/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 251 Headlines ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie, et al., Seek to Certify Class AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order Deadlines ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Securities Ryan Suit Over Merger Deal ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Hypertension Meds ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Exchange Act Violations ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in New York ASPEN GROUP INC: Arizona Consumer Fraud Class Suit Pending BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: More Time for Class Cert Filings Sought BEVERAGE MARKETING: Parties Fail to Provide Details of Discovery BHP BILLINGTON: Pennington Seeks to Place Exhibits Under Seal BHP BILLITON: Pennington Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal BRIGHT SOLAR: Mag. Judge's Nov. 29 Discovery Order Partly Stayed BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Bid for Class Certification Nixed CBDMD INC: Davis Collective and Class Action Suit Stayed CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces McCallion Suit Over SEC Filing Delay CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fox Allowed Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Peng Suit Over Non-Disclosure CREDIT SUISSE: Third Amended Civil CMP, Sched Order Entered DELTA STAR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to August 28, 2023 DELTA STAR: Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought DIGITAL REALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Counterclaim DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Settlement Deal in Kain Gets Initial OK ENBRIDGE INC: Court Junks Proposed Scheduling Order in BHK Suit ENVESTNET INC: Faces Wesch Securities Class Suit ERICO INT'L: Parties Seek Certification of Settlement Class ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Illegal Fees Class Suit ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit FIRST SAVINGS: Verbal Deal w/ Customer Fees Suit Claimants Reached FORD MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue in Garrison Builders Suit Denied FRITO-LAY INC: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FRONTLINE ASSET: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California FRY POWERS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Seeks Extension to File Reply GEO SECURE: Bid to Certify Class Must be Filed by March 3, 2023 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Entered GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Parties Seek to Withdraw Documents GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Brown Data Collection Suit GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Calhoun Data Collection Suit GOYA FOODS: Seeks Approval of Pre-Certification Communications GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Feb. 24, 2023 GREENWICH VILLAGE: Order Regarding Class Cert Deadlines Entered GREG LINDBERG: Loses Bid to Junk Jordan Suit HANES BRANDS: Faces Toussaint Securities Class Suit HANESBRANDS INC: Faces Ramon Class Action HID GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio INDEPENDENT BANK: Grice Files Bid for Class Certification INSOURCECODE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JACK SKEEN: More Time to File Responses to Certify Class Sought JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class JVK OPERATIONS: Order on Class Certification Briefing Entered KC GOURMET: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered LABORATORY CORPORATION: Aguilar FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. LINDE GAS: Class Cert-Related Order Entered in Mountain Hi Suit LLOYD AUSTIN: Allowed Leave to Combine Response & Class Bids LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Classes LYFT INC: Order Regarding Class Certification Deadlines Entered MARSHALL HOTELS: Class Cert Status Report Granted in Part MASTER LOCK: Pan Sues Over Falsely Claimed Secure Lock Boxes MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Files Bid for Class Certification MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Certify MA Consumer Class MAYVENN INC: Court Junks Class Certification in Trim TCPA Suit MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Seeks More Time to Object to Conditional Cert MILLIMAN INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Mattson MY PILLOW: Gaudreau Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot MYXED UP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Loadholt Class Suit NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Proposed Sched Order Junked in Johnson NIO INC: S.D. New York Consolidates Saye & Bohonok Securities Suits NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Darish and Hymowitz Suits NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Haddad Shareholder Class Suit NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Woo Shareholder Class Suit NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pirzada Bid to Discontinue Claim OK'd NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Villafan, et al., Seek to Certify Class NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Securities Suit Over COVID Vaccine OUR DREAM PIZZA: Powell Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class PACIFIC GRAIN: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 19, 2023 PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications PASSON & PASSON: King, et al., Seek Conditional Collective Status PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio PERDUE FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Parker Suit PERFORMANCE ONE: Bid for Collective Action Cert Tossed as Premature PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought POINTSBET USA: Seeks Dismissal of Gutman Class Action PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Pazymino Suit PP&G INC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Denied as Moot PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Scheduling Order, Discovery Plan Entered PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Related Order Entered in Volino PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Bid to Seal Portions of Exhibits OK'd PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parties Seek to File New Class Cert Exhibit RCI HOSPITALITY: Class Suit Concludes Due to Absence of Appeal RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit RECRUITGIGS LLC: Soriano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act RIPPLE LABS: OK of Stipulation Modifying Class Cert Briefing Sought RIPPLE LABS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ROB BONTA: Welchen Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification ROBLOX CORP: Matlick Files Shareholder Suit in California Court ROCK PIERCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply in Rowan ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE: Case Management Order Entered in Bruner Suit SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Henderson SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Denial of Consent Decree Termination Affirmed STRATA SKIN SCIENCES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court SUNPATH LTD.: Smith TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class SYMETRA LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Davis Suit TCP HOT: Rider to Class Settlement Deal in Delcid Initially OK'd TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid TG THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Leukemia Meds THOMSON REUTERS: Brooks, et al., File Bid for Class Certification TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by February 15, 2024 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phang Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass TRUE STAR: Stipulation on Class Certification OK'd in Donica ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages UMB BANK: Case Management Order Entered in Island Farm Suit UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Sets Class Cert Deadlnes in Brown VI-JON LLC: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Moreno Class Suit VI-JON LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply VXL ENT: Order Granting Proposed Amended Case Management Entered WEBER INC: Faces IPO-Related Purported Class Suit in Illinois WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Droesch Suit Granted in Part WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extension Sought XANADU MARKETING: Hall's Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadline Granted ********* ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie, et al., Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON McBURNIE and APRIL SPRUELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3); "all individuals who entered into a RentalPurchase Agreement with RAC in California at any time between December 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 (when RAC stopped staffing retail store locations in California) and who were charged a Processing Fee and/or an Expedited Payment Fee;" 2. appointing Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell (and, if necessary, Zachary Livingston and Maria Vazquez) as class representatives; and 3. appointing Dostart Hannink LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek to pursue class claims for violations of California's Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs' class claims against RAC Acceptance East arises from RAC's practice of charging its California customers unlawful "processing" and "expedited payment" fees on top of its already exorbitant pricing for long-term rentals of household goods. The Plaintiffs contend that RAC violated the Karnette Act's prohibition against mandating fees that exceed the rent-to-own company's "actual cost incurred" or that are not "reasonable," because it included provisions in every RPA executed by a California class member during the class period that imposed -- (1) a $45 Processing Fee, which RAC charged to each California customer who entered into an RPA, and (2) a $1.99 Expedited Payment Fee (i.e., a telephonic payment fee, also known within RAC as a "Convenience Fee"), which it charged to each California customer every time the customer made a payment by telephone, rather than at a store or online. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YG0spV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zach P. Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037-1484 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 Facsimile: (858) 623-4299 E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com - and - Michael Rubin, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Christine M. Salazar, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: mrubin@altber.com cchan@altber.com csalazar@altber.com AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qureshi v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order modifying scheduling order deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for March 2, 2023 Class Certification is due: -- The Plaintiffs' Class and March 2, 2023 Merits Expert Disclosures are due: -- The Defendant's Class and April 3, 2023 Merits Expert Disclosures are due: -- The Defendant's Opposition May 1, 2023 to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion is due: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in June 12, 2023 Support of Class Certification is due: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC] ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Securities Ryan Suit Over Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Analog Devices, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2022, that on March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC, purported stockholders of its affiliate Maxim Integrated, filed a putative class action in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2022—0255) against the company and the former directors of Maxim. The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part of the merger negotiations with the company, to suspend Maxim dividends for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that the company aided and abetted that alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs' costs, and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, costs, and other expenses. Analog Devices, Inc. is a semiconductor company based in Massachusetts. ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Hypertension Meds ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug "Bystolic." On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company’s January 8, 2020, Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs, and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company at this early stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as "In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL)." On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022, to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contain substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed replies to those oppositions. The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and pending with the court. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are a biopharmaceutical company based in Minnesota. ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Exchange Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that from February 13, 2018 through August 9, 2022, Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's reserves and underwriting standards. Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an insurance company based in Bermuda. ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from a putative class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company is aware that on or around May 6, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Arqit and certain of Arqit’s directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-02604), asserting violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Complaint"). The Complaint generally alleges that Arqit and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to Arqit's business prospects and projections. The Company has never been served with the Complaint, and has no knowledge as to whether the lawsuit will proceed. However, Arqit intends to vigorously defend against these claims should the Complaint proceed. Arqit Quantum Inc. is a software company that supplies a unique quantum encryption Platform-as-a-Service which makes the communications links of any networked device secure against current and future forms of attack ASPEN GROUP INC: Arizona Consumer Fraud Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Aspen Group 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 15, 2022, that the Arizona Consumer Fraud class suit is pending in the Arizona Superior Court. On April 6, 2022, Aspen University was served with a class action claim in Arizona Superior Court, alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and Unjust Enrichment, based on the class representative's claims that Aspen University misstated the quality of its pre-licensure nursing program. This complaint was likely in response to the Arizona Board of Nursing actions against Aspen University relating to the program, as outlined below. At this time, the only action taken by Aspen University was to file for change of venue which was granted. The size of the potential class action claim is not yet known. Aspen Group, Inc. is an education technology holding company based in New York. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: More Time for Class Cert Filings Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN, et al. v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62371-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: a. Granting Defendant Benefytt's Unopposed Motion For Extension Of Time For Class Certification Filings; b. Enlarging the time period for all class certification filing deadlines by 30-days; and c. Issuing such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs William James Griffin, Vicki Needham, Ashley Lawley, Sandra Wilson and William "Jeff" Cooper and Defendant Assurance IQ do not oppose this motion. On November 28, 2022, the Court issued an Order on the parties' Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time and Page Limits for Class Certification Filings. However, despite good faith efforts by Plaintiffs and Benefytt to schedule the depositions and to ensure the availability of the witnesses and counsel, due to the unavailability of Benefytt witnesses and counsel, Plaintiffs' noticed depositions of Benefytt will not be able to occur prior to December 30, 2022. The parties do not dispute that, at a minimum, the 30(b)(6) deposition of Benefytt should occur prior to Plaintiffs moving for class certification. THe Plaintiffs' position is that it would be severely prejudicial to file a motion for class certification prior to taking this deposition testimony. Benefytt Technologies operates health insurance marketplaces, agency technology systems, and administration platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcYr4g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Nicholas Dorman, Esq. Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower P.O. Box 10968 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ndorman@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - F. Inge Johnstone, Esq. Matthew F. Carroll, Esq. JOHNSTONE CARROLL, LLC 2204 Lakeshore Drive Suite 303 Homewood, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 383-1809 Facsimile: (888) 759-3882 E-mail: ijohnstone@johnstonecarroll.com The Defendant is represented by: Val Leppert, Esq. David L. Balser, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. Timothy H. Lee, Esq. Benjamin B. Watson, Esq. Spencer M. Diamond, Esq. Elliott Foote, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: vleppert@kslaw.com dbalser@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com tlee@kslaw.com bwatson@kslaw.com sdiamond@kslaw.com efoote@kslaw.com - and - Catherine B. Schumacher, Esq. Vincent A. Sama, Esq. Daphne Morduchowitz, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32 nd Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-3375 E-mail: cshumacher@seyfarth.com vsama@seyfarth.com dmorduchowitz@seyfarth.com - and - Martha Rosa Mora, Esq. AVILA RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ MENA & FERRI 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Penthouse 1225 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 779-3567 Facsimile: (305) 779-3561 E-mail: mmora@arhmf.com BEVERAGE MARKETING: Parties Fail to Provide Details of Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Niles, et al v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01902 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lee G. Dunst entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery. -- The parties seek an extension of the class certification briefing and discovery schedule, but fail to provide any of detailed explanation or support for this request, in violation of the Individual Rules of Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst. If the parties seek to renew this application, they shall provide details about discovery conducted to date and what remains to be done. The nature of suit Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Beverage Marketing provides marketing services.[CC] BHP BILLINGTON: Pennington Seeks to Place Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et al, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. BHP BILLINGTON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, AND MMGJ ARKANSAS UPSTREAM, LLC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order placing Exhibits 5, 10, 11 12, 13, and 14 to their forthcoming Motion for Class Certification under seal. The Plaintiffs are Dan Larry Pennington, Norma J. Bryant, and Aaron Parish Black, which are trustee of the Ralph J. and Reba J. Family Trust and the Reba J. Parish Trust. The sealing of the confidential exhibits is necessary because the exhibits contain proprietary information related to the Defendants' and third-parties' business practices, trade secrets, and contractual relationships which outweigh the public's right to access said exhibits. the lawsuit says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BEC2TH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com BHP BILLITON: Pennington Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No. Lee P. Rudofsky (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris entered an order granting motion to seal. -- The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to place certain exhibits in support of their motion for class certification under seal is granted. -- The Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under seal when they file their motion seeking class certification. The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC] BRIGHT SOLAR: Mag. Judge's Nov. 29 Discovery Order Partly Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOYD STEVE BALES, v. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00496-MMH-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Philip R. Lammens entered an order granting Defendant's opposed motion to partially stay the Magistrate Judge's November 29, 2022, Order ("discovery order") (Doc. 29), granting Plaintiff's motion to compel. The portion of the discovery order issued November 29, 2022, compelling the defendant to produce consent records for the putative class, is stayed pending the District Court's rulings on the defendant's objections. If the District Court agrees with the discovery order, the defendant will have fourteen days after the issuance of the District Court's order to produce the consent records at issue. The Defendant moves to stay its obligation to comply with the portion of the discovery order requiring it to produce "consent records for all putative class members" until 14 days after the District Court resolves its objections as filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition. However, given that Defendant filed the motion on December 7, 2022, and the discovery order requires production of the consent records by December 9th, the Court considered the motion and grants it out of an abundance of caution. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hvzSit at no extra charge.[CC] BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Bid for Class Certification Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Awmagan, et al., v. Bristol Bay Native Corp. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and staying action for 30 days: -- The Plaintiffs shall file a one- page Statement of Intent or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by January 13, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action for their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and breach of contract claims. -- The Court held oral argument on the motion on December 14, 2022. Bristol Bay Native Corporation operates as an agriculture producer. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFqO50 at no extra charge.