/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221230.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 255 Headlines 5717 2ND AVENUE: Fuentes Seeks Construction Staff's Unpaid Wages 9W HALO: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Sues Over Share Price Drop AIMCO PAINTING: Moreira Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Wages ARBORWORKS LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Class suit ASHLEY FURNITURE: Grasty Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot AUDIBLE INC: Golden, et al., Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law AUDIBLE INC: GUE Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Uninhabitable Housing BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Alleges Fraudulent Money Transfer System BCT ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weirich Suit Alleges BEN'S KOSHER: Faces Islam Suit Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Narrows Claims inn Securities Suit BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BRITISH COLUMBIA: COVID Suit Footage Proceedings Available Online BRUTGER EQUITIES: Tisdell Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages CANADA: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set March 7, 2023 CARECORE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Gudger Class Suit Tossed as Moot CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 13 CORTEVA INC: Faces Psencik Suit Over Pesticide Monopoly COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Sues Over Wrongful Sales Tax Collection COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Bishop Suit COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Braun Suit DEALER DOT COM: Transmits Personal Info to Facebook, Cantu Claims DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Kerns Suit Alleges DEVON ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement DF GROWTH: Faces Ferry Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info DIRECT HOME: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls DOLAR SHOP: Li, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid DOLAR SHOP: Lin, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Extended to May 15, 2023 FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit GLOBAL FINISHING: Parties Seek Conditional Class Certification GLOBAL TILING: De Leon Sues Over Tile Installers' Unpaid Wages GLOCK INC: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing GOOGLE LLC: Order on Nov. 21, 2022 Discovery Dispute Entered GREATBANC TRUST: Judge Recommends Allowing Zavala to Amend Suit GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Wright Sues Over Illegal Website Wiretapping GREENSKY HOLDINGS: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter HARBOR FREIGHT: Stipulated Briefing on Class Certification OK'd HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi, et al., Seek Class Certification HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Files Bid for Class Certification HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Conditionally Approved HFS FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wallach Suit Claims HRL LABORATORIES: O'Connor Seeks Engineers' Unreimbursed Expenses IKEA US: Court Dismisses Dukich Action for Lack of Jurisdiction INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 21 IRIS ENERGY: Malouf Files Suit Over Share Price Decline JAB EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Snide Suit Alleges JLT RISK: Averts Class Action Over Government Insurance Mutuals JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Settlement in Botts Gets Initial Nod JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noohi Suit JOYCE CAMPBELL: Caddell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class JUUL LABS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought KINDER MORGAN: Partly Wins Bid to Compel Initial Disclosures LAUNDRESS LLC: Cleaning Products Contains Bacteria, Ostenfeld Says LEE ENTERPRISES: Stoudemire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations LENDING BUG: Kauffman Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording LOUISIANA: Victor Seeks to Add Offenders to Party Petitioners MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Seeks More Time to File Objections MARINE CREDIT: Monroe FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class MDL 1917: Court Approves Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Cert. MDL 2566: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Fraud Class Suit MDL 2918: Class Cert Briefing Sched Amended in Antitrust Suit MDL 2918: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule MDL 3001: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Illegal Gambling Suit MEDIGAP LIFE: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid MIDLAND STATES: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter NAR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Burnett, et al. NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Ira Suit Over Unregistered Offerings NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Class Cert. Response Deadlines Extended PELICAN INVESTMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Webb TCPA Suit PGA TOUR: Class Action Over Civil Conspiracy Pending in California PROGYNY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims PURELY ELIZABETH: Reyes Sues Over Mislabeled Granola Products QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Certifies Class of Stock Investors RAFEAL'S GOURMET: Conditional Certification Bid Granted in Part RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings OK'd RIDERSSHARE INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines SAFE STREETS: Anderson's Bid for Final OK of $1.49MM Deal Denied SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Alston SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Lindsey SECRETLAB US: Nugent Sues Over Mislabeled Gaming Chair Products SERVICE KING: Supplemental Filing Date Extended to Feb. 17, 2023 SIMPLY MEDICAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Carrico Suit SKIPPER 1339: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Brooks Suit Claims ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Stays Newbold Class Suit STELLAR MUTUAL: Vallesillo Allowed Leave to Seek Limited Discovery SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 14 SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop SUPER BREAD: Fuentes, et al., Seek FLSA Class Certification TATA CONSULTANCY: Katz Alleges Employment Discriminatory Practices TAYLOR COUNTY: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Jones Says TESLA INC: Asks Judge to Send Class Action Suit to Arbitration TIREMAN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yarger Suit Alleges TOWER HILL: Wins Summary Judgment v. MSP Recovery Claims ULTA BEAUTY: Bylaws Contrary to Delaware Law, Lovoi Suit Alleges UMITJON KAMOLOV: Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Kargar Suit UNILEVER PLC: Product Safety Class Action Pending in Federal Court UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Lifts Stay on Samson Class TCPA Suit UPG ROADSIDE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Wright Suit Claims V&B AUTO: Fails to Pay Saleswomen's Minimum Wages, Gomez Alleges VIACOMCBS INC: Order on Parties' Proposed Class Notice Entered WALMART INC: Mag. Judge Recommends Part Dismissal of Sousa Suit WASHINGTON: Fails to Comply With Youth Outpatient Class Action WATERWORKS OPERATING: Scheduling Order Entered in Amica Suit WELLA OPERATIONS: Collects Data Without Consent, Shores Suit Says WELLS FARGO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sought WESTPAC LIFE: Settles BT Funds Class Action for $29.95 Million WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hornthal Suit Over Whole Hot Pizzas' False Ads WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Lumsden Claims WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB: Hopkins Sues Over Golf Caddie's Unpaid Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Pays $1.3BB to Resolve Exposure Claims ********* 5717 2ND AVENUE: Fuentes Seeks Construction Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE ALBERTO FUENTES, JAIME CANALES-PEREZ, and JULIAN CANALES ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 5717 2nd AVENUE TILE CORP.; CIVIC CONTRACTING LLC; 11135 PALMETTO RIDGE LLC; CALDERA LANE LLC; and ANTHONY J. SCHIRO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07446 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Fuentes, Canales-Perez, and Ortiz were employed by the Defendants to work for their construction business, doing tasks required for the installation of tile and concrete roofing and general carpentry, from approximately September 2015 through August 2022; from approximately 1995 through November 2022; and from approximately 2004 through November 2022, respectively. 5717 2nd AVENUE TILE CORP. is a New York-based construction company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com 9W HALO: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR & CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties submit a joint stipulation to continue the briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: Event Current Deadline New Deadline Plaintiff's Motion for February 9, 2023 April 10, 2023 Class Certification Defendant's Opposition April 13, 2023 June 12, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification Plaintiff's Reply in May 11, 2023 July 10, 2023 Support of Motion for Class Certification On June 17, 2021, the Court issued a civil minute order following a case management conference setting a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as follows: -- Plaintiff's Motion for June 16, 2022 Class Certification: -- Defendant's Opposition: August 18, 2022 -- Plaintiff's Reply: September 1, 2022 Since that date, the Parties have litigated this case and have also engaged in informal discussions regarding a second day of mediation and/or informal settlement. 9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household users. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HTOxia at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com nolan@setarehlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. William T. Okamoto, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com calvarez@fisherphillips.com wokamoto@fisherphillips.com AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- MARK KUSNIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., MAX LEVCHIN, and MICHAEL LINFORD, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07770 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm securities between February 12, 2021 and December 15, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Affirm operates a platform for digital and mobile-first commerce in the U.S. and Canada. The Company's platform includes point-of-sale payment solutions for consumers, merchant commerce solutions, and a consumer-focused app. Particularly, Affirm offers a payment service known as "buy-now, pay-later" (BNPL), which allows consumers to purchase a product immediately and pay for it at a later time, usually over a series of installments. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Affirm's BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) the foregoing subjected Affirm to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, Affirm's stock price fell $11.74 per share, or 10.58%, to close at $99.24 per share on December 16, 2021. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com AIMCO PAINTING: Moreira Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS MOREIRA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIMCO PAINTING INC. (D/B/A AIMCO PAINTING INC.), GEETA BHARDWAJ, and RAJINDER N. SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07430 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Moreira was employed by Defendants as a painter from approximately September 2019 until September 2021. He asserts that Defendants failed to pay him appropriate overtime compensation, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Moreira wages on a timely basis. Aimco Painting Inc. owns, operates, and controls a construction company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com ARBORWORKS LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Class suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON TOVAR GONZALEZ, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ARBORWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01030-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an scheduling order as follows: -- Any motions or stipulations July 7, 2023 requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than: -- Class certification discovery December 15, 2023 shall be completed by no later than: -- The motion for class February 9, 2024 certification shall be filed by no later than: -- Any opposition to the motion for March 8, 2024 class certification shall be filed by no later than: -- Any reply brief in support of April 5, 2024 the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than: -- The motion for class May 1, 2024 certification shall be heard on: -- A status conference to set October 17, 2024 further scheduling dates is set for: Arborworks was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes providing ornamental shrub and tree services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jfpJGX at no extra charge.[CC] ASHLEY FURNITURE: Grasty Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE GRASTY v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00334-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Defendant has not filed an answer; accordingly, the notice is effective without an order. Ashley Furniture is an American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZ5FTy at no extra charge.[CC] AUDIBLE INC: Golden, et al., Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., et al., v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to seal their Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Class Certification (and exhibits), due December 21, 2022. As per the Court's Order of December 20, 2022, the Defendant will file a motion to seal on or before December 30, 2022, after receiving Plaintiff's class certification brief and exhibits. Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of spoken word content. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMnyqN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. Chris Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 226-1913 Facsimile: (984) 227-6962 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com cbagley@farrin.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. Leland Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com lbelew@milberg.com AUDIBLE INC: GUE Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOLDEN UNICORN ENTERPRISES, Inc.; and BIG DOG BOOKS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. AUDIBLE, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a nationwide Class defined as: "All persons who entered into the Contract that licensed audio distribution rights to Audible, who owned or controlled verbal content that was distributed in audio form through ACX, and whose royalty payments were reduced by Audible based on returns or exchanges of the respective Audiobooks between August 20, 2015, and the date of the entry of the order certifying the Class, excluding Audible, any entity in which Audible has an ownership interest or a controlling interest, any agents, employees, officers and/or directors of Audible and its representatives, heirs, successors, and/or assigns." The Plaintiffs furthermore move the Court to appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WnpCHZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. Chris Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 226-1913 Facsimile: (984) 227-6962 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com cbagley@farrin.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Leland Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com arado@milberg.com lbelew@milberg.com AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Uninhabitable Housing ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Dornin, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that a class action has been launched against the Northern Territory government, alleging it left properties in remote Aboriginal communities, unsafe, insecure and uninhabitable. Filed in the Federal Court by law firm Phi Finney McDonald, the action also alleges tenants are paying excessive rent for housing that does not meet basic minimum standards. Senior Associate Madeline White said the case could have far-reaching impacts. "The applicants are seeking repayment of rent, damages, and orders for repairs," she said. "If the case is successful, it has the potential to not only improve housing conditions in the Northern Territory, but in all remote Aboriginal communities in Australia." The case is being brought by lead plaintiffs Otto Dann and Eleanor Manakgu from Gunbalanya in West Arnhem Land. Ron Mangiru, 53, a community leader also living in Gunbalanya, said he had requested that his landlord address the lack of air conditioning in his home. "It's really not good enough and is very complicated for us Aboriginal people living in remote communities," Mr Mangiru said in a statement on Dec. 19. "White people are given houses with air con or people come and fix the air con. But we live in a hot area and have no air conditioning." Remote housing advocate Daniel Kelly said the legal action was necessary to hold the NT government to account and ensure housing conditions were improved. "The housing crisis has continued in remote communities for years, as have the physical and mental health impacts, and the negative effects on education and employment outcomes," Mr Kelly said. "The Territory government and the commonwealth government have not communicated plans to bring all housing up to the legal standard, and tenants have no option other than to seek redress through courts," he said. The class action alleges it was unconscionable for the NT chief executive of housing to fail to repair houses, fail to reduce rent where houses were not in good repair and fail to properly explain tenancy agreements, in circumstances where tenants had no other option for housing. The applicants also claim the conduct amounted to unlawful racial discrimination. The NT and federal governments have been responsible for housing in 73 Aboriginal communities for the past 15 years after the so-called intervention in 2007 removed local community control. