdoor filed its opposition on January 31, 2022. On February 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her reply, along with a motion to strike five video files submitted in support of Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. VF Corporation (formerly Vanity Fair Mills until 1969) is an American global apparel and footwear company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XKRmHI at no extra charge.[CC] VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, et al., v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed motion to extend time to file reply in support of Class Certification. The deadline for Plaintiffs' to file a reply in support of the Motion for Class Certification is extended to and including Dec. 30, 2022. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] VITAMIN COTTAGE: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in Levine -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the conditionally certified collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Discovery has revealed that the Opt-Ins' claims and Natural Grocers' defenses are so highly individualized that decertification is required as a matter of law. While cross-examination of 101 individual Opt-Ins at trial is a necessity as a matter of due process, such effort is simply not feasible and would destroy the very efficiencies Section 216(b) of the FLSA is designed to promote, the Defendant contends. Finally, if the Court decertifies this action, all parties' rights will be protected. Mr. Levine's claims will proceed, while the Opt-Ins will be dismissed without prejudice. As has already been shown by Plaintiff's counsel through recent filing of numerous individual arbitrations that are currently pending, the plaintiffs do not have a barrier to bringing their claims individually if they chose to do so. Thus, fairness and procedural concerns militate strongly in favor of decertifying this collective action, the Defendant adds. Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OZ1Sak at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4807 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Brian David Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven M. Gutierrez, Esq. Austin W. Jensen, Esq. Jeremy B. Merkelson, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 E-mail: sgutierrez@hollandhart.com awjensen@hollandhart.com jbmerkelson@hollandhart.com WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Parties Must File Settlement Approval Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrea Wilkerson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy LLC and Healthcare Support Staffing Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01427-JAT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge James A. Teilborg entered an order that the parties have until January 4, 2023, to file a motion for approval of the settlement. If the parties file a motion for Court approval of the settlement by the above deadline, upon the filing of that motion, the deadlines in will be automatically stayed. The portion of the motion for class certification that remains pending following this Court's Order is denied without prejudice. Walgreens provides specialized care, therapies, and medications services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W73T6X at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Company filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the opioid securities class suits on November 16, 2022. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5, 2021 purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those cases have been consolidated. On October 8, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities action. After the parties had fully briefed the motion to dismiss, on September 9, 2022, the Court entered an order permitting the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which was filed on October 14, 2022 and which revised the applicable class of investors to those who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017, through December 22, 2020. On November 16, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States. WASHINGTON, DC: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification, which is currently due on December 1, 2022. The Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to January 9, 2023, that Defendants' opposition be due on February 17, 2023, and that Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion be due on March 3, 2023. The Court set the current deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on July 7, 2022. On September 12, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Since that time, Defendants have made several productions of documents, but need additional time to complete their productions. To provide Plaintiffs with sufficient time to review and incorporate those documents into their motion for class certification as appropriate, the Parties are seeking to extend the current deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ixbYDp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eve Hill, Esq. Andrew D. Levy, Esq. James Strawbridge, Esq. BROWN , GOLDSTEIN & LEVY , LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: ehill@browngold.com adl@browngold.com - and - Ellen Eardley, Esq. Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: eeardley@findjustice.com cmehri@findjustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Karl A. Racine, Esq. Attorney General for the District of Columbia Chad Copeland, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Chief, Civil Litigation Division, Equity Section Micah Bluming, Esq. Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq. Amanda C. Pescovitz, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Equity Section 400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 724-7272 Facsimile: (202) 730-1833 E-mail: micah.bluming@dc.gov WHITEFISH, MT: Beck, et al., File Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually; AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS, LLC; RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC; and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana governmental entity, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. defining the class as: "Any and all persons or entities who paid impact fees for water and wastewater services to Defendant City of Whitefish from January 1, 2019 to the present;" 3. defining the class claims and issues; and 4. appointing counsel of record for Plaintiffs as class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H6gDpX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory R. Laird, Esq. Lindsay A. Mullineaux, Esq. Riley M. Wavra, Esq. LAIRD COWLEY, PLLC 2315 McDonald Avenue, Suite 220 Missoula, MT 59801 P.O. Box 4066 Missoula, MT 59806-4066 Telephone: (406) 541-7400 Facsimile: (406) 541-7414 E-mail: claird@lairdcowley.com lmullineaux@lairdcowley.com rwavra@lairdcowley.com - and - Mark M. Kovacich, Esq. Ben A. Snipes, Esq. Caelan G. Brady, Esq. KOVACICH SNIPES JOHNSON PC 21 3rd Street North, Suite 301 Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 550-5000 E-mail: mark@justicemt.com ben@justicemt.com caelan@justicemt.com ZYNGA INC: Class Action Settlement in Ferrando Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. -- Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action (including all individual claims and class claims) is hereby dismissed with prejudice on the merits, without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Awards. -- Releases This Order incorporates the Releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement and makes them effective as of the Effective Date. All Settlement Class Members who have not properly sought exclusion from the Settlement Class are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on the Released Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Awards, the Court awards $3,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $22,500 in costs and expenses to Class Counsel. -- Incentive Awards Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Awards, the Court awards $5,000 to Tonda Ferrando and $5,000 to Dex Marzano for their services as Class Representatives. -- Continuing Jurisdiction Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to the Settlement Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the Settlement and this Order. -- Class Certification The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals who, in Washington (as reasonably determined by billing address information, IP address information, or other information furnished by Platform Providers), played the Applications on or before Preliminary Approval of the Settlement." -- Class Notice The Class Notice given by the Settlement Administrator to the Class was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their right to object to the Settlement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families, (2) the Defendant, Defendant's subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parent have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees, (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class, and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. Zynga is an American developer running social video game services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uGrM9L at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***