[CC] CBDMD INC: Davis Collective and Class Action Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- cbdMD, Inc. disclosed in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the Davis collective and class action suit indefinitely until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the U.S. Congress takes definitive action on the regulatory status of CBD. In December 2019, Cynthia Davis filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against cbdMD and certain of our competitors alleging violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Declaratory Relief. On March 4, 2021 the Court granted cbdMD's motion to stay the case until the FDA or Congress takes definitive action on the regulatory status of CBD. The Company believes this matter will eventually be dismissed but there is no timeline on when the FDA or Congress will take action so the case is expected to be stayed indefinitely. cbdMD, Inc. was originally founded in 2015 as an innovative branding and marketing company with a focus on lifestyle-based brands. In December 2018 pursuant to a two-step merger, the company acquired Cure Based Development LLC following the passage of the United States Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known as the "Farm Bill", which contained a permanent declassification of cannabidiol (CBD) as a controlled substance under federal law. As a result of that transaction, the company owns and operates the nationally recognized CBD brand cbdMD which now represents the company's focus and substantially all of its revenues. The company is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces McCallion Suit Over SEC Filing Delay ------------------------------------------------------------ Celsius Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on March 16, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of the company's delay in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the company's securities and as a result, class members suffered significant losses and damages. On June 6, 2022, Judge Middlebrooks appointed a lead class plaintiff and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2022. Celsius is a company in the functional energy drink and liquid supplement categories based in Florida. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fox Allowed Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FOX et al v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01448 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman entered an order on Motion for Leave to file Documents Under Seal. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may file their motion for class certification under seal, along with a public redacted version. Do not electronically file the sealed version of the document until you electronically file the redacted version of the document, using the Redacted Document event, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. You are required to serve the sealed document on counsel using traditional service methods. Document Sealed Permanently." The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage. Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. Chipotle operates restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France.[CC] CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ CleanSpark Inc.. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bishins class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class"), filed a class action complaint (the "Class Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford ("Bradford"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Lori Love ("Love") (such action, the "Class Action"). The Class Complaint alleged that, between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, the Company, Bradford, and Love "failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company’s recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis." The Class Complaint sought: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the litigation. On December 2, 2021, the Court appointed Darshan Hasthantra as lead Plaintiff (together, with Bishins, the "Plaintiffs"), and Glancy, Prongay and Murray LLP as class counsel. Hasthantra filed an Amended Complaint on February 28, 2022 (the "Amended Class Complaint"). In the Amended Class Complaint, Love is no longer a defendant and S. Matthew Schultz ("Schultz") has been added as a defendant (the Company, Bradford and Schultz, collectively, the "Defendants"). The Amended Class Complaint alleges that, between December 10, 2020 and August 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's acquisition of ATL Data Centers, Inc. ("ATL") and its anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) were misleading in their various public announcements related to the timeline for expanding ATL's mining capacity; and (2) failed to disclose other material conditions purportedly related to the Company's acquisition of ATL, including that an ATL predecessor had filed for bankruptcy about six months prior to the acquisition, that another bitcoin miner had declined to acquire ATL, and that a related party had performed an audit of ATL for the Company. The Amended Class Complaint seeks: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the litigation. To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 28, 2022. The Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims asserted in the Amended Class Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 27, 2022. Defendants' reply in further support of their Motion to Dismiss was filed on August 11, 2022. The parties are awaiting a decision or oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss. Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company stands behind all of its prior statements and disclosures and believes that the claims raised in the Amended Class Complaint and the Class Complaint are entirely without merit. The Company intends to both defend itself vigorously against these claims and to vigorously prosecute any counterclaims. Headquartered in Bountiful, Utah, CleanSpark, Inc. -- www.cleanspark.com -- is in the business of providing advanced energy software and control technology that enables a plug-and-play enterprise solution to modern energy challenges. Its services consist of intelligent energy monitoring and controls, microgrid design and engineering and consulting services. Its software allows energy users to obtain resiliency and economic optimization. The Company's software is uniquely capable of enabling a microgrid to be scaled to the user's specific needs and can be widely implemented across commercial, industrial, military and municipal deployment. CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Peng Suit Over Non-Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------- Core Scientific, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2022, that in November 2022, plaintiff Mei Peng filed a putative class action in the United States District court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, asserting that the company violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose to investors, among other things, that the company was vulnerable to litigation, that certain clients had breached their agreements, and that this impacted the company's profitability and ability to continue as a going concern. Core Scientific, Inc. is an operator of facilities for digital asset mining colocation services and a provider of blockchain infrastructure, software solutions, and services based in Texas. CREDIT SUISSE: Third Amended Civil CMP, Sched Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a/ JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered a third amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery, including February 28, 2023 fact depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- Counsel for Defendants shall December 16, 2023 provide deposition dates in February 2022 for all noticed deponents that they represent no later than: -- Class certification reply brief December 16, 2022 and expert rebuttal report(s) shall be filed by: -- Lead Plaintiffs' Opposition to December 16, 2022 Defendants' Daubert motion shall be filed by: -- The Defendants' Reply in further January 31, 2023 support of their Daubert motion shall be filed by: -- Expert depositions to be August 15, 2023 completed by: -- All expert discovery shall be August 15, 2023 completed no later than: -- All motions for summary September 29, 2023. judgment shall be filed no later than: -- Oppositions to motions October 30, 2023 for summary judgment shall be filed no later than: Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W19yLX at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA STAR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to August 28, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification is continued to 180 days, to Aug. 28, 2023. 2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Sept. 28, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Sept. 28, 2023. 4. The non-expert discovery cutoff is continued by 90 days to Feb. 8, 2024. Delta Star is an American-owned medium power transformer manufacturer in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G2WWyo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han,Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicealawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Olga Savage, Esq. HUSCH BLACK WELL LLP 199 Harrison Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 645 9000 Facsimile: (650) 235 0398 E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com Olga.savage@huscblackwell.com DELTA STAR: Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint stipulation and proposed order extending the time for plaintiff to file his motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification is continued by one hundred eighty (180) days, to August 28, 2023; 2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before September 28, 2023; and 3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be filed on or before October 27, 2023. On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced a class action, alleging violation of Labor Code including unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wages. On January 10, 2022, the Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant, consisting of Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). On August 2, 2022, the Parties attended mediation with Alan Berkowitz. The Parties were unable to come to a resolution. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding what he contends to be Defendant's deficient discovery responses to Plaintiff's discovery. The Parties telephonically met and conferred regarding the same on October 20, 2022, and Defendant agreed to supplement some of its responses and to produce certain additional documents, including a sampling of time and payroll records for the putative class members. Delta Star is an American-owned medium power transformer manufacturer in the United States and the premier manufacturer of mobile transformers and mobile power substations in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWgYdJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Olga Savage, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 645-9000 Facsimile: (650) 235-0398 E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com Olga.savage@huschblackwell.com DIGITAL REALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Counterclaim ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PONY.AI, INC., v. DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC.; DIGITAL REALTY TRUST L.P.; and TELX SANTA CLARA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-05428-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants file an administrative motion to file under seal portions of the Counterclaim and Certain Exhibits. Compelling reasons exist to seal the designated portions of these documents including: Counterclaim on page 31, line 16; page 23, lines 19 and 21; page 33, 25 lines 16 and 17; and page 35, line 7 and Counterclaim Exhibits A (Master Agreement), B (2019 26 Service Order), C (Amendment to Master Agreement), portions of F (Email Communications), portions of G (Dispute Notice), portions of H-J (Email Communications), portions of K (Letter), portions of L (check) ("Proposed Redactions"). Disclosure of the confidential information contained therein would harm Defendants' commercial and competitive standing, and the general public has no compelling interest in such information. DLR seeks to seal portions of its Counterclaim and certain exhibits thereto, that quote, describe, or tend to reveal the terms of the Master Agreement and Service Orders defining the parties' contractual relationship. 1 DLR also seeks to seal specific descriptions of the services it offers, the pricing for those services, and the manner and timing by which those services are provided. Because all of the Proposed Redactions contain sensitive and strategic business 16 information, DLR requests that the Court grant this Administrative Motion and permit the Proposed Redactions to remain under seal. Digital Realty is a real estate investment trust that invests in carrier-neutral data centers and provides colocation and peering services. A copy of the Defendants' motion Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WjGzCH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. Joshua Q. Jamieson, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 Facsimile: (415) 844-9922 E-mail: abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------ Dycom Industries, 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 23, 2022, that on August 10, 2021, one of the company's subsidiaries was named in a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims on behalf of its non-exempt employees in California. The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, did not provide required meal and rest breaks, did not timely pay wages during employment and at the time of termination, provided non-compliant wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary business expenses, failed to keep requisite payroll records, and engaged in unfair business practices. On September 14, 2021, the same plaintiff bringing the putative class action filed a separate representative action under California's Private Attorneys General Action seeking civil penalties Dycom Industries, Inc. is a provider of specialty contracting services based in Florida. ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Settlement Deal in Kain Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA KAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER NA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-11807-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement, certifying settlement class, appointing class representative, appointing class counsel, and approving notice plan: -- The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on March 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 207 at Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan. -- Class Counsel shall file papers in support of their Fee Award and Class Representative's Service Award (collectively, the "Fee Petition") with the Court on or before February 6, 2023. -- The Defendant may, but is not required to, file a response to Class Counsel's Fee Petition with the Court on or before February 22, 2023. Class Counsel may file a reply in support of their Fee Petition with the Court on or before March 1, 2023. -- Papers in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement and any supplementation to the Fee Petition shall be filed with the Court on or before March 1, 2023. -- Certification of the Settlement Class For purposes of settlement only: (a) Joseph I. Marchese and Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frank S. Hedin and Arun G. Ravindran of Hedin Hall LLP, and E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C. are appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (b) Rebecca Kain is named Class Representative. -- For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement: "All Persons with a Michigan street address who subscribed to The Economist Publication to be delivered to a Michigan street address or electronically between February 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016." Economist Newspaper was founded in 1989. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of books, periodicals, and newspapers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HLsidZ at no extra charge.[CC] ENBRIDGE INC: Court Junks Proposed Scheduling Order in BHK Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHK Realty, LLC et al., v. Enbridge, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00642 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order denying the proposed scheduling order by the parties for class certification determination. This case is already more than three years old and under the proposed scheduled class certification would not occur until the case is 5 years old. The parties should meet and confer and propose a schedule that has class certification fully briefed and before the Court no later than June 30, 2023. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Enbridge is a multinational pipeline and energy company headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Enbridge owns and operates pipelines throughout Canada and the United States, transporting crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.[CC] ENVESTNET INC: Faces Wesch Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ Envestnet, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that the company and its subsidiary Yodlee, Inc. were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs. The case caption is "Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK. Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a mobile application that uses Yodlee's API, and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties. The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal statutes, including the Stored Communications Act. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner from 2014 to the present. The company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that plaintiffs' claims are without merit. On November 4, 2020, the company and Yodlee filed separate motions to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint. On February 16, 2021, the district court granted in part and denied in part Yodlee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend. The court reserved ruling on the company's motion to dismiss and granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district court had dismissed. The second amended complaint did not allege any claims against the company or Yodlee that were not previously alleged in first amended complaint. On May 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against it in the second amended complaint, and Yodlee filed a motion to dismiss most claims asserted against it in the second amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, the court granted in part Yodlee's motion, resulting in the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the state-law claims. On August 5, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the company from the lawsuit. On October 8, 2021, Yodlee filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed. The oral argument on Yodlee's motion was heard on September 19, 2022, and the motion has been submitted for decision. On August 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint, which Yodlee opposed. On September 29, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company based in Pennsylvania. ERICO INT'L: Parties Seek Certification of Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARRIS MCKNIGHT, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ERICO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01826-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Parties file a joint motion for certification of the settlement class, final approval of the class action settlement, and other associated relief. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs are Parris McKnight, Dawn Adams, Matthew Bailey, Ryan Evans, Corey Green, Deresse Jackson, Latonya Jordan, Joshua Livingston, Michael Metz, Robert Metz, Frederick Midgley, Randi Robinson, Tia Robinson, and Tyronn Taylor. Erico manufactures engineered electrical and fastening products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v1LDQx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC Telephone: (216) 912-222 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. McAtee, Esq. SHOOK , HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 559-2512 E-mail: cmcatee@shb.com - and - Gust Callas, Esq. BLACK , MCCUSKEY, SOUERS & ARBAUGH 220 Market Avenue South, Suite 1000 Canton, Ohio 44702 Telephone: (330) 456-8341 Facsimile: (330) 456-5756 E-mail: gcallas@bmsa.com ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Illegal Fees Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the illegal fees class suit. The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank and remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In an order dated November 24, 2020, the court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge to assist in mediation efforts. The case was stayed while the parties explored the potential for a negotiated resolution. The parties engaged in mediation but did not resolve the matter. The parties are now in the discovery process. The Bank will continue to defend against plaintiffs' allegations. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based in Pennsylvania. ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act class suit. On May 29, 2020, the Bank was named as a defendant in a second action commenced by three plaintiffs who also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title company than the one involved in the previously discussed litigation in the process of making loans. The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2020 that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims. The Bank moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14, 2020, and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021. The parties are now in the discovery process. The Bank will continue to defend against plaintiffs' allegations. To the extent that this matter could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based in Pennsylvania. FIRST SAVINGS: Verbal Deal w/ Customer Fees Suit Claimants Reached ------------------------------------------------------------------ First Savings Bank disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company reached a verbal settlement agreement with claimants in the customer fees class suit. First Savings Bank received notice of a class action lawsuit on March 23, 2021 regarding its policy and practice of assessing customer fees related to items presented on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF items). The Company has reached a verbal settlement agreement with the claimant, and the Company has accrued a loss contingency for this pending settlement at September 30, 2022, the amount of which had an immaterial effect on the consolidated financial statements. First Savings Bank is a family-owned, full service financial institution with a specialty in commercial banking, serving communities for over 100 years. FORD MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue in Garrison Builders Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GARRISON BUILDERS, LLC, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR CO., SECTION "A"(2), Civil Action No. 22-3664 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies Ford's Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Ford's motion, noticed for submission on Dec. 7, 2022, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. The Plaintiffs, Garrison Builders, LLC and Sanderson Services, LLC, have filed the putative class action against Ford alleging a defect in the CP4 highpressure fuel injection pump used in its diesel trucks. Although the alleged defect has been observed nationwide, the specific putative class in this case pertains to "persons or entities in Louisiana." A nationwide putative class action, that includes state-by-state putative class claims, is pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, which is where Ford has its principal place of business -- Droesser v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:19-cv-12365 (E.D. Mich.). Ford moves to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Eastern District of Michigan, a district where the litigation could have been brought, for consolidation with the Droesser litigation. Judge Zainey explains that the party seeking a Section 1404(a) transfer must show good cause, which incorporates the statutory requirement that the transfer be for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice. Courts in this circuit are guided by private and public interest factors when determining whether good cause has been shown for a contested Section 1404(a) transfer. The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The public interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. Id. Judge Zainey finds that Ford's overarching concern in urging a transfer is the inefficiency and wastefulness inherent in conducting duplicative litigation given that the putative nationwide class action in Droesser includes state-by-state claims. But the future of the Droesser case is uncertain because a motion to dismiss is pending in that litigation. And Ford's credibility suffers when it argues that discovery is complete in Droesser; discovery is complete in Droesser only because counsel reached an agreement to use the discovery taken in a Texas case (Stevens), that the presiding judge declined to transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan when Ford moved to do so. Ford's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan, which is rife with criticisms of the litigation practices of the Louisiana attorneys who brought the case, argues that the private and public interest factors applicable to a Section 1404(a) transfer decision support its case but they do not. Judge Zainey finds it clear that by transferring the case to Michigan any inconvenience that Ford would face in litigating here would be foisted upon the Louisiana plaintiffs and in far worse magnitude. In other words, the proposed transfer is for the convenience of only one party. Finally, the Plaintiffs point out in their opposition that when Ford contacted them about the transfer they very reasonably suggested that many of Ford's concerns would be allayed by a temporary stay in the case. They reiterated this suggestion to the Court in their opposition memorandum. Judge Zainey finds that Plaintiffs' suggestion of a stay in the case to allow the Stevens case in Texas to conclude is reasonable and alleviates any concern with Ford having to litigate certain common issues twice and in two forums. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Zainey denies Motion to Transfer Venue. He stays the matter and orders the Clerk of Court to close the case for administrative reporting purposes. The case will be reopened upon motion of either party once circumstances change in either the Droesser or Stevens matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wc22vw from Leagle.com. FRITO-LAY INC: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- James Addison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00314-DPM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 13, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In late 2021, the Defendant's payroll system, Kronos, experienced a ransomware attack. As a result of this hacking incident, Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were unable to clock in or out for their shifts from a period beginning in December 2021 and ending in March 2022. Rather than setting up an alternative tracking system for the Plaintiff and other hourly paid employees to track the hours they worked, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees an "estimated weekly pay." This "estimated weekly pay" was based on prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates, such as the average amount each employee was paid in the three previous months. This "estimated weekly pay" was not an accurate representation of the time Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees worked. Specifically, during this period that the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees couldn't track their time, the Plaintiff was still required to work overtime shifts. These hours were not reflected in the "estimated" pay he received. The Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not paying Plaintiff for all the hours he worked. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether the way they paid the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees violated the FLSA and AMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee. Frito-Lay Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer, and distributer of food products and operates multiple manufacturing facilities worldwide, including a facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WHLAW | WE HELP Riverfront PL – Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law FRONTLINE ASSET: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Brenda Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-02202 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a consumer-focused, performance-driven organization that delivers compliant solutions through positive experiences and latest technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com FRY POWERS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fry Powers LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fry Powers LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10543 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fry Powers LLC -- https://www.frypowers.com/ -- offers jewelry designed in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Seeks Extension to File Reply ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rilla Jefferson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Extending the Plaintiff's deadline to respond to GM's motion for summary judgment to January 10, 2023 and extend GM's deadline to file a reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment to January 31, 2023; and 2. granting the Plaintiff leave to file a 5-page reply in support of her motion for class certification. On November 22, 2022, Defendant General Motors moved for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's current deadline to respond to the motion for summary judgment is December 20, 2022. However, in light of pre-planned vacations, other prior obligations and litigation tasks and the upcoming holidays, Plaintiff respectfully requests additional time, up to and including January 10, 2023, to prepare her response to Defendant's extensive motion for summary judgment. The General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W773YK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 - and - Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, INC. 1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 521 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: (615) 878-1926 Facsimile: (615) 472-7852 E-mail: ssl@laffertylawtn.com GEO SECURE: Bid to Certify Class Must be Filed by March 3, 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castillo v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00445 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties joint motion for a 90-day extension of the February 3, 2023 deadline for the filing of the class certification motion and the March 17, 2023 deadline to complete fact discovery: -- The motion to certify the class must be filed by March 3, 2023 . -- All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by April 14, 2023. -- All other deadlines, instructions and mandatory procedures stated in the Court's September 9, 2022 Scheduling Order not explicitly modified herein remain in effect. The Court finds there is good cause for a brief extension of these pretrial deadlines; however, given that the parties' mediation is set for next week, the Court finds the parties have not established good cause for an extension of 90 days. The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations.[CC] GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUR-RAVANTAB, et al., v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order setting class certification deadlines as follows: -- The Parties shall exchange December 30, 2022 initial requests for production by: -- The parties shall exchange January 13, 2023 initial disclosures by: -- The parties shall meet and February 13, 2023 confer on initial requests for production of documents by: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for April 28, 2023 class certification shall be filed by: -- The Defendant's opposition is June 30, 2023 due by: -- The Plaintiffs' reply is July 31, 2023 due by: -- Fact discovery shall close on: August 14, 2023 The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Georgetown University is a private research university in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Parties Seek to Withdraw Documents ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, and PFIZER, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and jointly request the following orders: -- The filing clerk shall remove the following filings from the public docket in this action: (1) Support of Motion for Class Certification, (2) Declaration and Expert Report of Colin B. Weir, (3) Exhibit 5-1 [Reibrich Deposition], and (4) Exhibit 6 [Eppler Deposition]; -- The Plaintiff shall have five days from the date the Court enters an order granting relief to re-file the foregoing documents and any amended motion to seal necessary, which shall be treated as timely filed and served for the purpose of ruling on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion, Motion to Seal, and any necessary amended motion to seal; -- The Plaintiff shall have five days from the date the Court enters an order granting relief to re-file an amended Toutov Declaration and amended Memorandum to correct the inadvertent omissions outlined herein, and similarly file any amended motion to seal necessary, which shall be treated as timely filed and served for the purpose of ruling on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion, Motion to Seal, and any necessary amended motion to seal; and -- The Defendants shall have seven days from the date that the Plaintiff files an amended motion to seal to file a statement and/or declaration in support of sealing, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), which shall be treated as timely filed and served for the purpose of the Court's ruling on the Motion to Seal, and any necessary amended motion to seal. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fx9CMn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan S. Tam, Esq. Christina G. Sarchio, Esq. Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq. Matthew F. Williams, Esq. DECHERT, LLP GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOYA KENAN and MONICA COOPER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04270-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): 1. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as: "All current and former hourly remote Fraud Specialists employed by Global Payments, Inc. at any time from three years prior to the date this motion was filed through the date of judgment in this case"; 2. Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of the proposed Collective via US Mail and email; 3. Requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; 4. Approving a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents; and 5. Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in period Global Payments is an American multinational financial technology company that provides payment technology and services to merchants, issuers and consumers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V6hES7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48178 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT, PC 75 14th Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 Main St Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Brown Data Collection Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, ET AL. v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. granting the Google's Motion for Summary Judgment; 2. denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the Briefing Regarding Remedies; 3. denying the plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the Record as to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment and to File a Sur-Reply. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against Google based on Google's alleged data collection practices and use of data from "users who chose not to 'Sync' their Google accounts with Chrome while browsing the web." Six alleged claims remain: (1) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Count Five); (2) intrusion upon seclusion (Count Seven); (3) breach of contract (Count Eight); (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Nine); (5) statutory larceny (Count Thirteen); and (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Count Fourteen). In May 2018, Google modified the New Account Creation Agreement to include more disclosures about how information is combined. The modified New Account Agreement explains that "Google shows you ads based on information about your interests, which we can derive from your use of Search and YouTube." The Court finds no dispute exists that the collection of the at-issue data, except for the X-client-data identifier, is browser-agnostic. The evidence shows that plaintiffs now complain not about the type or nature of the data but the quantity and its use. Google's expert, Dr. Georgios Zervas, an associate professor of marketing at Boston University's Questrom School of Business, testified that all categories of the at-issue data are collected irrespective of the browser one uses. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqtW2c at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Calhoun Data Collection Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, ET. AL. .v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. granting the Google's Motion for Summary Judgment; 2. denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the Briefing Regarding Remedies; 3. denying the plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the Record as to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment and to File a Sur-Reply. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against Google based on Google's alleged data collection practices and use of data from "users who chose not to 'Sync' their Google accounts with Chrome while browsing the web." Six alleged claims remain: (1) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Count Five); (2) intrusion upon seclusion (Count Seven); (3) breach of contract (Count Eight); (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Nine); (5) statutory larceny (Count Thirteen); and (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Count Fourteen). In May 2018, Google modified the New Account Creation Agreement to include more disclosures about how information is combined. The modified New Account Agreement explains that "Google shows you ads based on information about your interests, which we can derive from your use of Search and YouTube." The Court finds no dispute exists that the collection of the at-issue data, except for the X-client-data identifier, is browser-agnostic. The evidence shows that plaintiffs now complain not about the type or nature of the data but the quantity and its use. Google's expert, Dr. Georgios Zervas, an associate professor of marketing at Boston University's Questrom School of Business, testified that all categories of the at-issue data are collected irrespective of the browser one uses. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UQ7l4I at no extra charge.[CC] GOYA FOODS: Seeks Approval of Pre-Certification Communications -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL MEJIAS, DENNIS MINTER, JERRY FULLER, and JOSE PENA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. GOYA FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-12365-BRM-JRA (D.N.J.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order approving the proposed pre-certification communications to putative class members. Goya Foods produces and distributes food products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hvGNYJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andy G. Mercado, Esq. Kevin P. Hishta, Esq. Margaret Santen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 656-1600 Facsimile: (973) 656-1611 E-mail: andy.mercado@ogletree.com GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Feb. 24, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue hearing on motion for class certification and related dates as follows: -- That the deadline for Plaintiff February 24, 2023 to file his Motion for Class Certification, currently set for January 19, 2023, be continued to: -- That the deadline for Defendant April 7, 2023 to file its Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, be set for: -- That the deadline for Plaintiff April 28, 2023 to file his Reply to Motion for Class Certification be set for: Great American operates as a stock insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WlhDep at no extra charge.[CC] GREENWICH VILLAGE: Order Regarding Class Cert Deadlines Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ROMAN v. GREENWICH VILLAGE DENTAL ARTS P.C., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05939-JGK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order regarding class certification deadlines: 1. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. 2. The parties are required to make affirmative attempts to settle this matter through discussions among counsel. If the parties are unable to settle the case by such means, they are required to use mediation to assist them in achieving settlement. Mediation may be undertaken by means of private mediation or Court-supervised mediation, which includes the Court's mediation program or potentially a conference before the undersigned. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hslBTv at no extra charge.[CC] GREG LINDBERG: Loses Bid to Junk Jordan Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JORDAN, et al., v. GREG E. LINDBERG, Case No. (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order that: 1. The defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. 2. The defendant's motion to stay the motion for class certification pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss, is denied as moot. The motion for class certification, remains under advisement and will be resolved by separate order. The motion to consolidate, will also be resolved by separate order. The plaintiffs, insurance agents and agencies, allege that they have contracts with Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC, for the payment of commissions arising out of the sale of insurance policies that Preferred has not paid, and that the defendant, Greg Lindberg, is liable for Preferred's breach of contract through a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory. Mr. Lindberg's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a necessary party and failure to state a claim will be denied, as there is no necessary and indispensable party who has not been joined and the complaint states plausible claims against Mr. Lindberg. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iUDpqG at no extra charge.[CC] HANES BRANDS: Faces Toussaint Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Hanes Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on October 13, 2022, another putative class action was filed against Hanes Brands, Inc. alleging, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment in connection with the ransomware incident. The litigation is entitled, "Toussaint v. HanesBrands, Inc." and is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The lawsuits seek, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and activewear apparel based in North Carolina. HANESBRANDS INC: Faces Ramon Class Action ----------------------------------------- Hanes Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that the company is named in two lawsuits in connection with the ransomware incident. On October 7, 2022, a putative class action was filed against Hanes Brands, Inc. alleging, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in connection with the ransomware incident. The litigation is entitled, "Ramon v. Hanes Brands, Inc.," and is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and active wear apparel based in North Carolina. HID GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Robin Cooper and Darneisha Smith, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HID GLOBAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2022-CH-11116 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 14, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-07058. The Complaint alleges that HID "captured, collected, and stored" Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and information, "failed to provide any written disclosures describing its purpose for using" Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and information, and "failed to obtain" Plaintiffs' consent prior to "disclosing and/or disseminating" their biometric identifiers and information. Based on these and other allegations, Plaintiffs assert one claim for the violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Gerbie, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. Colin P. Buscarini, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: dgerbie@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Debra R. Bernard, Esq. Calvin Cohen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Phone: (312) 324-8400 Facsimile: (312) 324-9400 Email: DBernard@perkinscoie.com CCohen@perkinscoie.com HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brandon Whatley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Honda Development & Manufacturing of America LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00935 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Dec. 14, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Honda Development & Manufacturing of America LLC -- http://ohio.honda.com/-- manufactures motor vehicles and parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713 999 5228 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Victoria L. Dye, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, PLLC 2317 3rd Avenue North, Suite 102 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (659) 204-6363 Fax: (659) 204-6388 Email: vdye@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: David S Bloomfield, Jr., Esq. Syed Ahmadul Huda, Esq. PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR 41 South High Street, Ste. 2800-3200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 227-2169 Fax: (614) 227-2100 Email: dbloomfield@porterwright.com ahuda@porterwright.com INDEPENDENT BANK: Grice Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamila Grice, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Independent Bank, Case No. 7:20-cv-01948-TMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Independent Bank is a Michigan-based bank that offers loans, mortgages, personal & business banking. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j4V0MD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-299 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 500-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Taras Peter Kick, Esq. Tyler Dosaj, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com tyler@kicklawfirm.com INSOURCECODE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insourcecode, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Insourcecode, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10551 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. inSourceCode is an Indianapolis-based web development company that builds big things with WordPress.[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 JACK SKEEN: More Time to File Responses to Certify Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE REULE, et. al., v THE HONORABLE JUDGE JACK SKEEN, et. al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00367-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants Judge Skeen and Ms. Clarkston ask the Court granting their opposed motion for extension of time, making Judge Skeen's and Ms. Clarkston's responses to the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Certify a Defendant Class of Administrative Judges and a Defendant Class of Texas Court Clerks due thirty days after this Court rules upon Defendants' entitlement to sovereign immunity. The Defendants contend that they do not seek this extension for delay, but in order to preserve judicial resources and safeguard Defendants' entitlement to immunity from suit before the threshold jurisdictional challenges are resolved. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FTKwsx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ken Paxton, Esq. Brent Webster, Esq. Grant Dorfman, Esq. Shawn Cowles, Esq. Christopher D. Hilton, Esq. Caroline A. Merideth GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, MC-019 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 E-mail: caroline.merideth@oag.texas.gov - and - David Iglesias, Esq. James A. Evans III, Esq. Stephanie Ernst, Esq. IGLESIAS LAW FIRM, PLLC 605 Chase Drive, Suite 8 Tyler, TX 75701 Telephone: (903) 944-7185 Facsimile: (903) 630-5338 E-mail: david@iglesiaslawfirm.com jim@iglesiaslawfirm.com stephanie@iglesiaslawfirm.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erickson v. Jernigan Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the following class: "All holders of Jernigan Capital, Inc. common stock as of September 11, 2020, the record date for eligibility to vote on the acquisition of Jernigan's outstanding common stock by affiliates of NexPoint Advisors, L.P. for $17.30 per share in cash, who were harmed thereby;" Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.; 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff John R. Erickson to serve as Class Representative of the Class as defined above; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Jernigan Capital is a commercial real estate finance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WaauO6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 432-5100 E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com noam@rgrdlaw.com dcummings@rgrdlaw.com jzweig@rgrdlaw.com JVK OPERATIONS: Order on Class Certification Briefing Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montiel-Flores, et al., v. JVK Operations Limited, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03005 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered an order adopting the following briefing schedule with regard to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: -- The Defendants shall file and February 10, 2023 serve their opposition on or before: -- The Plaintiffs shall file and March 10, 2023 serve their reply, if any: JVK Operations provides linen and garments laundry services for healthcare facilities on the East Coast. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] KC GOURMET: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRKPATRICK DUNBAR, v. KC GOURMET EMPANADAS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10453-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon- barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. -- This Order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5), including the requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. For avoidance of doubt, a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) used to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants. KC Gourmet is a colorful, vibrant and casual Panamanian Latin restaurant located in the East Village - Lower East Side neighborhood of Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WB9eUj at no extra charge.[CC] LABORATORY CORPORATION: Aguilar FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adriana Aguilar, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35513 was removed from Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 14, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09050-DSF-AFM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- is an American healthcare company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq. Courtney Marisa Miller, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Pooja Virendra Patel, Esq. LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com cmiller@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com ppatel@lelawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: (818) 609-0807 Fax: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq. KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 547-4900 Fax: (213) 547-4901 Email: bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com LINDE GAS: Class Cert-Related Order Entered in Mountain Hi Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOUNTAIN HI, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01432-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an class certification related order as follows: JURY TRIAL DATE October 28, 2024 Length of Trial 8 to 12 days Discovery on class certification October 9, 2023 issues completed by Any motions related to class December 7, 2023 certification must be filed by Deadline for joining additional parties February 1, 2024 Any motions for leave to amend February 1, 2024 pleadings filed by Disclosure of expert testimony February 20, 2024 under FRCP 26(a)(2) All motions related to discovery March 7, 2024 must be filed by All remaining discovery completed by April 4, 2024 All dispositive motions must be filed May 30, 2024 by and noted on the motion calendar no later than the fourth Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d)) Linde Gas is a provider of industrial gases, applications, products and services that support welding, cutting and other processes. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HCPHyv at no extra charge.[CC] LLOYD AUSTIN: Allowed Leave to Combine Response & Class Bids ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00049-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to combine the Defendants' Response to the Plaintiffs' class motions and to file excess pages. The Defendants may file a combined response brief of up to 40 pages. The Plaintiffs may also file a combined reply brief of up to 25 pages in support of their motions for class certification and lass-wide preliminary injunction. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBDeHo at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MILLSTEIN, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; NORTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:21-cv-02623-MEMF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily certifying the collective action under the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), and order that notice be provided to the class. The Plaintiff moves for preliminary certification of the following classes: -- Unpaid Overtime Wage Class "All current and former non-exempt hourly paid Custody Assistants employees that worked at the North County Correctional Facility who worked over 40 hours in a workweek for the County of Los Angeles at any time within the three years prior to filing the initial Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure date) who were not paid their overtime wages;" -- Rest Period Class "All current and former Custody Assistant employees who worked as an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North County Correctional Facility for the County of Los Angeles, at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this initial Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure date), who could not take rest breaks;" -- Bona Fide Meal Period Class "All current and former Custody Assistant employees who worked as an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North County Correctional Facility for the County of Los Angeles, at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this initial Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure date), who did not get bona fide meal periods." The Plaintiff was employed with the County as a Custody Assistant at the North County Correctional Facility. Ms. Millstein was not paid overtime wages that she earned in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207. Ms. Millstein was not permitted to take rest breaks in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 785.18. Finally, Ms. Millstein was required to work during her meal period in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 785.19. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HxCFCj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Selik, Esq. Christine Zaouk, Esq. McCATHERN LLP 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com czaouk@mccathernlaw.com LYFT INC: Order Regarding Class Certification Deadlines Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET LOWELL, et al., v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order regarding class certification deadlines: -- The trial scheduled for January 17, 2023 is adjourned sine die pending resolution of the class certification motion pending before the Magistrate Judge. -- The remaining deadlines set forth in the Court's November 7, 2022 Order are likewise adjourned sine dine. -- As explained more fully on the record during the conference, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding the Court's directives and instructions concerning their Proposed Joint Pretrial Order and file the revised document by January 13, 2023. -- The Defendant shall, by December 20, 2022, file a document(s) succinctly presenting the elements of the burden of proof for each claim for relief and defenses to be tried herein, in chart format or as an outline; and plaintiffs shall file their document(s) in chart format or as an outline by January 13, 2023. -- The parties shall, by January 20, 2023, meet and confer and file a joint letter, limited to five double-spaced pages, concerning the differences, if any, between their recitations of the burden of proof associated with each claim for relief and defense. Lyft provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FuNHWn at no extra charge.[CC] MARSHALL HOTELS: Class Cert Status Report Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Link v. Marshall Hotels & Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00805 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order granting in part and denying in part class certification status report as follows: -- The parties are directed to file by Feb. 7, 2023 the appropriate settlement documentation and dismissal documentation. -- The deadlines for Plaintiff expert disclosures, the Defendants expert disclosures, and any rebuttal expert disclosures are stayed until Feb. 7, 2023. -- The deadlines for all discovery, class certification motion, and dispositive motions remain as previously set. -- The Court will re-evaluate the stayed deadlines on Feb. 7, 2023, should the parties fail to complete their settlement and file appropriate documentation with the Court by Feb. 7, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Marshall Hotels & Resorts operates as a hotel management company.[CC] MASTER LOCK: Pan Sues Over Falsely Claimed Secure Lock Boxes ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Pan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-08943 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2022), is brought seeking to recover for consumers who have overpaid for lock boxes that Master Lock falsely claims are suitable for safe and secure outside storage of house keys and other items. Master Lock manufactures and sells the two models of push-button combination lock boxes that are subjects of this lawsuit, the "5422D Portable Lock Box" (the "5422D") and the "5423D Wall Mount Lock Box" (the "5423D") (collectively, the "Products"). The Products are metal boxes with 12 buttons on the front, resembling a telephone keypad containing the numerals 0-9 as well as the asterisk and number symbols. The Products differ only insofar as the 5422D has a shackle, allowing for attachment to a gate or doorknob, while the 5423D has screw holes instead of a shackle so that it can be mounted to a wall. The Products are opened by inputting a user-selected combination and then depressing a rectangular open switch above the keypad. Master Lock advertises the Products to consumers who wish to securely store home entry devices, such as keys or garage door openers, on the outside of their houses. Master Lock expressly markets the Products as a better alternative to hiding keys under a doormat or potted plant. What Master Lock refuses to tell consumers, though, is that the Products have a security vulnerability that allows any unauthorized person to decode and gain access to the Products quickly and without tools. By applying continuous pressure to the open switch and then testing each button, any person can identify which buttons are part of the combination. In fact, the order of the buttons pressed does not matter; all the unauthorized person needs to do to gain access is press the correct buttons and open the lock box. To make matters worse, although the Products' vulnerability to unauthorized access is not common knowledge among consumers, it is known to or easily ascertained by burglars or other people seeking unauthorized access. As a result, the Products are unfit for their advertised use. The Plaintiff, like all members of the putative class, either would not have purchased the Products had he known of the vulnerability or would have only been willing to pay substantially less. Master Lock has violated California consumer protection and warranty laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. Master Lock Company, LLC is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Gubernick, Esq. GUBERNICK LAW P.L.L.C. 10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12 Phoenix, AZ 85037 Phone: 623-252-6961 Email: ben@gubernicklaw.com - and - David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A Professional Corporation 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 Email: david@lakelawpc.com MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Files Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA HECKLE, v. MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-01463-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on her New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims and appointment of class counsel. -- All counsel are directed to appear for a status conference on January 31, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 620 at the White Plains Courthouse. -- By January 24, 2023, the parties are directed to submit (i) a joint letter addressing all case management issues going forward, including inter alia a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery on the merits of plaintiff's claims, and (ii) a joint proposed claim notice. -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. Accordingly, the Court concludes the plaintiff has met her burden to show the job duties of the putative class members are largely consistent such that common questions surrounding exemption will predominate over individual ones. The Defendant overstates the degree to which the evidence shows differences among the proposed class members' job duties or how TCEs exercise their role. That a senior TCE can approve claims seeking $1,000 more in STD benefits than a level 2 TCE without automatic supervisor review, or that TCEs may consult nurse case managers in deciding whether to approve a claim when the Matrix Best Practices do not require such consultations, go to the merits of whether the job function of a TCE involves exercising independent judgment warranting exemption. The Plaintiff Erica Heckle brings this purported class action against defendant Matrix Absence, claiming defendant misclassified her and other "telephonic claims examiners" as exempt from overtime requirements under the NYLL and failed to provide proper wage statements in violation of NYLL Section 196. The Plaintiff worked as a Telephonic Claims Examiner ("TCE") in defendant's Hawthorne, New York, office from November 2010 to November 2020. Matrix Absence is a third-party administrator that processes short-term disability ("STD") and leave of absence ("LOA") claims on behalf of companies that provide disability benefits and paid or unpaid leave to their employees. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YqB6Mp at no extra charge.[CC] MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Certify MA Consumer Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA DUGGAN, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT MARTORELLO AND EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-12277-JGD (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of Massachusetts consumers who made payments on void, illegal loans as the result of the Defendants' predatory lending enterprise: The Class "All persons: (1) who executed a loan with Red Rock Tribal Lending, LLC or Big Picture Loans, LLC, (2) while residents of Massachusetts, (3) where any payment on the loan was made on or after October 31, 2014;" 2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel of record as class counsel; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative. The Plaintiff contends that in this dispute about Defendants' illegal earnings from a usurious lending scheme, she has met all the requirements to certify the Class. Based on data from the national Galloway settlement, data is currently available for a subset of the class. For the time period of October 31, 2014, to December 20, 2019, there were 8,404 unique Class members who had a Massachusetts address and made payments of principal and/or interest on their loans totaling $23,467,563.35. The claims arise from the same form loan agreement and turn on whether the Defendants' uniform efforts to evade state usury laws constitute a violation of state lending laws, RICO, and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ji1zMg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. John B. Scofield, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com jbs@caddellchapman.com - and - John Roddy, Esq. Elizabeth Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com eryan@baileyglasser.com MAYVENN INC: Court Junks Class Certification in Trim TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINE TRIM, v. MAYVENN, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03917-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The Northern District of California concludes Trim has not met her burden under Rule 23(a)(3). Additionally, Mayvenn argues, Trim's "lack of credibility makes her an inadequate class representative." In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Trim alleges that, although her cellular phone number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNC Registry"), Mayvenn nonetheless sent two automated text messages to said number without her consent. Trim asserts, on behalf of herself and a putative class, a claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). By the instant motion, Mayvenn seeks an order denying certification of the NDNC Registry Class on the asserted ground that Trim is an improper class representative. Mayvenn, Inc. provides personal care products. The Company offers virgin human hair and hair extensions products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uPMnZi at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Seeks More Time to Object to Conditional Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James McCarthy, Individually and for Others Similarly Situation, v. Medicus Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00668-JL (D.N.H.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting extension of time to and until January 23, 2023 within which to file its objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice. On December 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed its motion for initial certification. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b), the Defendant has 14 days to file an objection. To permit it sufficient time to formulate a response, Defendant requests until January 23, 2023 to file their objection. Medicus Healthcare delivers medical staffing services to healthcare facilities and matches providers with exceptional opportunities nationwide. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hysZwP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James P. Harris, Esq. John-Mark Turner, Esq. SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA 1000 Elm Street, P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 Telephone: (603) 627-8152 E-mail: jharris@sheehan.com jturner@sheehan.com - and - Kenneth W. Gage, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6046 E-mail: kennethgage@paulhastings.com MILLIMAN INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Mattson ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order regarding the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan submitted by the parties. The Court sets the following dates and deadlines: -- Bench Trial Date: April 1, 2024 -- Length of Trial: 5–15 days -- Discovery on class certification March 13, 2023 issues completed by: -- Any motions related to class May 11, 2023 certification must be filed by: -- Deadline for filing any motion July 6, 2023 for leave to amend a pleading and for joining additional parties: -- Disclosure of expert testimony July 25, 2023 under FRCP 26(a)(2): -- All motions related to discovery August 10, 2023 must be filed by: -- All remaining discovery September 8, 2023 completed by: Milliman is a firm of consultants and actuaries serving the full spectrum of business, governmental, and financial organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WkU9WD at no extra charge.[CC] MY PILLOW: Gaudreau Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaudreau v. My Pillow, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01899 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker entered an endorsed order denying as moot motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. My Pillow is an American pillow-manufacturing company based in Chaska, Minnesota.[CC] MYXED UP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Loadholt Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LOADHOLT v. MYXED UP CREATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07708-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join January 12, 2023 additional parties shall be filed no later than: -- Initial disclosure is to be April 5, 2023 completed no later than: -- Initial request for production January 12, 2023 of documents shall be served by: -- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule January 12, 2023 33.3(a) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York shall be served by: -- Depositions shall be completed by: April 5, 2023 -- Request to Admit shall be served January 12, 2023 no later than: -- All All expert discovery, including May 19, 2023 disclosures, reports, rebuttal reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions shall be completed by: -- All discovery shall be completed May 19,2023 no later than: -- Any motion for summary judgment June 16, 2023 must be filed no later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YArgI2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman,Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue,Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 The Defendant is represented by: Peter T. Shapiro, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 77 Water Sreet, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10005 NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Proposed Sched Order Junked in Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, et al., v. The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00643 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order denying the proposed scheduling order by the parties for class certification determination. This case is already more than three years old and under the proposed scheduled class certification would not occur until the case is 5 years old. The parties should meet and confer and propose a schedule that has class certification fully briefed and before the Court no later than June 30, 2023. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Narragansett provides utility services. The company distributes, transmits, and generates electricity.[CC] NIO INC: S.D. New York Consolidates Saye & Bohonok Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, TEDDY J. SAYE, Plaintiff v. NIO INC., et al., Defendants; and TARAS CEGLIA BOHONOK, Plaintiff v. NIO INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 22-CV-7252 (VSB), 22-CV-7666 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: a. grants the motions for consolidation; b. grants Dr. Mohammad Siddiqui's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel; and c. denies the remaining motions from Javier Rodriguez Sordo, Michael Lyon, Ira Zohn, Prakash Sambath, Gary Darland, Arthur White, and Juan Herreramoro Gomez for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Plaintiffs bring two securities fraud class action lawsuits against NIO and certain of its officers and directors. These actions (collectively, the "NIO Actions") allege that NIO and its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), as well as the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. On Aug. 25, 2022, Saye filed a class action complaint against NIO, as well as its CEO Bin Li and its Chief Financial Officer Wei Feng (collectively, "Individual Defendants"), alleging that NIO and Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by misleading investors about NIO's revenue. Essentially, Saye claims that NIO share prices fell after a Grizzly Research report alleged that NIO had "inflated its net income by about 95% through sales to a related party, Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co. The same day that he filed his complaint, Saye published a notice of the complaint on Business Wire in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice advised putative class members that they had 60 days from the date of the notice to move the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff of the litigation. A few weeks later, on Sept. 8, 2022, Plaintiff Taras Ceglia Bohonok filed a class action complaint against the Defendants. The Bohonok Complaint is virtually identical to the Saye Complaint, except that Bohonok alleges that "the Class Period begins on Aug. 20, 2020, when the Company issued a press release announcing the establishment of Weineng," whereas Saye alleges that "[t]he Class Period begins on March 1, 2021," when "NIO announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release." Each complaint names the exact same Defendants. Seven plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs have filed motions requesting consolidation of the NIO Actions, appointment of lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. Before Judge Broderick are the following: 1. Sambath's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP as lead counsel. 2. White's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel. 3. Lyon's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. 4. Darland's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as lead counsel. 5. Sordo's and Dr. Mohammad Siddiqui's (together, the Sordo-Siddiqui Group) motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint themselves as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Bernstein Liebhard LLP as lead counsel. 6. Zohn's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. 7. Herreramoro's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. as lead counsel. In response to these motions, Sambath, Darland, White, and Herreramoro each filed notices of non-opposition acknowledging that they do not possess the largest financial interest. On Nov. 7, 2022, Zohn, Lyon, and the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each filed an opposition to competing motions. On Nov. 14, 2022, Zohn, Lyon, and the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each filed a reply. The Defendants have not taken a position on the merits of these motions. First, Judge Broderick finds that the Bohonok Complaint appears identical to the Saye Complaint, except for an adjustment to the class period. The Saye Action and Bohonok Action involve identical questions of law and fact. All seven movants agree that the actions should be consolidated, and the Defendants have not filed any opposition. Judge Broderick finds that consolidation is warranted, and grants the movants' motions for consolidation. As previously ordered, within seven days of the appointment of a lead plaintiff, the parties will file a proposed schedule for any consolidated or amended complaint, and any answer or motion in response. Next, Judge Broderick turns the appointment of lead plaintiff. The notice was published on Aug. 25, 2022, and all movants timely filed for appointment as lead plaintiff by Oct. 24, 2022. Sambath, Darland, White, and Herreramoro have each withdrawn from consideration.Zohn, Lyon, and the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each maintain they are the presumptive lead plaintiff. Zohn claims the largest financial loss of $1,980,095. Sordo claims a financial loss of $998,751.18, and Siddiqui claims a financial loss of $657,902.32, for a total of $1,656,653.50. Lyon claims a financial loss of $990,299.65. Each movant argues the other movants' claimed losses should be discounted. Judge Broderick opines that given the significant financial losses and his more than 20 years' investing experience, Dr. Siddiqui will fairly and adequately protects the interests of the class. Although Lyon and Zohn have challenged the Sordo-Siddiqui Group, no other movant has provided any proof that Dr. Siddiqui as an individual would not be able to "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" or "is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class." Accordingly, Dr. Siddiqui should serve as lead plaintiff. Dr. Siddiqui has selected Bernstein Liebhard. Judge Broderick has reviewed Dr. Siddiqui's filings in the case, as well as Bernstein Liebhard's resume, and he finds that Bernstein Liebhard is highly experienced in securities litigation and is capable of adequately and effectively representing the class. Dr. Siddiqui's motion that Bernstein Liebhard be appointed lead counsel of the NIO Action is granted. In light of the foregoing, Judge Broderick grants the motions for consolidation based on the similarity of the NIO Actions. He finds that Dr. Siddiqui is the presumptive lead plaintiff and no other movants have rebutted that presumption. Moreover, Dr. Siddiqui has a substantial financial interest and meets the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23; therefore, he grants Dr. Siddiqui's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel. He denies the remaining motions from Sordo, Lyon, Zohn, Sambath, Darland, White, and Herreramoro for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motions. As previously ordered, within seven days of this Order, the parties will file a proposed schedule for any consolidated or amended complaint, and any answer or motion in response. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bdyfk9n from Leagle.com. Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff Teddy J. Saye, Movant Michael Lyon. Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Thomas Henry Przybylowski -- tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff Taras Ceglia Bohonok, Movant Ira Zohn. Daniel Patrick Chiplock -- dchiplock@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Movant Prakash Sambath. Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Movant Arthur White. James Milligan Wilson, Jr -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (NYC), New York, NY, Counsel for Movant Gary Darland. Joseph R. Seidman -- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Movants Javier Rodriguez Sordo, Mohammad Siddiqui. Melissa Ann Fortunato -- fortunato@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., New York, NY Counsel for Juan Herreramoro Gomez. Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Judith Flumenbaum -- judy.flumenbaum@skadden.com -- Michael Charles Griffin -- michael.griffin@skadden.com -- Robert Alexander Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendant NIO Inc. NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Darish and Hymowitz Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Darish and Hymowitz putative shareholder class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 4 and December 17, 2020, separate putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York regarding the drop in the price of the Company's stock following the ROD by the USACE regarding the Pebble Project. These cases are captioned Darish v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05917-ENV-RLM, and Hymowitz v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-06126-PKC-RLM. Each of the complaints was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased shares of the Company's stock from December 21, 2017, through November 25, 2020, the date the USACE announced its decision, and seeks damages allegedly caused by violations of the federal securities laws. On March 17, 2021, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. A consolidated and amended complaint was filed in June 2021, naming the Company, the Company's CEO and the Pebble Partnership's former CEO as defendants. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of all defendants. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and molybdenum in Alaska. [BN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Haddad Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Haddad shareholder class suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. On December 3, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and one of its underwriters in the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the decrease in the price of the Company's stock following the USACE's November 25, 2020 decision regarding the Pebble Project. The case is captioned Haddad v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-2012849. The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors, wherever they may reside, who acquired common shares of the Company's stock between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020, and seeks damages for (i) alleged misrepresentations in the Company's primary market offering documents and continuous disclosure documents, and (ii) allegedly oppressive conduct. The Company has been served the claim and intends to defend itself vigorously. The underwriter has asserted contractual rights of indemnification against the Company for any loss that the underwriter may incur in connection with the lawsuit. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and molybdenum in Alaska. [BN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Woo Shareholder Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Woo shareholder class suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. On February 17, 2021, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters in the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the decrease in the price of the Company's stock following (i) the USACE's August 24, 2020 announcement that the Pebble Project could not be permitted as proposed, and (ii) the USACE's November 25, 2020 decision regarding the Pebble Project. The case is captioned Woo v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-211530. The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors, wherever they may reside, who purchased securities of the Company between June 25, 2020 and November 25, 2020, and seeks damages for (i) alleged misrepresentations in the Company's primary market offering documents and continuous disclosure documents, (ii) allegedly oppressive conduct, (iii) alleged unjust enrichment, and (iv) negligence. The Company has been served and intends to defend itself vigorously. The underwriters have asserted contractual rights of indemnification against the Company for any loss that they may incur in connection with the lawsuit. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and molybdenum in Alaska. [BN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pirzada Bid to Discontinue Claim OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted plaintiff's motion to discontinue claim in the Pirzada shareholder class suit. On March 5, 2021, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the decrease in the price of the Company's stock following the USACE's November 25, 2020 decision regarding the Pebble Project. The case is captioned Pirzada v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. CV-21-00658284-00CP. The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors, wherever they may reside, who acquired securities of the Company between June 25, 2020 and November 25, 2020, and seeks damages for (i) alleged misrepresentations in the Company's primary market offering documents and continuous disclosure documents, (ii) allegedly oppressive conduct, and (iii) alleged negligence. On March 30, 2022, the plaintiff made a motion to discontinue the claim without costs and the court granted the discontinuance in April 2022. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and molybdenum in Alaska. [BN] NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Villafan, et al., Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their bid for class certification. The Defendants admit that they have sold over 700 used diesel trucks to consumers in the class period, which had all or some of their emission controls removed or altered. The removal, alteration, deletion, or the use of emission control parts not certified -- nown as "tampering" -- is illegal in all 50 states, the lawsuit says. Importantly, the Defendants also admit that they know tampered vehicles may not be icensed or registered in jurisdictions outside of Washington -- thus making them not merchantable. The Defendants do not disclose those facts to consumers before the purchase of a vehicle, nor do they disclose any other materially adverse consequences of purchasing a tampered vehicle, the lawsuit adds. The result is that each Plaintiff and each member of the Class has sustained substantial economic damages. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFoXgy 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 No. 308 24 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (425) 582-8165 Facsimile: (888) 527-2710 E-mail: eu enebolin@gmail.com - and - Guy W. Beckettf, Esq. BERRY & BECKETTT PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 981226 Telephone: (206) 441-5444 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Martin J. Pujolar, Esq. Paul S. Smith, Esq. FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. 901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 689-8500 Facsimile: 206-689-8501 E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law psmith@foum.law NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Securities Suit Over COVID Vaccine ----------------------------------------------------------------- Novavax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on November 12, 2021, a Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned "Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al.," Case No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC. On January 26, 2022, the court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the company's ability to manufacture the COVID-19 "Novavax" vaccine on a commercial scale and to secure the vaccine's regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the company's securities between February 24, 2021, and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On June 9, 2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 11, 2022, the Company filed a reply brief. The matter is now fully briefed. Novavax, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a biotechnology company based in Maryland. OUR DREAM PIZZA: Powell Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL POWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OUR DREAM PIZZA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02542-TMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff Russell Powell asks the Court to enter an order: A. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action; B. Approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join and proposed method of distribution including mailing and emailing; C. Approving the form and content of Exhibits 1–4; D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact information of each putative collective member in an electronically importable and malleable electronic format, such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order is entered; E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the date on which the Defendant produce the collective members' names and contact information, in which collective members may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver for Defendant Our Dream Pizza. The Plaintiff seeks to recover minimum wages for all hours worked, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W6reWA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob J. Modla, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C. 115 Elk Avenue Rock Hill, SC 29730 Telephone: (803) 328-0898 E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PACIFIC GRAIN: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 19, 2023 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA L. SALCEDO, v. PACIFIC GRAIN & FOODS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00640-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order granting stipulated motion to continue hearing on motion to certify class and on motion to strike. The Court finds good cause to grant the parties stipulated motion. Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties and good cause appearing: -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion April 19, 2023 to certify class, currently set for February 15, 2023, is continued to: -- The Plaintiff's forthcoming motion April 19, 2023 to strike the answer shall be set for hearing on: -- The Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to strike the answer shall be filed and served no later than 21 days prior to the April 19, 2023 hearing. -- The Defendant's opposition to both the motion to certify class and motion to strike shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to April 19, 2023 hearing. -- The Plaintiff's reply briefing shall be filed and served no later than 7 days prior to April 19, 2023 hearing. The Plaintiff initiated this action on May 27, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, that is currently set for hearing on February 15, 2023. The Defendant then appeared and filed an answer in this action on November 18, 2022. On November 28, 2022, when continuing the hearing on the motion to certify, the Court ordered the parties to file a status report regarding mediation. On December 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to the continuance of the motion to certify hearing and a potentially forthcoming motion to strike, in light of a mediation scheduled on March 20, 2023. Pacific Grain is a purveyor of dry beans, rice, grains and nut butters. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iQnLN1 at no extra charge.[CC] PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------ Frances Curd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHNS, Case No. 1:22-cv-03185-JRR (D. Md., Dec. 9, 2022), is brought against Papa Johns for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com, in violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors. Papa Johns procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on Papa Johns' website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with Papa Johns' website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Papa Johns' request. After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Papa Johns and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.papajohns.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Papa Johns for analysis. Papa Johns' procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to Papa Johns' website for the entire duration of their website interaction. While visiting Papa Johns' website, Plaintiff fell victim to Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.papajohns.com. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Papa Johns procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its website The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all Maryland citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through Papa Johns' procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.papajohns.com and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited www.papajohns.com on her computer while in Maryland. Papa Johns operates the website www.papajohns.com and is an online and brick-and-mortar pizza restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202.540.7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646.357.1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240 Chicago IL 60602 Phone: 312.750.1265 Email: katrina@lcllp.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: 610.234.6486 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com PASSON & PASSON: King, et al., Seek Conditional Collective Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KING and ANDRIN JANQUENOUD, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. PASSON & PASSON CORP., 229 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a TERRA, 225 WEST BROADWAY CORP d/b/a ATTRAVERSA, GOOD LUCK RIBBON CORP. d/b/a ARICCIA, 7 WASHINGTON LANE CORP. d/b/a ARIA HELL’S KITCHEN, 228 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a ARIA, BRICIOLA CORP. d/b/a BRICIOLA, 230 BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a COTENNA, 62 CARMINE CORP. d/b/a CODINO, 329 BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a LABORATORIO, ROBERTO PASSON, and TANYA HIRA-PASSON Case No. 1:22-cv-06060-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective certification and court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b) A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VXGbdC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Moss Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Jackson Pavelka, Kaylee Pavelka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul Moss Insurance Agency, LLC d/b/a/ Epiq Insurance Agency, Case No. 1:22-cv-02226 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Paul Moss Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as Epiq Insurance Agency -- https://epiqagency.com/ -- offer consumers the ability to get a fast, comprehensive Home Insurance Quote that can protect investments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI-CLEVELAND 55 Public Square, Ste. 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 621-8484 Fax: (216) 771-1632 Email: sdsimp@climacolaw.com PERDUE FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Parker Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER PARKER, v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Tilman E. Self, III entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court grants Perdue's Motion as it relates to Plaintiff's state-law fraud claim (count 5) and his Packers & Stockyards Act claim (Count 8). Thus, the Court dismisses those claims. The Court denies Perdue's Motion as to Plaintiff's other claims. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Perdue Foods -- the third largest broiler chicken company in the country -- outsources "the process of raising birds to broiler growers," like Plaintiff, and considers them "independent farmers." In the recruiting process, the Plaintiff alleges that Perdue promises these farmers "independence and financial success." However, Plaintiff contends that Perdue controls "virtually every aspect of [the] growers' operations." The Plaintiff contends that Perdue requires these farmers to agree to an exclusive contract -- a Poultry Producer Agreement ("PPA") -- with Perdue, which prohibits any visits to other farms associated with another integrator and requires construction of their farms in conformity with specific instructions from Perdue. Perdue Farms Iproduces poultry products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uIPK4b at no extra charge.[CC] PERFORMANCE ONE: Bid for Collective Action Cert Tossed as Premature ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRA RICHARDS, ET AL. V. PERFORMANCE ONE SECURITY, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-00701-Y (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Terry R. Means entered an order denying as premature motion for collective-action certification. The parties shall have until February 28, 2023, to engage in discovery regarding potential class certification and attempt to reach an agreement regarding the definition of the class and the terms of the proposed notice to be directed to potential class members. The Plaintiffs may refile their class-certification motion after the completion of this discovery period but no later than March 10, 2023. The Plaintiffs' complaint contends that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay them overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week as security guards. Performance One is a Security Guard Service, serving Dallas, Fort Worth and surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BB3n9c at no extra charge.[CC] PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE PASCHAL and PEDRO ZARAZUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of time to file respectively Defendants' response and Plaintiffs' reply triggered by the filing of such Motion. In a Text Order dated November 30, 2022, the Court allowed Plaintiffs until December 2, 2022 to file their Motion. The Plaintiffs then timely-filed the Motion on December 2. According to the Scheduling Order, the Defendants were permitted 30 days (that is, by January 1, 2023) to file their response to the Motion. When Defendants learned of the filing of the Motion on December 5, and also considering the upcoming holiday season, the Defendants' counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel about an extension of time for Defendants' to file such response. The Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they did not oppose such an extension so long as they could likewise seek an extension of time by which to file their reply. Therefore, the parties jointly request that Defendants be allowed to file their response to the Motion by January 9, 2023; and that Plaintiffs be allowed to file their reply to that response by January 26, 2023. Perry's Restaurants is in the Steak Restaurant business. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOnkcL 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) 887-1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lionel M. Schooler, Esq. Brooke Willard, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 1401 McKinney Ave., Suite 1900 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 752-4200 Facsimile: (713) 308-4156 E-mail: lschooler@jw.com POINTSBET USA: Seeks Dismissal of Gutman Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GUTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POINTSBET USA INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02137-SKC (D. Colo.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the plaintiff's class action complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) and denying class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Defendants contend that Court should dismiss Mr. Gutman's claims in their entirety. Finally, pursuant to Rule P. 12(b)(1), the Court should also dismiss Mr. Gutman's claims to the extent they seek injunctive relief, as the Complaint fails to plausibly allege that Mr. Gutman faces a cognizable threat of future harm as a result of the complained-of conduct, and he therefore lacks Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief. The promotional offer Mr. Gutman accepted applied only to his first, post-Account-opening bet, which he placed on March 30, 2022. Having already availed himself of the first-bet offer, he cannot go back in time and do it again. Further, even if Mr. Gutman were alleging that he intends to (and could) continue accepting and using PointsBet's Bonus Bet offers going forward, he would still lack standing to pursue the injunctive relief that he seeks, because there is no threat that a plaintiff like Mr. Gutman, who is already aware that Bonus Bet winnings will not include the Bonus Bet stake itself, could conceivably be "deceived" by those statements again in the future. On March 30, 2022, Mr. Gutman, a New York resident, opened his PointsBet NY sports wagering Account and deposited $500. He used the promotional code "WELCOME" when he opened his Account, and his acceptance of that offer entitled him to receive up to $500 in free bet credits if his first fixed-odds wager lost. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VVdttS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Jacobson Catherine E. Kennedy FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Ave. of the Americas, 41st Fl. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3140 E-mail: Jeffrey.Jacobson@faegredrinker.com Catherine.Kennedy@faegredrinker.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Pazymino Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAOLA PAZYMINO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 19-12259 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Ms. Pazymino, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed the putative class action against PRA, a debt collection company, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., by sending her collection letters containing settlement and savings offers in connection with unenforceable debt. The case arises out of PRA's attempts to collect allegedly time-barred debt owed by Ms. Pazymino. In July 2014, Ms. Pazymino defaulted on a debt she owed to "Comenity Bank/Ann Taylor." The parties agree that upon that default, a cause of action accrued to enforce the debt. PRA subsequently purchased Ms. Pazymino's debt. On May 8, 2018, PRA sent Ms. Pazymino a letter attempting to collect the debt. The letter indicated that she owed a balance of $555.72 and included a settlement offer, stating that if she paid PRA $305.65 by June 15, 2018, her account would be considered "Settled in Full" once the payment posted, saving her $250.07 on the listed balance. RA sent Ms. Pazymino three more letters, dated Aug. 14, 2018, Dec. 18, 2018, and March 19, 2019. Each of these three subsequent letters contained similar savings offers, as well as the following disclaimer that the law limits how long she can be sued on a debt. According to Ms. Pazymino, the first, May 8, 2018 letter violated the FDCPA, because by then the debt PRA was seeking to collect was time-barred and therefore unenforceable, and the letter contained no disclaimer to that effect. She also alleges that the three subsequent letters violated the FDCPA because they contained "representations of 'offers' and 'savings' which were false because the Debt is unenforceable in a court of law." The debt was time-barred, says Ms. Pazymino, because the written terms of the underlying credit card agreement chose Delaware law to govern the transaction, and "Delaware law provides that no action will be brought after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the cause of action." Based on her theory of the case, her debt was no longer enforceable three years after her default, i.e., as of July 2017. PRA asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because its enforcement of Ms. Pazymino's debt was subject to New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations, not Delaware's three-year statute. It contends that Ms. Pazymino's FDCPA claim therefore fails as a matter of law because the debt was not time-barred when it sent its collection letters. Ms. Pazymino initiated the action on May 7, 2019. On June 3, 2021, she filed the currently operative pleading, her First Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand, in which she asserts a claim against PRA for several alleged violations of the FDCPA. On July 1, 2021, PRA served its Answer to the First Amended Class Action Complaint. On Jan. 28, 2022, PRA filed the present motion for summary judgment, requesting that the Court enters judgment in its favor and against Ms. Pazymino with respect to the sole count contained in hers First Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 15, 2022, Ms. Pazymino filed a brief in opposition to PRA's motion for summary judgment. On April 4, 2022, PRA filed a reply brief in support of its motion. On Dec. 1, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on PRA's summary judgment motion. On Dec. 8, 2022, at the request of the Court, Ms. Pazymino submitted further briefing responding to the Defendant's arguments concerning the application of New Jersey's statute of limitations to contracts that contain a choice of law provision selecting a foreign state's substantive law to govern the agreement. PRA's summary judgment motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. PRA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because 1) Ms. Pazymino "failed to produce or otherwise discover the alleged contract, or the language of any applicable choice of law provision"; 2) even if the contract did contain the particular Delaware choice-of-law provision on which she relies, the New Jersey statute would still govern because the contractual choice-of-law provision lacks an express reference to Delaware's statute of limitations; and 3) the New Jersey statute of limitations applies to Ms. Pazymino's account because PRA was attempting to collect the debt "under an account stated theory." Judge McNulty opines that each of PRA's arguments fails. First, the fact that Ms. Pazymino has not produced the underlying contract is not grounds for an award of summary judgment. Ms. Pazymino has made a sufficient threshold showing that her contract contained a Delaware choice-of-law provision. Second, the statute of limitations at issue is the one that would apply to a hypothetical action by PRA to collect the debt. There also remains a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the underlying contract language that renders summary judgment inappropriate at this stage. Third, PRA's final argument is premised on a misunderstanding of what constitutes an account stated cause of action. And even if PRA did assert an account stated claim, such a claim would turn, at least in part, on the same factual determination preventing summary judgment: whether Ms. Pazymino's contract contained a Delaware choice-of-law provision. Because there remains a genuine disputed issue of material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate, and PRA's motion is denied. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/39fszmdw from Leagle.com. PP&G INC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Denied as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUITA BUTLER, ET AL. v. PP&G, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03084-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The court struck Defendants' responsive pleading as a Rule 37 sanction and directed that the Clerk enter judgment by default. This action was then referred to a United States Magistrate Judge on the matter of damages. PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ByN78Q at no extra charge.[CC] PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Scheduling Order, Discovery Plan Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney entered a scheduling order and discovery plan as follows: -- Initial disclosures: Dec. 7, 2022 -- Motion to add parties: Dec. 30, 2022 -- Motions to amend pleadings: Dec. 30, 2022 -- Plaintiffs' expert(s) March 31, 2023 disclosure(s): -- The Defendants' expert(s) May 31, 2023 disclosure(s): -- The Plaintiffs' rebuttal June 30, 2023 expert(s) disclosure(s): -- Completion of discovery: Aug. 1, 2023 -- Dispositive motions: Sept. 8, 2023 -- Trial ready date: Feb. 5, 2024 -- Class certification deadlines A. Plaintiffs' motion: Dec. 01, 2022 B. Defendants' resistance: Dec. 15, 2022 C. Plaintiffs' reply: Dec. 22, 2022 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W2WBku at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Related Order Entered in Volino ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order: -- Defendants shall file their December 30, 2022 Daubert motion by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file January 17, 2023 their opposition by: -- The Defendants shall file January 20, 2023 their reply by: The opening and opposition memoranda of law shall not exceed eight pages per expert that Defendants seek to preclude -- though the parties may allocate their pages among experts as they see fit -- and the reply shall not exceed three pages per expert. The Court does not intend to rule on the admissibility of expert testimony for purposes other than the present motion for class certification at this time, and the parties should tailor their arguments accordingly. Progressive is an insurance company. The Company provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsxSUt at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Bid to Seal Portions of Exhibits OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion to seal portions of Exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court also entered an order that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Opposition shall be filed under seal and that ECF 52 and 56 be maintained with redactions. The court retains the right to allow disclosure of any subject covered by this stipulation or to modify this stipulation at any time in the interest of justice. Progressive Specialty offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fn9SO3 at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parties Seek to File New Class Cert Exhibit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Parties stipulate and agree to withdraw administrative motion and to publicly file a substituted new exhibit to plaintiff's motion for class certification. In connection with his Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiff filed an interim sealed version of his accompanying Exhibit 6, as well as an associated Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material. On December 2, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification Should Be Sealed. The Parties have subsequently met and conferred about possible modifications to allow for a public filing of Exhibit 6 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Prudential Insurance provides life and group insurance, investment, and retirement services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3USJ2mw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex 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 The Defendants are represented by: Sandra D. Hauser, Esq. Leanna M. Anderson, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com leanna.anderson@dentons.com - and - Laura Leigh Geist, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP One Front Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7440 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Class Suit Concludes Due to Absence of Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Court concluded a putative securities class suit due to absence of appeal from plaintiffs. In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and management. The cases were consolidated as In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841. In January 2022, the parties engaged in settlement discussions beginning with a formal mediation on January 13, 2022, which resulted in an agreement-in-principle to resolve the matter. On January 24, 2022, a Joint Notice of Settlement was filed. On April 28, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and form of class notice. On August 12, 2022, the Court issued an order finally approving the settlement, which was funded by insurance carrier. No appeal was filed and hence the litigation has concluded. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in Houston, Texas. The company is into the restaurant business. RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from Stein shareholder derivative suit in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On January 21, 2022, Shiva Stein and Kevin McCarty filed a shareholder derivative action in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against former director Nourdean Anakar, Yura Barabash, former director Steven L. Jenkins, Eric Langan, Luke Lirot, former CFO Phillip K. Marshall, Elaine J. Martin, Allan Priaulx, and Travis Reese as defendants, as well as against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. as nominal defendant. The action, styled Stein v. Anakar, et al., No. 4:22-mc-00149 (S.D. Tex.), alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged dissemination of inaccurate information, alleged failure to maintain internal controls, and alleged failure to properly manage company property. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. These allegations are substantively similar to claims asserted in the class action and a prior derivative action that was dismissed in June of 2021. RCI intends to vigorously defend against the action. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in Houston, Texas. The company is into the restaurant business. RECRUITGIGS LLC: Soriano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recruitgigs LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dunia Soriano, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Recruitgigs LLC, Samuel Hale Exchange LLC, Simwon America Corp., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010399 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 10, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." RecruitGigs -- https://www.recruitgigs.com/ -- is a company that specializes in staffing and recruiting for HR management, payroll, and risk and safety jobs among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy F Bollinger, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403- 5824 Phone: (866) 535-2994 RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amounts of damages. On July 7, 2020, the court granted the parties a stipulation to extend the time for the company to respond to the Reuben's complaint. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021. Reuben filed her opposition on November 8, 2021, and the Company filed its reply on November 22, 2021. A hearing was held on January 6, 2022. The court overruled the company’s demurrer and the parties are now engaged in discovery. RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of cloud communications, video meetings, collaboration, and contact center software-as-a-service solutions. RIPPLE LABS: OK of Stipulation Modifying Class Cert Briefing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov et al v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al.,Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly move for approval of the following stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification by one week as follows: -- Deadline for Defendants to file February 3, 2023 their Opposition: -- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to March 31, 2023 file his Reply: RIPPLE LABS is an American technology company which develops the Ripple payment protocol and exchange network. Originally named Opencoin and renamed in 2015, the company was founded in 2012 and is based in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Parities' motion dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UT6gJm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq. TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4944 Facsimile: (619) 566-4341 E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com The Defendants are represented by: Damien J. Marshall, Esq. Andrew Michaelson, Esq. Suzanne E. Nero, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 E-mail: dmarshall@kslaw.com amichaelson@kslaw.com snero@kslaw.com RIPPLE LABS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order for approval of the following stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by one week as follows: -- Deadline for Defendants to file February 3, 2023 their Opposition: -- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff March 31, 2023 to file his Reply: On November 18, 2022, and submitted with it the Expert Report of Professor Steven P. Feinstein. The parties have further agreed that the deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Reply, which is currently due March 24, 2023, will also be extended by one week. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jaPbO1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq. TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4944 Facsimile: (619) 566-4341 E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com The Defendants are represented by: Damien J. Marshall, Esq. Andrew Michaelson, Esq. Suzanne E. Nero, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 E-mail: dmarshall@kslaw.com amichaelson@kslaw.com snero@kslaw.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to file under seal in referenced to seal material in connection with reply in support of renewed motion for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b)(1) and paragraph 18 of the Stipulation Regarding Treatment of Confidential Discovery Information approved by the Court in this matter, the Plaintiff moves for leave to file under seal certain documents and testimony that has been marked as "confidential" by Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC in this matter. During the course of discovery, Defendant has marked certain discovery materials as "Confidential" under the terms of the Stipulation. The Plaintiff has previously filed certain of these materials with this Court under seal in connection with prior briefing and with his Renewed Motion for Class Certification in this matter, following the Court's orders permitting such sealed filing. In connection with his Reply in further support of his Renewed Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiff makes citation and argument regarding materials previously proposed to be sealed which reveals the content of the document(s). Pursuant to the Stipulation, any party wishing to file confidential material must file such materials under seal. The Plaintiff is not familiar with Defendant's basis for designating any discovery materials as confidential, and takes no position on the appropriateness of such designation or whether materials so designated meet applicable standards for filing under seal, but makes this motion to comply with his obligations under the Stipulation. Ritz-Carlton Hotel provides hotel and resort services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBjVOi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITH MARCO , P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 - and - Lewis J. Saul, Esq. Edward A. Coleman, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 ROB BONTA: Welchen Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00185-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed his initial motion for class certification several years ago, contemporaneously with his complaint, on January 29, 2016. In its order ruling on Defendant Harris's Motion -- Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification to Dismiss and Defendant Sacramento County's Motion for a More Definite Statement, this Court denied as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Soon after, deadlines in this case were substantially extended in light of the ongoing litigation in Buffin v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, Case No. 15-cv-04959-YGR (E.D. Cal.) and In re Humphrey, Cal. 5th 135, 156 (2021). In his reply brief to Defendant Bonta's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, the Plaintiff indicated that he intended to meet and confer with the Defendants' counsel regarding injunctive relief and class certification, and that he would brief either or both issues if agreement could not be reached. In Sacramento County, an arrestee's liberty before arraignment hinges on the ability to pay a bail amount set pursuant to the countywide bail schedule. The governing statutory scheme does not allow for Defendant Jim Cooper (previously Scott Jones), as Sheriff of Sacramento County, or Defendant Rob Bonta, as California Attorney General, to modify an arrestee's bail amount based on any individualized determination. The consequences of the bail schedule are clear: wealthy arrestees are set free and poor arrestees remain in jail. The Plaintiff Gary Wayne Welchen filed his putative class action in early 2016 to put an end to this unjust system. On September 22, 2022, this Court ruled on partial summary judgment that the use of the bail schedule in Sacramento County is unconstitutional. On January 29, 2016, the day that his putative class action complaint and motion for class certification were filed, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with second-degree burglary. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOnm4n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th Street NW, Suite 602 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org ROBLOX CORP: Matlick Files Shareholder Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On March 9, 2022, an alleged shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its executives and directors, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, in connection with the registration statement for the company's direct listing. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and is captioned "Matlick v. Roblox Corporation, et al.," Case No. 22-CIV-01038. The complaint sought damages and attorneys' fees, as well as other relief. The company filed a motion objecting to the choice of forum, noting that the proper venue for this matter is the federal court. The company filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 10, 2022, based on the venue selection provision in the company's bylaws. The parties stipulated a dismissal of the Superior Court case, and the matter was dismissed on August 2, 2022, but the company anticipates that the shareholder will refile this action in federal court. Roblox Corporation is a video game developer based in California. ROCK PIERCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply in Rowan --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file sur-reply to reply in support of motion for class certification. On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. In the Reply, Plaintiff makes new arguments regarding the different requirements for class certification and how Plaintiff has satisfied them. These new arguments in the Reply merit a response from Pierce. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UXlOvE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ramon Dapena, Esq. Iván J. Lladó, Esq. MORELL CARTAGENA & DAPENA PO Box 13399 San Juan, PR 00908 Telephone: (787) 723-1233 Facsimile: (787) 723-8763 E-mail: ramon.dapena @mbcdlaw.com ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com - and - Ashley L. Shively, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-743-6900 Facsimile: 415-743-6910 E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE: Case Management Order Entered in Bruner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BRUNER individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE NORTH AMERICA INC. a Massachusetts Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00203-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Bradley W. Rath entered an case management order as follows: -- Jury Trial: October 7, 2024 -- Pretrial conference: Sept. 17-19, 2024 -- All discovery must be April 8, 2024 completed by: -- Motions for joinder of March 1, 2023 parties or amendments to the pleadings must be filed by: -- The parties' experts must be designated by the following dates Plaintiff(s): November 2, 2023 Defendant(s): December 4, 2023 -- All dispositive motions April 15, 2024 and Daubert-type motions challenging another party's expert must be filed by: -- A Settlement conference is September 28, 2023 set on: Rolls-Royce Marine North America Inc provides power systems, engines, and parts distribution and installation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WhHiEv at no extra charge.[CC] SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Henderson ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE T. HENDERSON, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC.,Case No. 1:22-cv-09925-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Saks Fifth was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of general lines of apparel such as suits, coats, dresses, and home furnishings. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YpCjDC at no extra charge.[CC] SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Denial of Consent Decree Termination Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FAVIAN BUSBY and MICHAEL EDGINGTON, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Petitioners-Appellees v. FLOYD BONNER, JR., in his official capacity as the Shelby County Sheriff; SHELBY COUNTY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondents-Appellants, Case No. 21-5853 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the denial of the Respondents-Appellants' motion to terminate a consent decree that imposed various obligations on the Shelby County Jail regarding its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner-Detainees initiated this action by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and filing a class-action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Named Petitioners Busby and Edgington, seeking to represent a class of "all current and future medically vulnerable pretrial detainees held at the Jail who, according to the CDC, are at high risk of severe infection or death from COVID-19," asked the district court to order their immediate release from the Jail and for other relief. They asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for unconstitutional punishment and unconstitutional confinement, and under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination. Concurrently, they moved for a temporary restraining order directing, among other things, their immediate release. The district court certified a class and subclass of medically vulnerable and disabled individuals held pretrial at the Jail who are at an increased risk of serious injury or death from COVID-19. But it denied the Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order, finding that they had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. After extensive discovery and three days of mediation, the parties settled the case and entered into the consent decree at issue in this appeal. The consent decree requires the Jail to comply with various inspection and reporting requirements; maintain safe ventilation and air quality; implement various testing, isolation, and quarantine protocols; provide hygiene, personal protective equipment, and vaccines; and implement social-distancing measures. The consent decree requires the Jail to provide a monthly report to a court-appointed independent inspector until the consent decree terminates. If the report contains any recommendations, the Jail must, within 14 days of receiving the report, either implement the recommendations or explain why, despite its best efforts, it cannot or will not adopt the recommendations. The consent decree also requires the Jail to offer a test to all detainees and staff who exhibit COVID-19 symptoms. If a detainee or staff member tests positive, the Jail must perform contact tracing, and any detainee who tests positive must be isolated according to CDC guidelines. Finally, the Jail must provide personal protective equipment and cleaning agents to detainees and implement any social-distancing-related recommendations made by the independent inspector unless the Jail gives specific reasons for its inability or unwillingness to do so. In addition to these substantive requirements, the consent decree includes provisions related to the enforcement and modification of the consent decree, as well as a confidentiality provision. The district court approved and entered the consent decree on April 12, 2021. Around two months later, the Respondents moved to terminate it. They argued that the Jail had satisfied the consent decree's requirements for termination, having offered and administered a vaccine to all eligible detainees and provided educational materials and non-punitive incentives to take the vaccine. After conducting a two-day evidentiary hearing on August 6, and 9, 2021, the district court denied the Respondents' motion to terminate. It determined that the Respondents failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the Jail's compliance with the requirement that it offer and, if accepted, administer a COVID-19 vaccine to all detainees housed at the Jail for a period of more than fourteen days. Accordingly, the court determined that it was left with a meaningful dispute about whether the Jail has complied with the vaccination requirement. The district court also held that the Respondents failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the Jail's compliance with the consent decree's educational-materials requirement. Finally, with respect to the requirement that the Jail provide detainees with non-punitive incentives to take the vaccine, ir determined that the detainees "have created disputes about whether incentives have been offered to every detainee who has been housed at the Jail for more than 14 days." The Respondents timely appealed and sought a stay order or, in the alternative, to expedite the appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the motion for stay and granted the unopposed alternative request to expedite briefing. First, the Respondents argue that under the PLRA, prospective relief can extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the district court refused to heed that requirement in ruling on its motion to terminate, instead applying a broad interpretation of Paragraph 28 that violates the PLRA and contradicts the parties' intentions as reflected within the consent decree. The Sixth Circuit holds that because the Respondents' challenge to the district court's interpretation of the consent decree raises a legal question about a decree that the district court itself oversaw and approved, it applies a deferential de novo standard of review. And, because the Respondents' challenge to the district court's determination that they failed to satisfy the three requirements for termination in Paragraph 28 is a quarrel with the district court's factual findings, it reviews that challenge for clear error. The Sixth Circuit finds that the Jail's vaccine-education efforts must be reasonable under the circumstances of the moment. Just as compliance with the vaccination requirement cannot be determined based solely on vaccine acceptance, the same is true of the incentives program. As with the vaccination program, the overall vaccination rate could potentially shed light on whether the Jail's efforts to educate and incentivize the detainee population have satisfied the minimum threshold of reasonableness. But the ultimate question is whether the Jail has reasonably satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 28. The Sixth Circuit now turns to the district court's determination that the Respondents failed to show compliance with the consent decree's requirements. The district court reached that conclusion after hearing extensive witness testimony over the course of a two-day evidentiary hearing. Because the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, the Sixth Circuit affirms. It finds that with "little to go on" beyond Fields' conclusory assertions, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Respondents failed to demonstrate the Jail's compliance with Paragraph 28's vaccine termination provision. It also finds that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Respondents failed to demonstrate the Jail's compliance with Paragraph 28's educational-materials requirement. Lastly, it finds that the district court did not clearly err in holding that the Jail failed to satisfy Paragraph 28's non-punitive incentives requirement. Ultimately, the district court denied Respondents' motion to terminate due to a failure of proofs. Critical to its decision was the Jail's failure to maintain complete and accurate records of its efforts to achieve compliance with Paragraph 28's requirements. The Sixth Circuit finds no basis to disturb those factual findings on appeal. It will not lock the Respondents in forever for recordkeeping failures or a short lapse in vaccination offerings. But termination of the consent decree requires more than currently exists in the record. Although its decision means that the consent decree will continue to remain in effect, the Sixth Circuit says the Respondents may return to the district court and move for termination once they have gathered sufficient evidence of the Jail's compliance with the decree's termination requirements. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's denial of the Respondents' motion to terminate the consent decree. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/z48hctxm from Leagle.com. STRATA SKIN SCIENCES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company alleging violation of the California Labor Code. On April 1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against the Company and an employment agency which provided the Company with temporary employees. The complaint alleges various violations of the California Labor Code, including California's wage and hour laws, relating to current and former non-exempt employees of the company. The complaint seeks class status and payments for allegedly unpaid compensation and attorney's fees. In a related matter, the attorneys in this matter and the proposed class representative, in a letter dated March 12, 2022, to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency made nearly identical claims seeking the right to pursue a PAGA action against the Company and the employment agency. On or about May 16, 2022, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding a PAGA claim to the action. On or about June 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed an Application to Dismiss Class and Individual Claim without prejudice, in an attempt to pursue a PAGA-only complaint. On or about June 30, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation to allow the plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to clarify the PAGA claim and to stay the pending action to allow an attempt at resolution at a mediation scheduled for February 23, 2023. STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company in dermatology based in Pennsylvania. SUNPATH LTD.: Smith TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNPATH, LTD., a Massachusetts corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed class of similarly situated individuals: "All persons who either reside in Virginia or who have telephone numbers with a Virginia area code, who (1) on or after May 14, 2018 through December 31, 2021; (2) had a number registered on the national Do Not Call Registry for at least 31days; (3) received at least one call placed by Chukran Management Group, LLC d/b/a American Protection Corp.; (4) that is reflected in the records produced by Five9 Inc, Inc." Sunpath is the administrator of Vehicle Service Contracts nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uTLj6r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Driscoll, Jr., Esq. DRISCOLL LAW OFFICE, P.C. 4669 South Blvd., Suite 107 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Telephone: (757) 321-0054 Facsimile: (757) 321-4020 E-mail: frank@driscolllawoffice.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com SYMETRA LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Davis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon, Judge Tana Lin entered an order granting stipulation and joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- All motions related to class April 17, 2023 discovery must be filed by the date: -- All motions related to class May 12, 2023 discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2): -- Class Discovery completed by May 14, 2023 this date: -- Deadline to file Plaintiff's June 15, 2023 motion for class certification and class expert disclosure: -- Deadline for amended pleadings: June 15, 2023 -- Deadline to file Defendant's August 14, 2023 opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any objection to Plaintiff's experts: -- Deadline to file Plaintiff's reply Sept. 29, 2023 brief in support of class certification motion and any objection to Defendant's experts: -- Settlement Conference, if Oct. 31, 2023 mediation has been requested by the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than: All other case deadlines, including expert discovery cutoff, last day to file dispositive motion, and trial date are hereby vacated and will be determined after the Court's issuance of its decision on plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court says. Symetra Life offers annuities, disability, medical, accidental, and life insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iZiUcm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206)682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. David A. Hickey, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816)714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street Ste. 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura Geist, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com - and - Medora A. Marisseau, Esq. KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 223-1313 Facsimile: (206) 682-7100 E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com TCP HOT: Rider to Class Settlement Deal in Delcid Initially OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of rider to class action settlement agreement nunc pro tunc. On Dec. 2, 2022, the Parties excuted a Rider to the Settlement Agreement for the sole purpose of adding one product, Brut Classic Deodorant Aerosol (10 oz) (UPC 00827755070047); to the definition of "Covered Products." The Rider also attached amended notices with the sole change being the addition of the one product and to make clear antiperspirant and deodorant products are included in the Covered Products and amends the class definition in the operative complaint to conform to the Settlement Class definition. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fwwmwc at no extra charge.[CC] TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, and SHIRIN LESSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC; NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek an order: 1. Certifying a class and subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); 2. Authorizing notice be sent to all current and former employees of Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC in California with the title "promotional specialist," or the functional equivalent however titled, who worked at any time from November 13, 2014 through the present; and, 3. Requiring the Defendants to produce a computer readable data file containing the names, last known residence address, last known telephone numbers, last known cell phone numbers, last known email addresses and social security numbers of all such potential class members so that notice may be implemented. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant certification to bring all the parties before this Court thereby putting the onus on Defendants to decide if they will actually move to compel arbitration. The claims at issue are basic wage claims such as minimum wage, meal/rest breaks and overtime which are afforded fundamental protections. The Plaintiffs' theories of liability are amenable to class treatment because they are predicated on facial legal challenges to Defendants Team Enterprises, LLC's and New Team, LLC's statewide, uniform policies and practices which raise predominant common questions of fact and law that will yield common answers based on common proof. The Plaintiffs' theories of liability and corresponding subclasses are: -- Global Class "Current and former promotional specialists of the Defendants who worked at any time in California from November 13, 2014 through entry of judgment in this action;" -- Off-the-Clock Theory (Off-the-Clock Subclass) The Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice of requiring promotional specialists to work off-the-clock without compensation; -- Meal/Rest Break Theory (Meal/Rest Break Subclass) The Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice of failing to provide meal and rest breaks and failing to pay meal and rest break premiums for non-compliant meal and rest breaks; -- Overtime Theory (Overtime Subclass): The Defendants maintain a class-side policy and practice of failing to pay overtime compensation at the premium rate and fail to calculate the premium rate based in the regular rate; -- Expense Reimbursement Theory (Expense Subclass) The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of failing reimburse promotional specialists for reasonable and necessary business expenses. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j6juoU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com - and - Bryan J. McCormack, Esq. MCCORMACK LAW FIRM 1299 4th Street, Suite 505A San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 925-5161 Facsimile: (415) 651-7837 E-mail: bryan@bmcclaw.com TG THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Leukemia Meds --------------------------------------------------------- TG Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that in July 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and two of its officers, purportedly on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between January 15, 2020, and May 31, 2022. The case is captioned "Shapiro v. TG Therapeutics, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-06106. The complaint alleges that the company and the named officers violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements throughout the class period concerning the company's business and operations relating to its treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and seeks monetary damages. TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company based in New York. THOMSON REUTERS: Brooks, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a hybrid (b)(2) and (b)(3) class or, in the alternative, certify both claims for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons who, during the limitations period, both resided in the state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR without their consent;" Excluded from the class are officers and directors of Thomson Reuters, class counsel, the judicial officers presiding over this action, and the members of their immediate family and judicial staff; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz as class representatives; and 3. appointing Gibbs Law Group and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll as class counsel. Because Californians are unlikely to pursue these claims individually, and Plaintiffs' claims are particularly well-suited to class adjudication, the Court should certify the class, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs filed this case to stop Thomson Reuters from violating the rights of Californians to control the use of their own personal information. Thomson Reuters is a provider of news and information services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpTaEO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. Ezekiel S. Wald, Esq. Hanne Jensen, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com amm@classlawgroup.com amz@classlawgroup.com mht@classlawgroup.com zsw@classlawgroup.com hj@classlawgroup.com - and - Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq. Karina G. Puttieva, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by February 15, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, et al., v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order that: 1. All fact discovery shall be September 1, 2023 completed by: 2. The Plaintiffs' expert September 15, 2023 reports are due no later than: 3. The Defendant's expert November 3, 2023 reports are due no later than: 4. Rebuttal reports are due December 22, 2023 no later than: 5. Expert discovery shall be February 1, 2024 completed no later than: 6. Motions for class February 15, 2024 certification and related Daubert motions shall be filed no later than: 7. Responses to motions for March 15, 2024 class certification shall be filed no later than: 8. Reply briefs on class April 5, 2024 certification shall be filed no later than: 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. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uVn3Rj at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phang Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying his proposed Class, appointing him as Class Representative, and appointing Nicholas & Tomasevic as well as Winters & Associates as Class Counsel: -- The Class "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first complying with all the requirements of Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72." -- The Elder Abuse Sub-Class "All members of the Class who were also 65 years of age or older at the time their policy lapsed or terminated." In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (collectively the "Statutes"). In this Motion, the Plaintiff asserts that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 23(a) because: (1) the Class that Plaintiff seeks to certify is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions and answers of law or fact common to class members; and (3) the claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class she seeks to represent. Transamerica Premier offers accidental and health insurance, annuity, and single premium insurance plans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W8l5tb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19 th 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 TRUE STAR: Stipulation on Class Certification OK'd in Donica ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH DONICA and PAMELA CRAVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and BRANDON STEPHENS, DAVID SPIRES, and LAVERNE SPIRES, individually, v. TRUE STAR CAPITAL, LLC, BRANT GREATHOUSE, and CARL MOORE, Case No. 7:22-cv-00173-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order granting joint stipulation regarding class certification and notice to class members: DEADLINE SUBJECT 14 Days from Order Approving Defendants produce a list Notice to Potential Class of the members of the Members proposed collective in an electronic, editable format. 60 Days from Defendants' The potential opt-ins production of the list of will receive notice and potential opt-ins file consents to join this lawsuit. On August 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs Sarah Donica and Pamela Craven filed this suit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On October 25, 2022 the Court held a Rule 16 Conference via Zoom where a discussion was held regarding the class Plaintiffs were seeking to represent along with other topics relevant to FLSA collective actions. In accordance with that discussion, on December 1, 2022, the Parties filed the instant Joint Stipulation wherein "[t]he Parties stipulate for the purposes of class certification and notice only, to an opt-in class as follows": "All current and former salaried employees who were paid a salary of less than $684 per week after January 1, 2020, or less than $455 per week before January 1, 2020, since August 9, 2019, who worked at one or more of the following locations: -- Northtown Estates Mobile Home Community – Amarillo, -- Texas Pleasant Hills Mobile Home Community – Abilene, -- Texas Oakridge Estates Mobile Home Community – Abilene, and -- Texas Sweetwater Mobile Home Community – Sweetwater, Texas. True Star is a real estate investment company that acquires manufactured housing communities and offers returns on investments. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iNO7PI at no extra charge.[CC] ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Mayra Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ultimate Care, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07520 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay its employees for all hours worked over forty in a workweek at the federal and state mandated overtime rate. The Plaintiff regularly worked hours in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation as required by federal and New York law. The Defendant regularly assigns home care aides to work 24 hour "sleep-in" shifts. During such shifts, a home care aide is required to be present in the patient's home for a full 24-hour period. The Plaintiff worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours per week) for the Defendant every week during the relevant time period. In fact, the Plaintiff worked 24-hour daily shifts, 4 days a week. Accordingly, the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff had to work extremely long hours--well over 40 each week--to complete their assigned work but were not paid overtime wages. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff any additional pay for overtime hours that she worked during the relevant time period. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff her hourly rate (i.e., "straight time") for each work hour worked, including his overtime hours. Additionally, the Defendant only paid Plaintiff thirteen hours for each 24-hour overnight shift. However, during these 24-hour shifts the Plaintiff was not receiving three one-hour uninterrupted meal breaks, and the Plaintiff was not receiving an eight-hour sleep break that included at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former home health aide who was employed by the Defendant who worked for the Defendant from the end of the year 2016 until April 6, 2020. Ultimate Care is an "Enterprise engaged in the operation of an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged or the mentally ill or defective."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 773-550-3775 Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com danschlade@gmail.com UMB BANK: Case Management Order Entered in Island Farm Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISLAND FARMS, LLC, PORTER PLANTING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP, and WYATT FARM PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UMB BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00721-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac entered an case management order: -- Alternative Dispute Resolution At this time this Case Management Order is offered, it does not appear that alternative dispute resolution techniques will be used in this civil action. -- Consent to trial by United States Magistrate Judge. The parties do not consent to trial by a United States Magistrate Judge. -- Disclosure A. The pre-discovery disclosure requirements of L.U.Civ.R.26(a)(1) have been complied with fully. -- Discovery provisions and limitations A. Interrogatories are limited to 30 succinct questions to each party. B. Requests for Production are limited to 35. C. Requests for Admissions are limited to 50. D. Depositions are limited to the parties, necessary third parties, experts, and no more than 15 fact witnesses per party without additional approval of the court. -- Scheduling Deadlines A. Motions for joinders of the Feb. 1, 2023 parties, amendments to the pleadings, or amended complaints must be filed by: B. The parties' experts for class certification issues, if any, shall be designated by the following dates: -- Plaintiff(s): Feb. 15, 2023 -- Defendant: March 31, 2023 C. All discovery related to June 1, 2023. class certification issues shall be completed by: D. Any motions challenging May 1, 2023 experts for class certification filed by: E. The Plaintiffs' Motion to May 10, 2023 Certify Class filed by: F. The Defendants' Opposition June 10, 2023 to Motion to Certify Class filed by: G. The Plaintiffs' Reply in June 30, 2023 Support of Motion to Certify Class filed by: UMB Bank provides financial services for individuals and institutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jdtPQ2 at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Sets Class Cert Deadlnes in Brown --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown, et al., v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Case No. 2:19-cv-02020 (D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Eric I. Long entered an order setting class certification deadlines: -- Although some of the intervening dates were extended, the Order required within 14 days after the Court rules on any motion for class certification, the parties shall meet and confer, then propose an amended schedule to the Court for any remaining outstanding discovery and dispositive motions. -- The Court entered its Order denying class certification on December 9, 2022. The parties proposed schedule for remaining discovery and dispositive motions is due on or before December 24, 2022. The nature of suit states civil rights -- job discrimination. The University of Illinois is a public land-grant research university in Illinois in the twin cities of Champaign and Urbana.[CC] VI-JON LLC: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Moreno Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY MORENO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VI-JON, LLC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-56370 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses in part and vacates in part the district court's dismissal of Moreno's class action suit against Vi-Jon. Moreno appeals the dismissal of a class action suit against Vi-Jon, a manufacturer of common hand sanitizers. Moreno sought certification of a class of California consumers, alleging false or deceptive advertising and related claims. Vi-Jon moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted both motions. The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's order granting dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), vacates the order granting 12(b)(6) dismissal, and grants Moreno leave to file a third amended complaint. The district court granted Vi-Jon's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and subject-matter jurisdiction, holding Moreno "only pled a speculative, conjectural and hypothetical injury." The Ninth Circuit finds that Moreno adequately pleaded economic injury. He alleged that he wouldn't have purchased or paid as much for Vi-Jon's products if he had known the truth about their effectiveness. This, it says, is sufficient for an Article III injury. It thus reverses the district court's Rule 12(b)(1) ruling. The district court also granted Vi-Jon's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). At oral argument, responses to the panel's questions indicated that Moreno's complaint could be amended such that it would potentially survive 12(b)(6) dismissal. For example, the parties disagree about whether the complaint adequately alleges falsity as to the hand sanitizers' ability to kill only germs commonly found on hands, as opposed to all germs. The district court read the complaint as referring to all germs, but Moreno contends the complaint may be amended to refer to germs commonly found on hands. Both parties agreed at oral argument that the 12(b)(6) analysis would be different under such allegations. The Ninth Circuit notes that when a complaint can be cured, leave to amend should be freely given. It, thus, vacates the district court's 12(b)(6) ruling, remands, and directs the district court to grant Moreno leave to file a third amended complaint. Vi-Jon may then renew its motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/mru9xkap from Leagle.com. VI-JON LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC HOWARD, CONNOR HENRICHS, and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similar similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file a brief sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel. Vi-Jon submits that such filing is necessary to address and refute misstatements of critical facts regarding the deposition testimony of the Plaintiffs and non-plaintiff proposed class representatives raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply Suggestions in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel which was filed on November 21, 2022. This Motion is not submitted for any improper purpose or undue delay, but solely to seek leave to correct the record and to respond to Plaintiffs' inaccurate and inflammatory accusations. Given that the outcome of Plaintiffs' class certification motion will dictate the future course of this litigation, the prejudice to Vi-Jon of being deprived of an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs' and characterization of the evidence is significant, the Defendant contends. Vi-Jon is an American health and beauty care company that produces both Private Label and brand name products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FvmFhg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Anthony G. Hopp, Esq. Carol R. Brophy, Esq. Melanie Ayerh, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 227 West Monroe Street, suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1249 Facsimile: (312) 577-1370 E-mail: ahopp@steptoe.com cbrophy@steptoe.com mayerh@steptoe.com - and - John W. Moticka, Esq. Megan McCurdy, Esq. STINSON LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105-1821 Telephone: (314) 259-4562 Facsimile: (314) 259-4467 E-mail: john.moticka@stinson.com megan.mccurdy@stinson.com VXL ENT: Order Granting Proposed Amended Case Management Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE AVANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VXL ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-02016-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Parties' Proposed Amended Case Management Order and setting the following class certification deadlines: -- Fact Discovery Deadline: August 8, 2023 -- Exchange of Affirmative Expert September 5, 2023 Reports, if any: -- Exchange of Rebuttal Reports: October 3, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class: October 30, 2023 Certification: -- Defendants' Response in November 28, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Decertify: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in December 26, 2023 Further Support of Class Certification and Response in Opposition to Motion to Decertify: -- The Defendants' Reply in January 16, 2024 Further Support of Motion to Decertify: VXL is a global security services organization specializing in comprehensive critical security solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htw0yr at no extra charge.[CC] WEBER INC: Faces IPO-Related Purported Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Weber Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company faces IPO-related purported class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 29, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming as defendants, among others, the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, its Chief Accounting Officer, most of its Board and the banks that acted as underwriters in its initial public offering in August 2021 (the "IPO"). The complaint asserts claims under U.S. federal securities laws, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of shares of Class A common stock in the Company's IPO, alleging that the IPO Registration Statement and prospectus made false or misleading statements regarding the purported likelihood of price increases and declining demand and failed to disclose that, as a result of the foregoing, there would be an adverse impact on the Company's financial results. The action seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief. Weber Inc. is an outdoor cooking company that sells grills, smokers, grilling accessories, and solid fuel products across the world. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN] WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Droesch Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENISE DROESCH, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs bring this wage and hour collective and class action against their current and former employer Wells Fargo alleging that it fails to pay telephone-based employees for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs were or are telephone-based employees of Wells Fargo. At the beginning of each workday, the Plaintiffs must boot up their computers before they can begin work. Once their computers are booted up, they launch a telephone software program known as either Softphone or ACES, which enables them to receive phone calls. At the end of the workday, they go through the same process to log-off of Softphone/ACES and shutdown their computer. This process is the same regardless of whether the employees are working at a call center or working from home. Non-exempt employees such as the Plaintiffs are responsible for recording their own time in a Windows-based computer program called "Time Keeper." As with the Softphone or ACES program, employees open the Time Keeper program once their computer boots up and manually record the time they start work as well as the time they finish work at the end of the day. According to the Wells Fargo Team Member Handbook, employees are: "responsible for submitting timely and accurate records in Time Tracker of the time you work. This includes any time spent on electronic devices for business purposes." Wells Fargo sends an "annual right to be paid" reminder to all non-exempt employees. Plaintiff Kyonna Harrison began working for Wells Fargo in 2012 and continues to work out of their Banking Call Center in San Bernardino, California as an Account Resolution Specialist 3. Shakara Thompson worked for Wells Fargo from 2015 to 2021 as a Financial Crimes Specialist in Charlotte, North Carolina. Shana Goins worked for Wells Fargo as a Phone Banker in Phoenix, Arizona from 2010 to 2017. Ms. Goins went on medical leave in 2017. When she returned to work in 2019, she was placed in a training class during which time she did not answer any calls or have access to the computers. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and their respective state laws contending that Wells Fargo failed to pay them for all time worked. Because Wells Fargo required they be "call-ready" at the start of their shift, they had to spend unpaid time before their shift began booting up their computer and reviewing emails. They similarly contend that because they had to remain call-ready until their shift ended, they spent unpaid time after their shift documenting issues that arose during calls throughout their shifts ("after-call-work") and logging off their computer. The Plaintiffs concede that Wells Fargo's written policy requires employees to record all their time, including time spent before or after their shifts, but contend its supervisors and performance evaluation metrics discouraged them from recording the time booting up their computers at start of the day and logging off their systems at the end of the day. Wells Fargo insists that the Plaintiffs' claims fail because it lacked knowledge of their off-the-clock work, and any such off-the-clock work was de minimis. Following conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, Wells Fargo filed the now pending early motion for summary judgment insisting that the named Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Wells Fargo insists that it had no knowledge of the Plaintiffs' overtime work and emphasizes its written policies requiring employees to record all time worked in Time Tracker. The Plaintiffs maintain that notwithstanding the policies, Wells Fargo was on at least inquiry notice that they were working without compensation. Initially, Judge Corley examines the FLSA claim. Drawing reasonable inferences from the record evidence in the Plaintiffs' favor, she first finds that given the factual disputes regarding what Ms. Harrison and Ms. Thompson were told regarding Wells Fargo's time keeping policies -- notwithstanding its written policy -- and supervisors' awareness of their deviations from these policies and their off-the-clock work, Wells Fargo is not entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims based on lack of knowledge of overtime work. Next, Judge Corley finds that as the moving party on summary judgment with the ultimate burden on the de minimis issue, Wells Fargo "must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial." It has not done so. The evidence may support a finding that the Plaintiffs' off-the-clock time was both de mininis in the aggregate and irregular, but Wells Fargo has not proved this fact as matter of law. Judge Corley also finds that Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Goins' FLSA claim. She says on summary judgment, the party who bears the burden of proof on a dispositive issue must offer specific evidence demonstrating a factual basis on which it is entitled to relief. The Plaintiffs have not done so -- the Plaintiffs were required to respond to Wells Fargo's argument that there is no evidence supporting Ms. Goins' FLSA claim with evidence supporting her claim. Ms. Goins' uncertainty as to whether she was paid is not evidence on which a reasonable trier of fact could find that she was not paid. Judge Corley now turns to the state law claims. Wells Fargo argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Harrison and Ms. Thompson's state law wage and hour claims for the same reasons it is entitled to summary judgment on the FLSA claim. Because summary judgment on the FLSA claims is denied, summary judgment on these state law claims is likewise denied. Next, the Plaintiffs concede that Ms. Harrison's UCL claim must be dismissed without prejudice under Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1311-13 (9th Cir. 2022), because she has an adequate remedy at law available. Accordingly, the UCL claim is dismissed without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction. Lastly, Wells Fargo contends that Ms. Goins' Arizona state law claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the claim was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations, but contend that Ms. Goins is entitled to equitable tolling under the California Judicial Council's Emergency Rules adopted on April 6, 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs have cited no authority -- and the Court is unaware of any -- which would allow it to apply California rules of equitable tolling to a claim arising under Arizona law. Accordingly, Ms. Goins' Arizona state law claim is barred by the statute of limitations and Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on this claim. For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley grants in part and denies in part Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment. She grants it as to Ms. Goins' claims, but denies otherwise. She dismisses Ms. Harrison's UCL claim without prejudice. Judge Corley sets a further case management conference for Feb. 2, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video with an updated joint case management statement due Jan. 26, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/adb6dt87 from Leagle.com. WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extension Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUSHING and ELIZABETH PERLIN, individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and Williams-Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn Kids, Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a California corporation; WILLIAMS- SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to extend briefing schedule for plaintiff’s motion for class certification as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Deadline for Perlin Dec. 15, 2022 Jan. 25, 2023 to produce class certification expert(s) for deposition -- Last day to file Feb. 8, 2023 March 28, 2023 opposition to Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Feb. 24, 2023 April 13, 2023 Defendants to produce class certification expert(s) for deposition: Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j7mJwb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Robert J. Guite, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com rguite@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com XANADU MARKETING: Hall's Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadline Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE HALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. XANADU MARKETING, INC. d/b/a Houses Into Homes, Case No. 1:22-cv-03795-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay deadline for Plaintiff to Move for Class Certification. -- The Plaintiff's deadline for filing her motion for class certification is stayed until the Court rules on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and enters a scheduling order following the filing of the parties' Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. Xanadu Marketing provides advertising and marketing services to clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WkaDOT 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 ***