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Alleges Fraudulent Money Transfer System --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGITTE LEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 30-2022-01295356-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Zelle money transfer system is rife with fraud -- fraud that places all Zelle users at acute and immediate risk. Billions of dollars of fraudulent transactions are processed by the service each year. Victims of Zelle fraud, like Plaintiff are often left devastated by such fraud, which can drain hundreds or thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. But when Zelle fraud victims turn to Bank of America for help, the Bank insists that it is the users' fault and that they will not help them with such problem, says the complaint. The Bank's corporate policy of "blaming the victim" is good business for the Bank, alleges the complaint. As partial owner of Zelle (along with several other of America's largest banks), the Bank has a huge incentive to get as many of its customers as possible to sign up for and use the Zelle service for payments and money transfers: the more of its accountholders it can convince to sign up for and use Zelle, the more the Bank saves by avoiding transaction payments to other payment networks. Accordingly, the Bank aggressively markets the Zelle service to its accountholders, repeatedly urging accountholders to sign up for Zelle every time they log in to online banking or use the mobile app, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff and the Class members contend that they have been injured by signing up for and using Zelle. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and the putative Class, because Plaintiff should not be left "holding the bag" for fraudulent transactions. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent BofA from continuing to engage in its alleged illegal practices. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com BCT ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weirich Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WEIRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BCT ENTERPRISES, LLC; JOHN DOE 1–10; and DOE CORPORATION 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04426-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Weirich was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. BCT ENTERPRISES, LLC operate several Papa John’s Pizza franchises in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com www.billerkimble.com BEN'S KOSHER: Faces Islam Suit Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAFIQUL ISLAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. BEN'S KOSHER DELICATESSEN & RESTAURANT INC., WEST 38 KOSHER DELI INC., RONALD M. DRAGOON, and ROBERT B. DAVID, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10368 (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2022) brings this complaint seeking recovery, for himself and all other similarly situated, against the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at the Defendants' delicatessen, known as "Ben's Kosher Deli" from on or around January 2008 through and including August 2019. The Plaintiff asserts that he worked for a total average approximately 44 to 57.5 hours during each of the weeks from approximately November 2016 to, through and including August 2019. Although he was paid at or around the prevailing minimum wage and the prevailing overtime wage for any hours worked over 40 per week, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating his wages. The Defendants allegedly required him and other similarly situated individuals to distribute 2.75% of daily sales to busboys, irrespective of the amount of gratuities actually received from customers, using their won cash wages. As a result, the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate IRS FormsW-2 for all the tax years of their employment and failed to properly record, account for, and report to the IRS all monies paid to them, thereby filing fraudulent information in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants failed to post in a conspicuous place notices issue by the Department of Labor about wages and hours laws, tips appropriations, or illegal deduction provisions. The Defendants also failed to provide them with accurate wage statement, and with any notice of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the amounts of any unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Ben's Kosher Delicatessen & Restaurant Inc. and West 38 Kosher Deli Inc. operate restaurants. Ronald M. Dragoon & Robert B. David are co-owners of the Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Narrows Claims inn Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10033-DPW (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative securities fraud class action. Judge Woodlock said, "Specifically, I grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I, except as alleged against Mr. Mahoney and Boston Scientific because Plaintiff has alleged misrepresentations involving a strong inference of fraudulent scienter as to those Defendants and I deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count II, the Section 20(a) claim against the Executive Defendants." In light of this disposition of the motion to dismiss, this case now moves to the stage of factual development in anticipation of class certification and summary judgment practice. In order to frame the next stage of this litigation, the parties shall meet and confer with a view toward presenting a proposed schedule for such proceedings. Lead Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or acquired Boston Scientific common stock between February 6, 2019 and November 16, 2020 (the Class Period). Lead Plaintiff is the parent holding company of the Union Investment Group, an asset management firm based in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. Union Asset Management funds purchased common stock in Boston Scientific during the Class Period. Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in interventional medical specialties. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YO2Uua at no extra charge.[CC] BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY COLEMAN, KELI SWANN, and HEATHER BROOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting extending time for class certification bid and to serve supporting expert report: -- Pursuant to Local Rule 6.01, Plaintiffs Tiffany Coleman, Keli Swann, and Heather Brooke move for a one-week extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification and serve any class certification expert report from December 22, 2022 to and including December 29, 2022. -- The Defendant Britax Child Safety, Inc. does not oppose this motion. This Court previously allowed Plaintiffs an extension of this deadline from October 19, 2022 to December 22, 2022. -- The requested additional extension would not require any changes to the current Third Amended Scheduling Order, including the remainder of the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Britax is a British manufacturer of childcare products including car seats, pushchairs and high chairs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BY4ekK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Martha A. Geer, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com dbryson@milberg.com mgeer@milberg.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com jcohen@milberg.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: COVID Suit Footage Proceedings Available Online ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for Glacier Media, reports that footage of a B.C. Supreme Court COVID class action certification process is now available online. After days of discussion, lawyers presented Justice David Crerar on Dec. 16 with a solution to issues that had hampered getting the footage online. Crerar agreed to the solution. "Make it so," he said. The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, led by Kipling Warner, seeks to challenge and obtain compensation for various measures, mandates and restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic. Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry is named a defendant in the lawsuit. Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic in March 2020, Henry issued orders designed to reduce the virus' spread in B.C., including requiring proof of vaccination to enter several businesses like restaurants. The so-called "vaccine passport" was in place in B.C. from September 2021 to April 2022. Crerar is hearing arguments on an application for class action certification. He is listening to applications of various kinds as well as evidence to determine if a class action is a suitable choice for the case, which can involve many people but is represented by what is known as a representative claimant. As of Dec. 16, the judge has heard five days of submissions. On Dec. 12, the plaintiff's lawyer Polina Furtula said the challenge revolves around whether or not the pandemic warranted having an emergency declared. She said the provincial legislative conditions for an emergency declaration were not met. She called the resulting response "disproportionate." And that, she said, requires denunciation. What the plaintiffs want, according to Furtula, is a declaration that the government's actions were wrong. Her clients seek both vindication and deterrence for the government from doing similar things in future. All of that can now be seen in the footage online. Readers need to be aware that they can only watch the footage on that site and that reposting or copying it could violate the judge's order and result in criminal consequences. The website carries a warning. "This is a recording of judicial proceedings which may not be further broadcast, rebroadcast, transmitted, reproduced, communicated to the public by telecommunication, or otherwise made available in whole or in part in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole or in part in any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written authorization of the Supreme Court of British Columbia," the warning said. "Any unauthorized use of this recording in breach of the order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall expose the person doing so to legal proceedings for contempt of court," the warning said. The footage is available on Vimeo. The very fact of a case being filmed is a rarity in B.C.'s courts. In a decision released Dec. 1, Crerar ruled the public would benefit by being able to view proceedings. The provincial government argued that inflammatory and violent comments made on the Internet, that when associated with the broadcast, could demean the court and risk violence. Crerar ruled that would happen regardless of whether the hearings were broadcast. "The Internet is already a cesspit of misinformed and, at times, deranged statements about almost every topic, including our courts. Such poison exists regardless of whether court proceedings are broadcast," he ruled. Some parts of the footage will not be clear to viewers Images from lawyers' computer screens, which could be privileged information, will be pixelated, as will the faces of the court registrars sitting in front of the judge.[GN] BRUTGER EQUITIES: Tisdell Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE TISDELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BRUTGER EQUITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-03037-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., December 7, 2022) brings this complaint as a class and collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendant as a front desk worker at its hotel located in Mountain Iron, Minnesota, and was eventually moved to the maintenance department and promoted to property maintenance supervisor. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated employees were routinely required by the Defendant to begin working more than 5 minutes before the scheduled start of their shifts. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they have worked. Specifically, they were required to perform pre- and post-shift activities, such as shoveling snow from the entrance of the properties, testing the chemical levels in the pool, moving trash out of the building to be picked up, and counting the cash at the front desk. Despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime premium pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover reimbursement of all unpaid wages at the applicable overtime rates for all overtime work as described in this complaint; any penalties or other amounts under any applicable laws, statutes, or regulations; as well as pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, and other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and necessary. Brutger Equities is a housing and hotel development and management company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. Nicholas P. DeMaris, Esq. BAILLON THOME JOSWIAK & WANTA LLP 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 252-3570 E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com npdemaris@baillonthome.com CANADA: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set March 7, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------- Community Notice Important Opportunity - Deadline March 7, 2023 Drinking Water Class Action Drinking Water Class Action What is it? The Drinking Water Class Action was a court case against Canada related to drinking water advisories on reserves that now been settled. Lac Seul First Nation Band Members can apply for compensation from the settlement funds. How much money you will receive depends on many factors. Who is Eligible? You must meet BOTH the initial requirements AND all of the requirements in either option one OR option two. What Type of Applications are There? Basic Application Specific Harm Application If you meet the eligibility requirements you can apply for compensation, using the basic application form. If you were directly harmed by the drinking water advisory you can apply for additional compensation. Where Can I get the Application Form? Download: https://firstnationsdrinkingwater.ca/index.php/claim-forms/ Paper Copy: Available to pick up at any of the Band Offices How Do I Apply? Completed applications and attached documents can be sent by: Mail: Drinking Water Class Action Claims Administrator, c/o Deloitte PO BOX 160 STN Adelaide Toronto, ON, M5C 2J2, Canada Email: firstnationswater@deloitte.ca Fax: 647-738-5206 Online Portal: https://firstnationsdrinkingwater.powerappsportals.com/en/ [GN] CARECORE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Gudger Class Suit Tossed as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRE'ANYA GUDGER, et al., v. CARECORE HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00239-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their second amended complaint, and directing plaintiffs' counsel to forthwith file named plaintiffs' second amended complaint as a separate document in the record of this case; 2. denying as moot defendant's motion to strike; 3. denying as moot defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time; and 4. denying as moot defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. CareCore is family owned and operated, and provides individualized care plans. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vg0N4Q at no extra charge.[CC] CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Core Scientific, Inc. CORZ between January 3, 2022 and October 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 13, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Core Scientific securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Core Scientific class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3932 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due in part to the expiration of a favorable pricing agreement, Core Scientific was experiencing increasing power costs; (2) Core Scientific's largest customer, Gryphon, lacked the financial resources to purchase the necessary miner rigs for Core Scientific to host; (3) Core Scientific was not providing hosting services to Celsius Network LLC and related entities ("Celsius") as required by their contract; (4) Core Scientific had implemented an improper surcharge to pass through power costs to Celsius; (5) as a result of the foregoing alleged breaches of contract, Core Scientific was reasonably likely to incur liability to defend itself against Celsius; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Core Scientific's profitability would be adversely impacted; (7) as a result, there was likely substantial doubt as to Core Scientific's ability to continue as a going concern; and (8) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Core Scientific class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3932 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CORTEVA INC: Faces Psencik Suit Over Pesticide Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------- WALTER PSENCIK; and TRAVIS PSENCIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1-5; AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02423-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, for many years, the Defendants have unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that U.S. farmers pay for crop protection products ("CPPs"). The Defendants do this by deploying a set of so-called "loyalty programs," which are designed to severely limit the availability of lower-priced generic products. Through this scheme, the Defendants have suppressed generic competition and maintained monopolies long after their lawful exclusive rights to particular crop-protection products have expired. These unlawful business practices have cost farmers many millions of dollars a year on their purchases of CPPs containing active ingredients rimsulfuron, oxamyl, acetochlor, azoxystrobin, mesotrione, metolachlor, or s-metolachlor, says the suit. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs and thereby artificially inflated the price of those CPPs and of the generic competitors to those CPPs. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class have been injured by paying artificially inflated prices for their CPP purchases, the suit alleges. CORTEVA, INC. provides agricultural products. The Company offers seeds and crop protection products, as well as software solutions and digital services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Kovel, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Email: dkovel@kmllp.com nveno@kmllp.com - and - R. Lyn Stevens, Esq. STEVENS LAW FIRM 1782 Mountain Springs Canyon Lake, TX 78133 Telephone: (409) 880-9714 Email: Lyn@Stevens.Law COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Sues Over Wrongful Sales Tax Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER JOSEPH RAPP, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION D/B/A COSTCO WHOLESALE, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00645-CHB (W.D. Ky., Dec. 7, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of Kentucky law for the assessment of sales tax on exempt food items; for unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive trade practices; for breach of fiduciary duty to customers; and for conversion of customers' funds in Kentucky. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff visited Costco in Louisville, Kentucky and purchased Cretor's popcorn mix. He asserts that Costco wrongly collected sales tax on Cretor's mix that he purchased because it is a food item, which is totally exempt from sales tax. The sales tax collected on Cretor's mix alone was $1.03, or 6% of the pre-discounted price of $17.22. The complaint alleges that Costco induced customers (including Mr. Rapp) to believe that it was deducting the proper amount of sales tax even though it had knowledge that the amount collected exceeded the amount imposed by Kentucky law. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Scott Abell, Esq. Joshua T. Rose, Esq. ABELL ROSE LAW 108 S. Madison Avenue Louisville, KY 40243 Telephone: (502) 450-5611 E-mail: sabell@abellroselaw.com jrose@abellroselaw.com COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Bishop Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEN D. BISHOP, et al.,, et al., v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03052-ALM-KAJ (E.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of deadlines: -- The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension. -- Primary expert reports are due 60 days after the Court's ruling on Rule 23 Class Certification. -- Rebuttal expert reports are due 30 days thereafter. But the parties are ordered to be more diligent in their compliance with the case schedule. -- These related actions have been pending for years, and the parties continue to delay progress with their lack of diligence. -- The Court adopted the parties' framework for the amended case schedule, yet the parties continually seek to revise the case schedule they largely designed. -- Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants must be more diligent moving forward, for the sake of their clients and out of respect for the Court's resources. Coulter retails athletics equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wm9lmR at no extra charge.[CC] COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Braun Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al., v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of deadlines: -- The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension. -- Primary expert reports are due 60 days after the Court's ruling on Rule 23 Class Certification. -- Rebuttal expert reports are due 30 days thereafter. But the parties are ordered to be more diligent in their compliance with the case schedule. -- These related actions have been pending for years, and the parties continue to delay progress with their lack of diligence. -- The Court adopted the parties' framework for the amended case schedule, yet the parties continually seek to revise the case schedule they largely designed. -- Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants must be more diligent moving forward, for the sake of their clients and out of respect for the Court's resources. Coulter retails athletics equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PRqEcN at no extra charge.[CC] DEALER DOT COM: Transmits Personal Info to Facebook, Cantu Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEALER DOT COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation dba DEALER.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01938-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged actions that violate the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, when a visitor watches a video on Dealer.com while logged into Facebook, Defendants compel a visitor's browser to transmit the c user cookie to Facebook. The c user cookie contains that visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. When accessing the mentioned video, for example, Defendants compelled the browser to send ten cookies. Through the Facebook Tracking Pixel's code, these cookies combine the identifiers with the event data, allowing Facebook to know, among other things, what Dealer.com videos a user has watched, says the suit. By disclosing his event data and identifiers, Defendant disclosed Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to a third-party. After visiting Defendant's website and watching a video, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants surreptitiously collected and transmitted his personally identifiable information to Facebook, the suit asserts. Dealer Dot Com, Inc. provides online digital marketing solutions for the automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Kerns Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JILL KERNS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00144-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for distributing, marketing and selling over-the-counter dry shampoo products under the Not Your Mother's brand name that have been found by an independent laboratory to be contaminated and/or adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The presence of benzene in Defendant's products was not disclosed in the products' label other otherwise made known to consumers, in violation of Montana law and other the putative class representatives' states' laws. The Plaintiff and the putative Class member purchased and used one or more of the Not Your Mother's dry shampoo products that were specifically identified by Valisure as containing benzene at or above 0.1 ppm, the suit says. By failing to disclose the presence of benzene or the risk of benzene contamination in its products' labels and advertising and marketing material, Plaintiff has been denied the opportunity to make informed financial and healthcare decisions, the suit contends. Benzene is used primarily in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, as a starting material and intermediate in the synthesis of numerous chemicals, and in gasoline. The Food and Drug Administration recognizes that "benzene is a carcinogen that can cause cancer in humans" and classifies benzene as a "Class 1" solvent that should be "avoided."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsie Warner, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: cwarner@awkolaw.com cduer@awkolaw.com DEVON ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chuck Travis Cowan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon Energy Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00220-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Class Representative Chuck Travis Cowan asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting final certification of the Settlement Class; 2. granting final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; and 3. granting final approval of the Notice to Class Members. On September 21, 2022, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement, approving the form of notice, and setting a date of January 17, 2023, for the final fairness hearing. The Court already certified the following Settlement Class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim Period: (1) (i) received payments from the Defendants (or the Defendants' designee) for oil, gas, or natural gas liquids proceeds from Oklahoma wells or (ii) whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government entity by Defendants; and (2) whose payments or whose unclaimed property payments did not include statutory interest. The "Settlement Class" includes owners of royalty interests, overriding royalty interests, and working interests. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their affiliates; (4) persons or entities that Plaintiff 's counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (5) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (6) officers of the Court. The Claim Period is the time period between and including October 1, 2011, through the expiration of 120 days following the execution of the Settlement Agreement (i.e. November 19, 2022). Devon is an energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WnRsUB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com –and– Tim Maxcey, Esq. STIPE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1369 McAlester, OK 74502 Telephone: (918) 423-0421 Facsimile: (918) 423-0266 E-mail: tmaxcey@stipelaw.com DF GROWTH: Faces Ferry Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK FERRY, IGOR KOROSTELEV and RYAN KRAUSE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DF GROWTH REIT, LLC, DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC, DIVERSYFUND, INC., CRAIG CECILIO, and ALAN LEWIS, Case No. 3:22-cv-02001-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 2022), alleges that Defendants REIT I and REIT II violated the Cal. Corp. Code by making statements of material fact regarding: -- the interdependency between REIT I and REIT II; -- the fees charged by REIT I and REIT II; -- the background of management; and -- REIT I and REIT II's lack of a need to raise a minimum amount of capital, that were untrue, and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which the statements were made, not misleading. The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants DiversyFund, Cecilio and Lewis each materially aided in the acts and/or transactions constituting the primary violations of Cal. Corp. Code section 25401, and had knowledge of or reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist. As a result of their status as control persons and material aid in the primary violations, Defendants DiversyFund, Cecilio and Lewis are each jointly and severally liable with one another, to the same extent as each of REIT I and/or REIT II are liable, for the damages and other relief sought herein. The Plaintiffs further allege that the total claims of the individual members of the Class in this action are in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Kansas, Illinois and Arizona. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that more than two-thirds of all of the members of the proposed Class in the aggregate are citizens of a state other than California, in which this action is originally being filed. The DiversyFund Growth REIT is a SEC-qualified Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Kons, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC 92 Hopmeadow Street, Suite LL1 Weatogue, CT 06089 Telephone: (860) 920-5181 Facsimile: (860) 920-5174 E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323)306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Christopher J. Gray, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C., P.C. 360 Lexington Ave, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 838-3221 Facsimile: (212) 937-3139 E-mail: chris@investorlawyers.net DIRECT HOME: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT HOME MORTGAGES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01937-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for damages and injunctive relief for recording conversations with Plaintiff and Class Members without any notification or warning in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. On November 25, 2022, an agent of Defendant called Plaintiff attempting to sell Plaintiff a mortgage. The agent did not advise Plaintiff that Defendant was recording the call or seek Plaintiff's consent to record. The Defendant records all its calls, both inbound and outbound, like the ones it made to Plaintiff, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutionally protected privacy rights by failing to advise or otherwise provide notice at the beginning of the conversation(s) with Plaintiff that the call(s) would be recorded, and Defendant did not try to obtain Plaintiff's consent before such recording. Direct Home Mortgages LLC is a mortgage lender with its headquarters in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com DOLAR SHOP: Li, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GANG LI, DONG BIN LI, JIA ZHEN JING, JIN WANG, MEI FANG YAO, SHAN ZHI SUN and HAI HONG HAN on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC. d/b/a "THE DOLAR SHOP", KEN CHEUNG, SUZIE CHEUNG, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" No. 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-01953-RPK-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file their motion for certification of the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wzxw1n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com DOLAR SHOP: Lin, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN LIN, JIANQUN ZHANG, DI PAN, BO LIU, and JIALIANG PAN, v. THE DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Dolar Shop, SHANGHAI SHENZHUANG THE DOLAR SHOP CATERING MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., YU ZHANG a/k/a Yu Cheung a/k/a Suzie Cheung, TZU CHEUNG a/k/a Tzu Yen Cheung a/k/a Ken Cheung, QIN BO LIANG a/k/a Alvin Liang, ZHONG BAO YUAN, QIN CHUN GAO, YING NAN QI a/k/a Frank Qi, XIN FENG WANG a/k/a Ruby Wang, and XIANG CHAO LIU,the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file their motion for certification of the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWiKL0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- Enservco Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Safe class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On May 22, 2022, Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of others, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company and certain of its officers violated securities laws in relation to certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which required amendments and restatements to such filings. On November 28, 2022, the plaintiff amended their complaint primarily to add Jan Lambert as lead plaintiff and to include Cross River Partners, L.P. and Cross River Capital Management, LLC as defendants. The Company believes the claims are without merit and have engaged counsel to vigorously defend the Company against such claims. The Company has Director's and Officer's insurance coverage to defend against such claims and the Company's insurance carriers have been notified about the lawsuit. Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural gas industry. EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Extended to May 15, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROTHMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order regarding joint motion and stipulation for extension of deadline for class certification and briefing schedule as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall file a May 15, 2023 Motion for Class Certification on or before: 2. The Defendant shall file its July 17, 2023 Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on or before: 3. The Plaintiff shall file any August 31, 2023 Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification on or before: Equinox is an American luxury fitness company which operates several lifestyle brands: Equinox, Equinox Hotels, Precision Run, Project by Equinox, Equinox Explore, Equinox Media. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQ1puU at no extra charge.[CC] FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAYTON P. ZELLMER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Clayton Zellmer, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01880-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed this class action against the Defendant for capturing, possessing, collecting, storing, receiving through trade, obtaining, and using his and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without their informed written consent in violation of Section 15(a) and Section 15(b) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Specifically, Facebook has created, collected, and stored over a billion "face templates" (or "face prints") -- highly detailed geometric maps of the face -- from over a billion individuals, millions of whom reside in the State of Illinois. Facebook creates these templates using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the points and contours of faces appearing in photos uploaded by their users. Each face template is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person. On July 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On May 17, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Facebook on the Section 15(b) portion of the claim, which was the main thrust of the complaint. Summary judgment was denied for the Section 15(a) portion of his claim, mainly because of fact disputes not suited to resolution on the papers. On November 14, 2022, the Court, through an Order entered by Judge James Donato, determined that Mr. Zellmer lacks Article III standing to pursue his Section 15(a) BIPA claim. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Clayton Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 22-16925, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Clayton P. Zellmer Mediation Questionnaire was due December 22, 2022; -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2023; -- Appellant Clayton P. Zellmer opening brief is due on March 23, 2023; -- Appellee Facebook, Inc. answering brief is due on April 24, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CLAYTON P. ZELLMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Albert Y. Chang, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 - and - David Philip Milian, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC. is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 - and - John Nadolenco, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-5173 - and - Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2181 - and - Whitty Somvichian, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 GLOBAL FINISHING: Parties Seek Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVATORE PARENTE, et al., v. GLOBAL FINISHING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00159-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Parties file a joint motion for entry of agreed order regarding conditional class certification and proposed notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of this matter as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and for an order authorizing notice to be sent to all former employees of Defendant who were affected by its group termination in 2020. The Defendant Global Finishing Solutions, LLC has no objection to providing notice of this lawsuit to former employees of Defendant who were aged 40 or older at the time that they were terminated from employment in the 2020 reduction in force. It also has no objection to providing Plaintiffs' counsel with the names and addresses of those individuals. In the interest of efficiency and conserving the Court's resources, Plaintiffs and the Defendant hereby move the Court to enter the attached Agreed Order. Global Finishing produces product finishing equipment. The Company offers paint booths, spray booths, prep stations, paint and mixing rooms. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hKyxnR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Bertelson, Esq. BERTELSON LAW OFFICES, PA 333 Washington Avenue North Union Plaza, Suite 402 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 278-9832 E-mail: Beth@bertelsonlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sharon Mollman Elliott, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 800 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 807-5280 Facsimile: (608) 260-0058 E-mail: Sharon.Elliott@JacksonLewis.com GLOBAL TILING: De Leon Sues Over Tile Installers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- WILBUR DE LEON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL TILING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Dec. 7, 2022) seeks declaratory relief and unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a tile installer from approximately September 2021 to the present day. He is tasked to perform physically demanding floor installation and repair labor around the United States of America, including in California and Hawaii. Global Tiling, Inc. is a North Carolina-based tile contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP 2400 Freeman Mill Road Greensboro, NC 27406 Telephone: (800) 288-1529 E-mail: BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Benjamin Lin, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ben.lin@jtblawgroup.com GLOCK INC: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN C. JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia Corporation; GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian entity; JOHN and JANE DOES I through V; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X, XYZ PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS I-V, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Parties stipulate to continue the class certification briefing schedule as follows: 1. The new deadline for Plaintiff June 7, 2023 to file his Motion for Class Certification: 2. The new deadline for Defendants August 7, 2023 to file an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is: 3. The new deadline for Plaintiff October 6, 2023 to file his Reply in support of his Motion for Class Certification is: 4. The new hearing date on October 25, 2023 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is: Glock is a weapons manufacturer headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria, named after its founder, Gaston Glock. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WXX9bZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Jake W. Schulte, 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 jschulte@nicholaslaw.org - and - Robert K. Lewis, Esq. Amy M. Pokora, Esq. LEWIS AND LEWIS TRIAL LAWYERS, PLC 28150 N Alma School Rd, Ste 103-637 Scottsdale, AZ 85262 Telephone: (602) 889-6666 E-mail: Rob@LewisLawFirm.com Amy@LewisLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: John F. Renzulli, Esq. Christopher Renzulli, Esq. Howard B. Schilsky, Esq. RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 1005 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 285-0700 Facsimile: (914) 285-1213 E-mail: jrenzulli@renzullilaw.com crenzulli@renzullilaw.com hschilsky@renzullilaw.com - and - Paul G. Cereghini, Esq. Lauren O. Miller, Esq. Carissa Casolari, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com Carissa.casolari@bowmanandbrooke.com GOOGLE LLC: Order on Nov. 21, 2022 Discovery Dispute Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order regarding the November 21, 2022 discovery dispute re named plaintiff data redacted version, as follows: 1. Google must produce "verticals" information described in section II.A by January 31, 2023. 2. The parties must confer promptly about the time sampling issue in section II.B, but no later than January 13, 2023, and may submit any remaining dispute for resolution. 3. The Court denies all other relief requested. The Plaintiffs and defendant Google ask the Court to resolve a dispute concerning whether Google has complied with its obligations to produce named plaintiff data. In connection with this dispute, the parties provided excerpts from discovery produced in the Calhoun litigation, which plaintiffs contend support their position. The Court held a hearing on this dispute on December 6, 2022. the Court orders Google to produce information concerning "verticals" and requires the parties to confer further regarding time sampling. This dispute concerns Google's compliance with the Court's August 26, 2022 order resolving the parties' earlier dispute regarding plaintiffs' discovery of named plaintiff data. Google 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. 16, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YvPO4T at no extra charge.[CC] GREATBANC TRUST: Judge Recommends Allowing Zavala to Amend Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARMANDO ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that the Defendants' motions to seal and the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be granted. Before the Court is Zavala's motion to amend the complaint, filed June 29, 2022 and amended on June 30, 2022. GreatBanc does not oppose the Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. Defendants Kevin Kruse, the Kruse-Western, Inc. Board of Directors, and the Administration Committee ("the Company Defendants") filed an opposition brief on July 20, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a reply brief on Aug. 8, 2022. On July 14, 2022, the Company Defendants and GreatBanc filed requests to seal relating to the motion to amend. On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Defendants and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, alleging several claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") related to the Defendants' management and administration of the Western Milling Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP"). The Plaintiff filed his original motion to amend the complaint on June 29, 2022. Pursuant to the Court's order, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion to amend on June 30, 2022. As a part of the proposed Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), he seeks the addition of two causes of action, several defendants, and two plaintiffs as class representatives. In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of his motion to amend, he explains that the identities of these proposed new parties and the facts underlying the proposed two new claims were uncovered pursuant to recent discovery. GreatBanc does not oppose the Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. The Company Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion to amend, contending that the proposed SAC would be futile because it is untimely and would not survive motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)). They further argue that the Plaintiff fails to show requisite good cause or lack of prejudice, given that he failed to seek modification of the Scheduling Order and the Company Defendants would be unduly prejudiced were this Court to grant leave to amend. On July 14, 2022, the Company Defendants and GreatBanc filed requests to seal the documents produced during discovery and newly cited in the Plaintiff's proposed SAC. On Sept. 12, 2022, the Defendants' requests to seal and the Plaintiff's motion to amend were referred to Judge Oberto for preparation of findings and recommendations. Having considered the materials at issue and the Plaintiff's lack of opposition to the Defendants' requests to seal, Judge Oberto finds that the Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated "good cause" for filing the 15 identified documents under seal. She says these materials contain confidential, proprietary information regarding the Defendants' policies and business operations, and disclosure of this information could cause Defendants competitive harm. Furthermore, these materials contain non-public information of non-parties. Accordingly, given the privacy interests and potential competitive harm that may results from public disclosure of this information, the Defendants have adequately articulated "good cause" for maintaining confidentiality. To the extent that the Memorandum and SAC incorporate confidential, sealed information derived the Documents, Judge Oberto finds it appropriate for that information to be sealed as well. She therefore recommends that the Defendants' requests to seal be granted. Having considered the Plaintiff's motion to amend, Judge Oberto finds that the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking leave to amend once the factual bases for the proposed amendments were uncovered. Further, he has been diligent in seeking discovery generally. Because the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to amend the FAC shortly after discovering the facts that form the basis for his amendments, Judge Oberto finds good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. Finally, Judge Oberto holds that the Plaintiff May Amend the FAC Under Rule 15. The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Judge Oberto finds that (i) the Company Defendants make no argument that the Plaintiff filed his motion to amend in bad faith; (ii) there is absence of any showing of undue prejudice to the Company Defendants; (iii) the Company Defendants fail to demonstrate that amendment would be futile; and (iv) the Plaintiff acted with diligence in seeking leave to amend. She recommends that the Plaintiff's motion to amend be granted. The parties are to meet and confer on appropriate redactions to the Memorandum and SAC, to file an unredacted copy of both documents under seal, and to file a redacted version of both documents publicly on the Court's docket. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). Within 21 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymym47x2 from Leagle.com. GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Wright Sues Over Illegal Website Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02025-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications, including how the Plaintiff and Class Members interacted with the website, mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search items, information inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. The Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized interceptions and connections to the Plaintiff and Class Members' electronic communications to read and understand movement on the website, as well as everything the Plaintiff and Class Members did on those pages, the suit says. GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. is a financial technology company. The Company provides a debit card and money application designed to help parents raise financially-smart kids. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com GREENSKY HOLDINGS: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE GARCEA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GREENSKY HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. CACE-22-018450 (Fla. Cir., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On December 5, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff. The First Communication was a communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent from noreply@mygreensky.com and delivered to Plaintiff's personal e-mail address. The Communication advised that: "Your most recent due date has passed and we have still not received your payment. Please make a payment immediately to avoid any late fees. If you are currently under Disaster Relief, please disregard this notice." The Communication was sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated section 559.72(17) of the FCCPA, the suit claims. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of FCCPA Class: "all all persons persons with Florida addresses that the Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf sent an electronic mail communication between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in connection with the collection of a consumer debt." GreenSky Holdings provides consumer financing services such as consumer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Stipulated Briefing on Class Certification OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE CARTER, MEL COMES, DUANE THOMAS, and MARKEITH MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving stipulated briefing on class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall file the December 23, 2022 motion for class certification on: 2. The Defendant may file January 30, 2023 opposition to the motion by: 3. The Plaintiff may file a reply February 15, 2023 brief by: 4. The Class certification hearing March 3, 2023 shall be held on: Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FNQhqB at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi, et al., Seek Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI, and MIRYAM KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; 2. Appointing Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing Class Counsel. Health Enrollment is a company that operates in the Insurance industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GnfzgR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Fox, Esq. Joanna L. Fox, Esq. Russell A. Gold, Esq. FOX LAW, APC 225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 256-7616 Facsimile: (858) 256-7618 E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com joanna@foxlawapc.com russ@foxlawapc.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com jmacpherson@bholaw.com HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO MORALES, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08401-EP-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23. Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care sector. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VoIjtv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7177 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com pstern@kimlf.com HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Conditionally Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PABLO SANCHEZ, and VIOLET ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: -- The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only (and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon the Action, including no effect upon the Action should the Agreement not receive Final Approval or should the Effective Date not occur), a class defined as follows: "All persons who have entered into written contracts with Hearst solely pursuant to a home delivery agreement in the State of California regarding distribution of newspapers, including, but not limited to, the San Francisco Chronicle, at any time from July 27, 2016, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order entered by the Court, and who do not submit a timely and valid Opt Out." -- The Court appoints Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez to serve as Class Representatives for the Class. The Court finds and appoints Outten & Golden LLP and The Ottinger Firm, P.C. jointly as Class Counsel. -- All Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement Class by properly and timely submitting an Opt Out shall be bound by all determinations and judgments in the Action concerning the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable to the Settlement Class. Hearst is an American multinational mass media and business information conglomerate based in Hearst Tower in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wwnrlq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Theanne Liu, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com tliu@outtengolden.com - and - Robert Ottinger, Esq. Finn Dusenbery, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 262-0096 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com finn@ottingerlaw.com HFS FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wallach Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON WALLACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HFS FINANCIAL LLC; and LARRY COLLINS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03287-MJM (D. Md., Dec. 20, 2022) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Wallach was employed by the Defendants as loan consultant. HFS FINANCIAL LLC operates as a loan agency in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. IPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com HRL LABORATORIES: O'Connor Seeks Engineers' Unreimbursed Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCESCA O'CONNOR and TATYANA CHALIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HRL LABORATORIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 37-2022-00048942-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure seeking unreimbursed business expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code and California Code of Civil Procedure, and restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law, on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other current and former employees employed by the Defendant. The complaint alleges that HRL does not reimburse, and has not reimbursed, Class Members for necessary expenses that they have incurred in working remotely to perform their job duties. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the costs of Internet, mobile phone use, and other equipment or services associated with working remotely such as modems, laptops, monitors, and utilities. Plaintiff O'Connor was employed by Defendant full-time from September 2020 to February 2022 in California as an Engineer IV. Plaintiff Chalik was employed by Defendant full-time from August 2020 to August 2021 in California as an Engineer I. HRL Laboratories, LLC is a limited liability company formed in Delaware that employs scientists and engineers to conduct research and provide technology solutions in various industries such as aircraft, automobiles, and consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq. Sarah Abraham, Esq. Ally Girouard, Esq. THE JHAVERI-WEEKS FIRM, P.C. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 463-8097 Facsimile: (415) 367-1439 E-mail: wjw@jhaveriweeks.com sa@jhaveriweeks.com ag@jhaveriweeks.com - and - Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com IKEA US: Court Dismisses Dukich Action for Lack of Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA and JOHN DUKICH, et al., v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Bartle entered a memorandum dismissing the Dukich action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court said, "In sum, Samantha Meyer's proposed class does not satisfy the threshold ascertainability requirement. Although the court finds that Meyers has demonstrated numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation, the four Rule 23(a) factors, she has not shown that her proposed class satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. The court will deny Myers's motion for class certification. Without class certification, the individual claim of Samantha Meyers related to her purchases of recalled furniture, totaling $328, does not satisfy the necessary amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)." Ms. Meyers purchased furniture from defendants IKEA US Retail LLC and IKEA North America Services LLC ("IKEA") that is subject to a recall announced by IKEA in coordination with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). She brings this putative class action against IKEA under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d), for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), and for negligence. Before the court is Meyers's motion to certify, under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class consisting of every IKEA customer in the United States and its territories: (1) who had no notice of the recall prior to May 6, 2020; (2) who possesses at least one IKEA chest or dresser subject to the recall at the time of class notice; and (3) for whom IKEA had an email address as of October 7, 2022. Before announcing the 2016 recall, IKEA entered into a "corrective action plan" ("CAP") with the CPSC on June 15, 2016. The CAP covers all MALM and non-MALM chests and dressers in specified sizes that do not comply with safety performance requirements. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WKDVq9 at no extra charge.[CC] INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID YUREVICH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company operating at: DOUBLETREE SAN PEDRO; INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LCC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-03713-MEMF-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend class certification schedule as follows: -- The Class Discovery cut-off is April 18, 2023 extended to: -- The deadline to file a Motion June 21, 2023 for Class Certification is extended to: -- The deadline to file an August 28, 2023 Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is extended to: -- The deadline to file a Reply in September 29, 2023 support of Class Certification is extended to: -- The hearing on the Motion for October 26, 2023 Class Certification will be held on: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wk2Tgf at no extra charge.[CC] IRIS ENERGY: Malouf Files Suit Over Share Price Decline ------------------------------------------------------- JARRYD ANTHONY MALOUF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRIS ENERGY LIMITED, DANIEL ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, BELINDA NUCIFORA, DAVID BARTHOLOMEW, CHRISTOPHER GUZOWSKI, and MICHAEL ALFRED, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07137 (D.N.J., Dec. 7, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Iris ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about November 17, 2021; and/or (b) Iris securities between November 17, 2021 and November 1, 2022, both dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of Iris' Bitcoin miners, owned through its Non-Recourse SPVs, were unlikely to produce sufficient cash flow to service their respective debt financing obligations; (ii) accordingly, Iris' use of equipment financing agreements to procure Bitcoin miners was not as sustainable as Defendants had represented; (iii) the foregoing was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's business, operations, and financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein, says the suit. On this news, Iris' ordinary share price fell $0.51 per share, or 15.04%, to close at $2.88 per share on November 2, 2022 -- a nearly 90% decline from the Offering price. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Iris' ordinary shares continue to trade significantly below the $28 per share Offering price, damaging investors, the suit alleges. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have allegedly suffered significant losses and damages. Iris Energy Limited is an Australia-based sustainable Bitcoin mining company that supports local communities, as well as the decarbonization of energy markets and the global Bitcoin network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com JAB EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Snide Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SARA SNIDE; JONATHEN SNIDE; and BRITTANY HAMMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAB EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01373-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers. JAB EXPRESS, INC. owns and operates a package delivery service. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - James Emmet Murphy, Esq. Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com JLT RISK: Averts Class Action Over Government Insurance Mutuals --------------------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the NSW Supreme Court has found in favour of JLT in a class action launched over local government insurance mutuals. Justice Kate Williams, who had heard evidence for almost a month before reserving her decision more than a year ago, said in court this afternoon that the plantiff's claims for relief should be dismissed. "For the reasons I now publish each of the plantiff's three causes of action fail," she said. A spokesperson for JLT, which is now part of Marsh McLennan said the firm was pleased the court had ruled in its favour. "JLT has always stated that it would vigorously defend its position in the class action as we strongly believed that the allegations were misconceived," the spokesperson told insuranceNEWS.com.au. "We are currently in the process of reviewing the judgment in detail." Richmond Valley Council began the NSW Supreme Court action on behalf of a number of councils in 2018, alleging JLT breached its broker duties and arranged cover "at less advantageous rates than were available". JLT says it didn't act as an insurance broker for the group and "when fairly looked at" cover arranged was not less advantageous and councils suffered no loss or damage. A spokesperson for law firm Quinn Emanuel, which acted for Richmond Valley Council, says the lengthy judgment is being considered, and the clients will be taking advice in terms of next steps, including whether to appeal. [GN] JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Settlement in Botts Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and directing notice to settlement class. 1. The Settlement Class, defined as "all people who paid the Defendant Johns Hopkins University tuition and/or fees for the Spring Semester 2020 for in- person educational services, which tuition and fees have not been refunded," appropriately encompasses those individuals who may assert the claims alleged in Counts I and II of Named Plaintiff Elena Botts's Amended Complaint against Defendant Johns Hopkins University." 2. The Settlement Agreement entered between the parties as of December 9, 2022, appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class. 3. Accordingly, for settlement purposes only, the proposed settlement is preliminarily approved, pending a Final Approval Hearing. 4. The Court finds that the Settlement Class contains 8,603 individuals. 5. The Court finds that Named Plaintiff Elena Botts has and will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class and hereby appoints her class representative. 6. The Court finds that the attorneys for Named Plaintiff, James A. Francis, John Soumilas, Kevin C. Mallon, and Jordan M. Sartell of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. and Courtney Weiner of the Law Office of Courtney Weiner PLLC, have and will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class and hereby appoints them Class Counsel. 7. The Court appoints JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator. Johns Hopkins University is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland. Founded in 1876, Johns Hopkins is the oldest research university in the United States and in the western hemisphere. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZdvfT at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noohi Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Narguess Noohi, Plaintiff, v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed this class action against the Defendant for alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its product, Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin. On July 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint. On July 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint (SAC), which alleged four claims: (1) common law fraud; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (4) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). On May 2, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to certify this putative class action on behalf of all consumers who purchased the product in California between April 17, 2016, and the date of this Order, as to her FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims. The Plaintiff does not seek to certify her common law fraud claim. On Nov. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. The Court determined that the Plaintiff satisfied both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. The appellate case is captioned Narguess Noohi v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 22-80143, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent NARGUESS NOOHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Defendant-Petitioner JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq. Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 (415) 984-8898 JOYCE CAMPBELL: Caddell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anselm Caddell, et al., v. Joyce Campbell, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00091-DRC-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order 1. certifying the action pursuant to Rule 23 to proceed as a class action on behalf of: "Plaintiffs and those individuals subject to a warrantless arrest by City of Fairfield Police Officers from February 1, 2017 until February 28, 2019, and who were held by the Butler County Sheriff’s office for more than 48 hours on charges pending in the Fairfield Municipal Court, if held without a post-arrest probable cause determination by a judicial officer and not otherwise subject to lawful detention;" 2. appointing Messrs. Caddell and Lawson as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing their Counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that Rule 23(a) has been satisfied as the putative class proposed by the agreed definition of the parties complies with each of the requirements of 23(a)(1) through (4). This case further meets the parameters of Rule 23(b)(3). The case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and concerns allegations by the Plaintiffs that they and other individuals arrested within the borders of the City of Fairfield were denied their constitutional right to a prompt appearance before a judicial officer. The Plaintiffs allege their detention was violative of the "48-hour rule" announced in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The Plaintiffs further allege these violations were the result of the policies and customs of the defendants. The Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs and other individuals were held for more than 48 hours but Defendants each deny their respective liability and reserve their right to dispute which putative members are in fact proper members of the class or were held for other lawful reasons. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWhWFY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Laufman, Esq. Gregory A. Napolitano, Esq. LAUFMAN NAPOLITANO, LLC 4310 Hunt Road Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 621-4556 Facsimile: (513) 621-5563 E-mail: gnapolitano@LN-lawfirm.com plaufman@LN-lawfirm.com JUUL LABS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the class action claims in this litigation as against certain Defendants; 2. finding that certification for purposes of settlement of the Settlement Class defined as follows is likely: "All individuals who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL Product from brick and mortar or online retailer before December 6, 2022; 3. preliminarily approving the proposed Plan of Allocation; 4. approving and ordering the implementation of the proposed Notice Plan; 5. authorizing the payment of initial settlement administration expenses; and 6. setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing. Class Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a $255,000,000 settlement with JLI, James Monsees, Adam Bowen, Riaz Valani, Nicholas Pritzker, and Hoyoung Huh. While the litigation has been complex and challenging, the proposed settlement is simple: the Settlement Class gets a $255 million, non-reversionary fund in exchange for releasing their economic loss claims. This settlement, which is the result of years of mediation overseen by Special Master Thomas J. Perrelli, resolves the Class claims against all defendants other than Altria, against whom the litigation will continue. Following completion of class certification related discovery, Plaintiffs Bradley Colgate, Class Certification Joseph DiGiacinto on behalf of C.D., Lauren Gregg, Tyler Krauel, and Jill Nelson on behalf of L.B. moved to certify four classes of purchasers of JUUL products for purposes of trial on Class Plaintiffs' bellwether claims (under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and California law. On June 28, 2022, the Court granted the motion, appointed those individuals as class representatives, and denied all pending Daubert motions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YINesl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com KINDER MORGAN: Partly Wins Bid to Compel Initial Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG HAMELIN and MICHAEL McCARRON, Individually, and as representatives of all others similarly situated, v. KINDER MORGAN, INC., KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO., LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-30054-MGM (D. Mass), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel initial disclosures and discovery from Plaintiffs. -- To the extent this order requires the plaintiffs to produce documents, sign releases for medical records, or provide a privilege log or supplemental response, the plaintiffs should comply with this order by no later than January 19, 2023. No fees or costs to any party. Mr. McCarron has filed suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals who worked on gas pipelines connected to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline and were allegedly exposed to radiation on the job, thereby increasing their risk of developing cancer in the future. The Plaintiff Craig Hamelin has developed a rare blood cancer and alleges that it was caused by exposure to radiation on the job. The plaintiffs, who are long-term former employees of the Berkshire Gas Company, seek to certify a class of persons who "ever worked on gas pipelines connected to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline for a minimum of four years and have not yet been diagnosed with bone, blood or lung cancer" According to the plaintiffs, Tennessee Gas Company (TGP) operations disturb and distribute naturally occurring radioactive material. The most commonly occurring radioactive element in oil and gas production is radium, which tends to build up in fluids and as scale on pipeline equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOlDxd at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNDRESS LLC: Cleaning Products Contains Bacteria, Ostenfeld Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORI OSTENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v THE LAUNDRESS, LLC; and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10667 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to remedy injuries from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading conduct in manufacturing, marketing, and selling contaminated detergents, household cleaning solutions, and shampoos as well as seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for manufacturing and selling the Products contaminated with bacteria that have injured the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed the Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff and the Class, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products were contaminated with bacteria that increases the risk of injury to consumers and their families. Had the Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions regarding the contents of the Products, the Plaintiff would not have bought the Products and would not have used them or been injured by them, says the suit. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products that preserve clothing and deep clean every room. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Stoudemire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY STOUDEMIRE; AMANDA VOSE; LUCINDA JACKSON; DANA FOLEY; DOUGLAS CASTLE; and BARBARA GRAZIOLI, individually and on of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. e 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not adequately disclose on the Lee Sites, that subscribers' personal identifying information is captured by tracking methods utilized by the Defendant (referred to as the "Tracking Methods"), and then transferred to Facebook. The Defendant has implemented and utilized the Tracking Methods which track user activity on the Lee Sites and disclose that information to Facebook. The Defendant causes users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and Video Watching Data to be shared with Facebook, in violation of the VPPA. The Defendant does not seek and has not obtained consent from Subscribers to utilize the Tracking Methods, says the suit. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC. operates as a media company. The Company publishes newspapers, weekly, classified, and specialty publications, as well as offers online services, including websites supporting its daily newspapers and other publications. Lee Enterprises serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com LENDING BUG: Kauffman Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDING BUG, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01925-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2022) arises from the Defendant's conduct of following a policy and practice of using a telecommunications system that enabled it to surreptitiously record cellular telephone communications of Plaintiff and Class members in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons in California whose cellular telephone conversations were recorded by Defendant without their consent. He asserts that the Defendant violated his constitutionally protected privacy rights by failing to advise or otherwise provide notice at the beginning of the telephone conversation(s) with Plaintiff that the call(s) would be recorded, and Defendant did not try to obtain Plaintiff's consent before such recording. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California, County of San Diego, who received a call from an agent of Defendant on November 22, 2022 in an attempt to sell a mortgage. Lending Bug, Inc. is a Michigan-based lending company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com LOUISIANA: Victor Seeks to Add Offenders to Party Petitioners ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REV. EROL VICTOR SR. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01539-CJB-DMD (E.D. La.), the Rev. Errol Victor, Sr., moves for the listed incarcerated offenders with a 10-2 or 11-1 verdict names to be added as an indispensable party petitioner to the civil action sub judice: The listed incarcerated offenders include Charles Gray; Dveil Freeman; Kendall Milton; Steve Stewart; Gregory Thomas; Joseph Holmes; Rodney White; Carlwyn Turner; William Brossette; Austin Ilernard; Michael Turner; Claude Roberson; Willie Dunn; Elvis Singleton; Michael Johnson; Richard Darby; Bradely Berry; Hampton Robinson; Roderick Vidau; Anthony Pludohmme; Kevin Lewis; and Raymond McGary. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPkXQf at no extra charge.[CC] MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Seeks More Time to File Objections ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karl Thibodeaux v. Marcus Myers, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01630-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for which to file "Objections" to Magistrate Report and Recommendation and/or a "Reply" to any other proposed "Responses" filed by the Defendants. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YMnmfh at no extra charge. MARINE CREDIT: Monroe FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MONROE, v. MARINE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00329-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order: 1. certifying, for the purposes of settlement, the action as a collective action of the following individuals pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): The six hourly-paid, non-exempt Mortgage Loan Representatives employed by Defendant within the two years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint who recorded a meal period and/or rest break of short duration of less than 30 consecutive minutes in Defendant's electronic timekeeping system and who filed their Consent to Join Forms with the Court; 2. appointing the named plaintiff, Robert Monroe, as Collective Representative for the FLSA Collective; 3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC, as Collective Counsel for the FLSA Collective; 4. approving the parties' Settlement Agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide wage dispute under the FLSA; 5. instructing the Defendant's counsel to provide Plaintiff's counsel with settlement checks for the Settlement Class within 14 calendar days of the Order; 7. instructing Collective Counsel to promptly send the settlement checks to the FLSA Collective members via U.S. Mail following receipt of the settlement checks from Defendant's counsel; 8. instructing that the FLSA Collective Members have one- hundred and 120 days to cash their individual settlement checks, otherwise the individual settlement checks and amounts will revert to and be retained by Defendant; and 9. dismissing with prejudice the FLSA Collective members' released FLSA WWPCL claims Marine Credit is a member-owned financial cooperative headquartered in La Crosse, Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPAuzC at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1917: Court Approves Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order approving notice of direct purchaser class certification: -- The Court approves the form of the long form notice. -- The Court also approves the form of the summary notice. -- The Court finds that taken together, mailing of the Notice (U.S. Mail and/or electronic mail), publication of the Summary Notice, and posting of the Notice to the Internet are: (i) the best notice practicable; (ii) reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise class members of the certification of this matter and of their right to exclude themselves; (iii) reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meet all applicable requirements of due process and any other applicable requirements under federal law. -- The Plaintiffs' settlement administrator shall provide notice of the class certification to class members. The settlement administrator shall provide direct notice of class certification to all members of the Litigated Class on or before a date set 21 days from the entry of the Order. -- Each class member shall have the right to be excluded from the Litigated Class by mailing a request for exclusion to the settlement administrator no later than a date set, at least 45 days after mailing of the direct notice. -- Any class member who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Litigated Class as provided above shall be bound by the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final judgment. On August 31, 2022, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a motion to disseminate notice of Direct Purchaser Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vo9yVf at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2566: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation (MDL No. 2566), Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Requests for production of April 7, 2023 documents and interrogatories served by: -- Requests for admissions served May 19, 2023 by: -- Fact Discovery to be completed June 30, 2023 by: -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts June 9, 2023 must be designated by: -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts July 21, 2023 must be deposed by: -- Defendants' trial experts must July 7, 2023 be designated by: -- The Defendants' trial experts Aug. 11, 2023 must be deposed by: -- Dispositive Motions due by: Sept. 29, 2023 -- All motions for class certification due by: Sept. 29, 2023 -- Responses to dispositive 60 days after motions due: service The nature of suit contract -- securities fraud.[CC] MDL 2918: Class Cert Briefing Sched Amended in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2918), Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order amending briefing schedule on end-user and reseller plaintiffs' motions for class certification as follows: -- The Defendants' Oppositions to December 23, 2022 Motions for Class Certification, expert reports in opposition to class certification, and any motions to exclude any opinions of End-User Plaintiffs' or Reseller Plaintiffs' experts will be due on: -- Class Plaintiffs' Replies and March 6, 2023. expert rebuttal reports in support of their Motions for Class Certification, and any oppositions to any motions of Defendants to exclude opinions of Plaintiffs' experts will be due on: The actions in these MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXthdh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com - and - Victoria Sims, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON • KING, LLP 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 Facsimile: (651) 789-4818 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark H. Hamer, Esq. Mark G. Weiss, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 452-7077 Facsimile: (202) 416-7177 E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com - and - J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5860 Facsimile: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com MDL 2918: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2918), Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask Court to enter an order amending briefing schedule on end-user and reseller plaintiffs' motions for class certification: 1. The Defendants' Oppositions to Dec. 23, 2022 Motions for Class Certification, expert reports in opposition to class certification, and any motions to exclude any opinions of End-User Plaintiffs' or Reseller Plaintiffs' experts will be due on: and 2. Class Plaintiffs' Replies and expert March 6, 2023 rebuttal reports in support of their Motions for Class Certification, and any oppositions to any motions of Defendants to exclude opinions of Plaintiffs' experts will be due on: All actions of this MDL share complex factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hIIySK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com - and - Victoria Sims, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON • KING, LLP 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 Facsimile: (651) 789-4818 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com Counsel for the Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., and NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd., are: Mark H. Hamer, Esq. Mark G. Weiss, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 452-7077 Facsimile: (202) 416-7177 E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com Counsel for the Defendants TDK Corporation, Hutchinson Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co., Ltd., and SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., are: J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5860 Facsimile: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com MDL 3001: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Illegal Gambling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ GOOGLE LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino Style Games Litigation, Case No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs brought this class action complaint against Defendants Apple, Google, and Facebook for violating various state consumer protection laws by distributing game applications that operate as social casinos and thus permit illegal gambling. On April 8, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case, which Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 2, 2022. The Court held that the Plaintiffs' first and third theories of liability must be dismissed under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, the Plaintiffs' second theory of liability is not barred by section 230. The appellate case is captioned Jennifer Andrews, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 22-16921, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp.'s Mediation Questionnaire was due December 22, 2022; -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2023; -- Appellants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp.'s opening brief is due on March 23, 2023; -- Appellees Jennifer Andrews, Michael Brown, Terri Bruschi, Clint Englebretson, Amanda Klotz, Frances Long, Shellie Lords, Erica Montoya, John Sarley, Edgar Smith, John Sparks and Maria Valencia-Torres answering brief is due on April 24, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JENNIFER ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON, PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 - and - Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9976 (205) 541-7759 (205) 930-9900 - and - Gregory Scott Dovel, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 - and - Cecily Jordan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 - and - Jill M. Manning, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 10019 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 - and - Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 - and - Glenn Chappell Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Hassan Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 - and - Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue, S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Defendants-Appellants GOOGLE LLC, et al. are represented by: Teresa Michaud, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE, LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-4725 - and - Bradford K. Newman, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP 600 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 856-2400 MEDIGAP LIFE: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. MEDIGAP LIFE, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81427-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time to file her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff initiated this class action on September 13, 2022, and Defendant answered the complaint on October 28, 2022. On November 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the trial date and bifurcate discovery. The motion was fully briefed on November 29, 2022, and the Court denied the motion on December 2, 2022. On November 30, 2022, Magistrate Matthewman held a scheduling conference in this action. On December 2, 2022, a pretrial scheduling order was entered which set a motion for class certification deadline of December 19, 2022. On December 8, 2022, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference. On December 5, 2022, the Plaintiff served her first set of discovery on Defendant and is awaiting responses thereto. The Plaintiff anticipates receiving a response to her discovery requests by January 9, 2023. The Plaintiff requires responses to her discovery in advance of her motion for class certification in order to support her motion with information that is in the sole control of Defendant. Moreover, on December 15, 2022, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), the parties provided consent to proceed before Magistrate Matthewman and waived their right to proceed before Honorable Judge Middlebrooks. Accordingly, the parties are awaiting a revised case management schedule. Medigap specializes in Medicare Health Plans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMgNF8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com MIDLAND STATES: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE GARCEA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. MIDLAND STATES BANK, INC., Case No. CACE-22-018448 (Fla. Cir, Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On December 5, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff. The Communication advised that "Your most recent due date has passed and we have still not received your payment. Please make a payment immediately to avoid any late fees. If you are currently under Disaster Relief, please disregard this notice." The Communication was sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated section 559.72(17) of the FCCPA, the suit claims. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of FCCPA Class: "all all persons persons with Florida addresses that the Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf sent an electronic mail communication between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in connection with the collection of a consumer debt." Midland States is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com NAR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Burnett, et al. ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT, RYAN HENDRICKSON, JEROD BREIT, SCOTT TRUPIANO, AND JEREMY KEEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order denying the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has presented genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Section 2-G-1 and Defendants' actions in enforcing a scheme to stabilize commission rates violates the Sherman Act and Missouri's Antitrust Law. The Court need not repeat its findings here. Further, as there is genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants' conduct violated federal and state law, it follows that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants engaged in unfair practices that offend public policy. For those reasons, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to show an ascertainable loss. Plaintiffs argue that, because they assert they received nothing of value from the Buyer-Broker, they are not required to show an ascertainable loss. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMV1PU at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Ira Suit Over Unregistered Offerings ------------------------------------------------------------- KINNIE MA IRA; JEFFERY S. GRAMM IRA; STACY GREASOR IRA; VICTOR WADE IRA; KAZUE BELL; DEAN CROOKS; CORRI RENE EDEN; CATHERINE KOMINOS; KAREN LOCH; ROBERT A. STONE LIVING TRUST; and SHIRLEY STONE LIVING TRUST, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION; NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION; B. RILEY FINANCIAL, INC.; B. RILEY PRINCIPAL MERGER CORP. III, Case No. 1:22-cv-01325 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action arising out of Defendants' improper conduct in offering and selling limited partnership interests in the GPB-sponsored Funds at the direction of Ascendant Capital, LLC. According to the complaint, the Defendants sold and/or materially assisted with the sale of the Securities through a massive series of improperly unregistered public offerings (the "Offerings") in which the GPB Group paid themselves and a network of numerous brokers that included the Defendants, exorbitant fees and falsely promised investors, including the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, prompt dividends of 8% or more per annum from "operating profits," and an expected net Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") of 15%. Ascendant Capital, GPB's primary distribution agent, and GPB Capital Holdings, LLC itself, were in fact both "commonly controlled" by their principals, David Gentile and Jeffry Schneider. However, neither GPB, nor Ascendant Capital, nor their principals made disclosure of this co-ownership and common control to investors in the offering materials for the Securities or otherwise. The failure to disclose this gross conflict of interest -- that the issuers of GPB securities and the purportedly independent agent selling these securities were commonly controlled -- rendered the offerings of these Securities illegal, says the suit. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants were actually aware of material misrepresentations and omissions in the Offering Materials but effected the Offerings nevertheless -- because of their greed. National Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiaries, offers securities brokerage services. Ascendant is an alternative asset management firm that was secretly acting as the general partner of each of the Funds.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq. Ryan Shelton, Esq. EDMUNDSON SHELTON WEISS PLLC 317 Grace Lane, Suite 210 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 596-3058 Facsimile: (512) 532-6637 E-mail: ryan@eswpllc.com jesse@eswpllc.com - and - Peter S. Linden, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: plinden@kaplanfox.com - and - Richard L. Stone, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 358-4800 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRI'ANA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONWIDE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:22-cv-03518-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): (a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated; (b) Directing that notice be sent by United States mail, email, and text message (as set forth below) to the following: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees of Defendant who were paid for at least 40 hours of work in any workweek and had a meal break deduction applied to their hours worked beginning three years prior to the filing date of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case;" (c) Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms; and (d) Directing Defendant Nationwide Children's Hospital ("Defendant") to provide within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above that includes their full names, dates of employment, position(s), last known mailing addresses, personal email addresses, and mobile phone numbers ("Roster"). This case involves the Defendant's unlawful companywide policies and/or practices, including that it requires meal break deductions despite hourly healthcare employees not enjoying bona fide meal breaks. The Named Plaintiff has worked at the Defendant from February 2022 to the present as an hourly phlebotomist. The Defendant is a comprehensive pediatric hospitals and research institutes in the United States and operates multiples healthcare facilities throughout central Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FUprNx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA MENGONI; LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA MILLER; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ; LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA MORAS; and ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order: 1. granting the defendant's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony; 2. denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and 3. denying as moot defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' expert declarations. The Court has excluded the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Kosmas Galatsis and Peter Leiss. Plaintiffs' position is that their experts' testimony proves the existence of three distinct defects that are uniform across all Class Vehicles and is confirmed by the testimony of Craig Pike, a Nissan engineer. Court has already concluded that neither Galatsis's nor Leiss's opinions can serve as proof that all Class Vehicles share the uniform carbon monoxide defect that Plaintiffs allege. The Court has also explained that Pike's testimony neither concerns the Class Vehicles nor confirms Plaintiffs' experts' defect theory. Without Galatsis's and Leiss's testimony, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the commonality required under Rule 23(a)(2) -- they have not proffered any other evidence of a common, uniform defect in the Class Vehicles. The Court has detailed the background facts of this action in its prior orders granting in part Nissan's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Fourth Amended Complaint on July 8, 2021 and June 8, 2022. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"), which is the operative complaint. The 5AC alleges that the following Nissan and Infiniti vehicles share the alleged defect: -- 2002–2006 Nissan Altima -- 2007–2012 Nissan Altima -- 2013–2018 Nissan Altima -- 2008–2013 Nissan Altima Coupe -- 2004–2008 Nissan Maxima -- 2009–2014 Nissan Maxima -- 2015–2018 Nissan Maxima -- 2003–2007 Nissan Murano -- 2009–2014 Nissan Murano -- 2015–2018 Nissan Murano -- 2014–2018 Infiniti Q50 -- 2014–2018 Infiniti Q70 The Plaintiffs are six individuals who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle and experienced the alleged defect. They seek to represent, and have moved for certification of, four classes of persons who purchased or leased Class Vehicles: -- The California Warranty Class: All California residents who purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan and assert claims for breach of express and implied warranty under California law. Pascal and Mengoni seek to represent the California Warranty Class. -- The California Consumer Protection Class: All persons who purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in California and assert claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Pascal, Mengoni, McMorrow, and Miller seek to represent the California Consumer Protection Class. -- The New Jersey Consumer Protection Class: All persons who purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in New Jersey and assert claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Moras seeks to represent the New Jersey Consumer Protection Class. -- The New York Consumer Protection Class: All persons who purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in New York and assert claims under New York General Business Law. Carnevale seeks to represent the New York Consumer Protection Class. The Plaintiffs seek certification of these classes pursuant to both Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs contend that, notwithstanding any differences in the applicable state laws, the consumer protection statutes are substantially similar and claims brought under those statutes can be substantiated with evidence common to all members of each class. Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vcbMMC at no extra charge.[CC] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Class Cert. Response Deadlines Extended -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the defendants request for an extension of the response and reply deadlines regarding motion to certify class: -- Response to Motion due by Jan. 30, 2023. -- Reply to Response to Motion due by Feb. 24, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ollie's Bargain Outlet offers brand name merchandise at up to 70% off the fancy store prices.[CC] PELICAN INVESTMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Webb TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Dean Webb, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00699-CJC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit which was removed from Superior Court, County of Orange, is brought against the Defendants for placing telephone calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote and sell services, without obtaining prior consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Sept. 19, 2022, Defendants Sing for Service, LLC d/b/a Mepco, Guy Renny, The Fortegra Group LLC, Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc., and Tiptree, Inc. filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On same day, the Defendants filed a joint motion to stay case pending arbitration. On Nov. 10, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and Defendant Mepco's motion to dismiss. The Court also granted in part and denied in part The Fortegra Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Defendant Guy Renny's motion to dismiss. The Order was entered by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The appellate case is captioned Dean Webb, et al. v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56177, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due December 22, 2022; -- Appellant Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC opening brief is due on February 13, 2023; -- Appellees Edgar Garcia and Dean Webb answering brief is due on March 13, 2023; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DEAN WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 - and - Michael E. Vinding, Esq. BRADY & VINDING 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 220 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-3400 Defendants-Appellants PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC are represented by: Dwight Beckstrand, Esq. BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 235-7150 PGA TOUR: Class Action Over Civil Conspiracy Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrea Gussoni, writing for Tennis World, reports that the lawsuit pending in the US District Court of Northern California. What is now a confrontation between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf, although the lawsuit was originally filed by a (now small) group of Saudi League players, is moving forward. But the PGA Tour, pending this proceeding, a few months ago suffered another summons. The PGA Tour, situation Larry Klayman is a lawyer, but he is also the president of Freedom Watch, a US organization whose mission is to "protect and promote freedom in the United States and in the rest of the world" This, of course, causes Klayman to often be at the center of controversy. Well, last July the Philadelphia lawyer filed a class action against the PGA Tour in the 15th Judicial District of Palm Beach County. But he also called out the DP World Tour, OWGR and the Golf Channel The PGA Tour and its partners (by the way, Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley are also called to answer in person) are accused of "monopolization, market splitting, refusal to deal and civil conspiracy" In practice we are faced with an antitrust complaint, and for the PGA Tour it is not good news, given that it has already undergone an investigation of the same tenor in the past. The thesis supported by the lawyer Klayman is that the collusive behavior held by all the parties involved, aimed at inflicting damage on the League led by Greg Norman, has indirectly damaged the consumers. Who in this case are the fans of our sport (Klayman in primis). The damage would consist in the decrease in the quality of the "product" offered by the PGA Tour following the bans inflicted on players who have signed with LIV Golf. It is yesterday's news that on this new front that has opened up, the PGA Tour has lost the first round. Through a post on his Twitter profile, Klayman made his first victory public. The Palm Beach Court has in fact rejected the motion to dismiss the class action filed by the lawyers of the PGA Tour. In practice, this means that the case moves on to the next step. That is the phase in which the evidence requested by each party in the dispute must be presented. And Larry Klayman has made specific requests, especially for people called to testify. A few names, by way of example: Jay Monahan, Rory McIlroy, Tiger Woods and Davis Love III. 2023 is coming, but there are too many courtrooms and too few golf courses on the horizon. It's not a nice prospect. [GN] PROGYNY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Progyny, Inc. PGNY resulting from allegations that Progyny may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Progyny securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10272 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 7, 2022, market analyst Jehoshaphat Research published a report addressing Progyny, entitled "A Love Child of Accounting Games & Credit Risk" (the "Jehoshaphat Report"). The Jehoshaphat Report alleges that Progyny "is deceiving the investor community via its financial reporting practices" and that Progyny "is actually unprofitable but masks this problem with accounting games." Among other items, the report alleges that Progyny "apparently decided to recently stop accruing allowances for customer cancellations, which . . . may have added up to another ~400bps to both revenues and gross profit margins" and that "credit losses" reported by Progyny "are more like reversals of inflated revenues," citing the Company's "corporate customer base of high quality." On this news, Progyny's stock price fell sharply intraday trading on December 7, 2022. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PURELY ELIZABETH: Reyes Sues Over Mislabeled Granola Products ------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v PURELY ELIZABETH LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022-01297834-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Sup., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that the Defendant manufactures and sells mislabeled granola and similar food products, such as "Keto Granola Clusters Vanilla Almond Butter", throughout the United States.. To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, the Defendant deceptively sells the Products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are almost half empty. The Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to all flavors of its Products sold in opaque and partially opaque containers. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid a premium price for the Product, had she known that the size of the container and product labeled were false and misleading, says the suit. PURELY ELIZABETH LLC provides food products. The Company produces nutrient-dense granola, oatmeal, muesli, and cereal products. Purely Elizabeth serves customers in the State of Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: 9949) 706-6469 QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Certifies Class of Stock Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MALRIAT, et al., v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION, et al.,Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order 1. certifying a class of: "investors that purchased QuantumScape stock during the class period and who say they were injured based on the alleged misrepresentations and subsequent fall in stock prices;" 2. appointing class representatives and class counsel. After recognizing that I previously rejected these arguments, the defendants say that Cain's calculation method fails to distinguish between stock price changes caused by their alleged misrepresentations and stock price changes caused by other market factors. This is essentially an argument that the plaintiffs "must demonstrate that the defendant's deceptive conduct caused their claimed economic loss." The Supreme Court has said that plaintiffs do not need to prove loss causation at the class certification stage, even where "intervening causes" beyond the alleged misrepresentation "such as 'changed economic circumstances, changed investor expectations, new industry-specific or firm-specific facts, conditions, or other events' were responsible for the loss or part of it." Accordingly, the plaintiffs meet the predominance requirements of Rule 23(b). The defendants do not contest whether a class action is superior to other available methods of litigation. The plaintiffs in this putative securities class action allege that the Defendants QuantumScape, Jagdeep Singh, Timothy Holme, and Kevin Hettrich misled investors about the progress and effectiveness of their "solid-state batteries." Solid-state batteries are an aspiring competitor to conventional lithium-ion batteries for use in electric vehicles. QuantumScape is an American company that develops solid state lithium metal batteries for electric cars. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YHX5yz at no extra charge.[CC] RAFEAL'S GOURMET: Conditional Certification Bid Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADALINE WINNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. RAFEAL'S GOURMET DINER, LLC dba THE NILE, an Oregon Limited Liability Company; ABDRABARRASOOL M. BUESSA, an individual; and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Winningham v. Rafeal's Gourmet Diner, LLC et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00382-MK (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order: 1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification; 2. denying the implementation of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and instead directing the parties to confer and finalize a notice and proposed order that is (1) in accordance with this opinion and (2) distributed by a mutually agreed-upon third-party claims administrator; and 3. denying the request for oral arguments as unnecessary. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BTYEiY at no extra charge.[CC] RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY NGUYEN, v. RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference and to Defer Briefing on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied. 2. The Defendant Raymond James & Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is granted. 3. The Parties are compelled to arbitrate Plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen's claims against Raymond James & Associates, Inc. 4. This case is stayed pending the arbitration of Plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen's claims against Raymond James & Associates, Inc. 5. The parties shall file a notice informing the Court that the arbitration has been concluded, or that their dispute has otherwise been resolved, within ten days of either of such events. 6. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and administratively close this file. As Defendant notes, Plaintiff does not dispute that the arbitration clause in the Client Agreement is valid, enforceable, and binding. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff's individual tort claims fall within its scope and have not been resolved by the Order denying class certification. Further, Defendant has not waived its right to compel arbitration. Therefore, the parties are compelled to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual claims against Defendant. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen filed a lawsuit against RJA on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals. A client of RJA since 2015, she asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Nguyen alleges that in 2016, her RJA financial advisor recommended that she transfer her assets into a fee-based investment account but failed to conduct an analysis of the account's suitability for her investment strategy. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the Court's finding in the Order denying class certification that it was unrefuted that Plaintiff's RJA advisor conducted the required assessment of suitability constitutes a conclusion that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding a critical issue necessary to all four of Plaintiff's individual claims. RJA operates as a wealth management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jrIrLx at no extra charge.[CC] RIDERSSHARE INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. Ridersshare, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-02329 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Riders Share is a peer-to-peer marketplace startup that offers street-legal motorcycle rentals.[CC] SAFE STREETS: Anderson's Bid for Final OK of $1.49MM Deal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mark Anderson, Plaintiff v. Safe Streets USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Anderson's renewed unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' settlement and for attorneys' fees. Safe Streets is in the business of selling and installing security systems. Anderson worked as an installation technician for Safe Streets between October 2014 and December 2016. He brought this wage-and-hour lawsuit on behalf of installation technicians against Safe Streets, alleging it did not compensate them for overtime pay, double time, or wage equipment reimbursements, among other things. His complaint was styled as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), putative class action under Rule 23, and representative action under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In March 2018, Safe Streets moved to compel arbitration, asserting Anderson had signed an arbitration agreement, in which he waived his right to bring a collective or class action. It also requested to stay Anderson's PAGA claim under the then-controlling precedent, which held PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration. Finding Safe Streets' arguments persuasive, the Court compelled Anderson to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis and stayed his PAGA claim until the arbitration's completion. The arbitrator awarded Anderson $8,915 in damages for his individual claims, as well as $78,243.60 in attorneys' fees and $17,189.36 in costs. As confirmed at hearing on the pending motion in the case, Safe Streets also paid $24,910 in arbitration fees and expenses. After the arbitration, the parties represented to the Court that the case now consists of a single cause of action under PAGA, and they proposed a discovery schedule for only the PAGA claim. They also represented the complaint's class allegations are no longer relevant to the matter. Safe Streets' answer, filed after the arbitration, corroborated these representations, as it stated his case cannot be maintained as a collective or class action pursuant to a prior order of the Court. Based on these representations and the court's previous order, the Court understood Anderson's sole remaining claim to be his PAGA claim. Over a year after the arbitration, the parties settled in mediation, and Anderson sought preliminary approval of their agreement. The settlement provides a total settlement amount of $1.49 million, of which $890,000 is allocated to Anderson's "class claims," $491,700 to attorneys' fees, $25,000 to litigation costs, $10,000 to Anderson's incentive award, up to $12,000 for the settlement administrator fee, and at least $61,300 to Anderson's PAGA claim. No amount is allocated toward a FLSA collective. The total settlement amount reflects approximately 48 percent of the total estimated value of Anderson's PAGA and class claims; Anderson's expert valued Anderson's PAGA claim at $1,209,850 and his class claims at $1,287,454, for a sum of $2,497,304. The class period for the settlement ends in March of 2021, because, on this date, the Defendant issued new policies that addressed the practices at issue in this action. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement with the understanding it resolved only the PAGA claim. Anderson then sought final approval, but he did not address whether his sole remaining claim is under PAGA. The Court thus denied the final approval because (1) the settlement improperly divided the available fund between PAGA and class claims, although Anderson's only remaining claim was under PAGA, and (2) the settlement did not distribute 75 percent of the civil penalties to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), as required under PAGA. As noted, Anderson renews his unopposed motion for the settlement's final approval and for attorneys' fees. The parties have not changed any terms of the settlement. Instead, Anderson asks the Court to reconsider its earlier denial because rather than resolving just a single PAGA claim, the Settlement also resolves all of the class claims brought on behalf of the absent class members. After reviewing Anderson's brief and the proposed settlement agreement, the Court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss at hearing: (1) why Anderson's collective claim is not moot under Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013), and (2) why Safe Streets is not judicially estopped from settling Anderson's collective and class claims after arguing successfully that Anderson had waived his right to assert such claims. Aderson then filed a supplemental brief without leave of court, contrary to the Court's standing orders. The supplemental brief acknowledged for the first time that the proposed settlement agreement would also resolve his FLSA collective claim. The Court held the hearing on Nov. 4, 2022. Based on the parties' arguments at the hearing and after reviewing the proposed settlement agreement once more, Judge Mueller finds the proposed agreement would in fact resolve Anderson's collective claim under the FLSA, as well as his claims on behalf of a proposed class, and his PAGA claim. Having considered the parties' arguments, she denies the motion. Anderson seeks approval of his agreement to settle collective, class, and PAGA claims. Hybrid actions such as these "must --like any stand-alone FLSA case or stand-alone class suit -- meet the collective action requirements to proceed as an FLSA case and the class action requirements to proceed as a class suit. Judge Mueller thus considers Anderson's claims separately. The parties agree, as does the Court, that the PAGA claim is not moot. That claim was not arbitrated. Judge Muller needs therefore consider only whether the collective and class claims are moot. Judge Mueller finds that Anderson's counsel admitted the arbitrator's award resolved his individual FLSA claim. His collective claim is thus moot and the Court must dismiss his mooted collective claim and deny his motion to approve the settlement of that claim. Anderson's collective and class claims are also moot. So Judge Mueller dismisses those claims, and denies the motion for final approval as presented. She finds that Anderson does argue his individual claims are not moot because he has not obtained the injunctive relief sought in his complaint. In other filings, however, he has taken the opposite position. Moreover, to the extent there remain any policies that continue to violate labor laws, Anderson, as a former employee, does not have standing to pursue an injunction against the company's policies. Although she denies Anderson's motion for final approval, Judge Mueller does not rule out the possible intervention by other members of the putative collective or class. Anderson may also pursue his remaining PAGA claim. But any renewed motion to approve a settlement agreement -- either with a new plaintiff or for Anderson's remaining PAGA claim -- must address the deficiencies noted. Reviewing the substance of the parties' agreement, Judge Muller finds five shortcomings prevent her from approving the parties' agreement to settle FLSA claims. First, Anderson neither specifies what FLSA claims are subject to the release nor discusses the value of these claims. Second, Anderson has not shown the Court has authority to approve a settlement that releases FLSA claims without first certifying a collective action. Rule 23 class actions are of course fundamentally different from collective actions under the FLSA. Third, Anderson has not shown the parties' collective settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. Fourth, under the current settlement agreement, class members opt into the collective action and release their FLSA claims when they cash, deposit or endorse their settlement check. Finally, the parties must provide potential plaintiffs accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the collective action, so that they can make informed decisions about whether or not to participate. Next, the parties' PAGA settlement provides $200,000 for the class members and only $61,300 for the LWDA. Anderson cites other district courts' approval decisions in similar cases. These decisions, however, are not binding. Nor are they persuasive. These courts did not justify their decision to depart from the Labor Code's clear requirements. Finally, Among Anderson's litigation costs, he may not recover $12,478.75 in expert fees. Under the applicable federal law, Anderson is entitled to compensation only for "court appointed experts." Because Anderson's expert witness was not appointed by the court, he may not recover the expert fees. Moreover, the arbitrator found expert fees to be non-compensable. If Anderson is now seeking to recover the expert fees rejected by the arbitrator, as noted, he is unable to do so under the Federal Arbitration Act. For the reasons she stated, Judge Mueller denies the Plaintiff's renewed motion for final approval of settlement and for attorneys' fees. Absent the filing of a renewed motion, the parties will file a joint status report within 45 days of her Order's filed date. A status conference is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2023. The Order resolves ECF Nos. 56 and 57. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r84j2cb from Leagle.com. SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Alston ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAREED ALSTON, v. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01569-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order that: -- No later than 7 days following final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-cv02590-CDP, the parties shall file dismissal papers with respect to the instant case. All activity and pending deadlines in the instant case are stayed until that time, and the case shall be administratively closed. -- All pending motions are dismissed without prejudice, as moot, and the trial setting of February 13, 2023 is vacated. Upon notice of counsel that the parties have reached a settlement in connection with this case and the class action Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19- cv02590-CDP. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOHgWI at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY LAIRD and ANDRE ROBERTS, v. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01567-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order that: -- No later than 7 days following final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-cv02590-CDP, the parties shall file dismissal papers with respect to the instant case. All activity and pending deadlines in the instant case are stayed until that time, and the case shall be administratively closed. -- All pending motions are dismissed without prejudice, as moot, and the trial setting of February 13, 2023 is vacated. Upon notice of counsel that the parties have reached a settlement in connection with this case and the class action Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19- cv02590-CDP. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PPJjG4 at no extra charge.[CC] SECRETLAB US: Nugent Sues Over Mislabeled Gaming Chair Products --------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN NUGENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECRETLAB US, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-SK (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to prevent Defendant from continuing to falsely advertise on its website a purported discount on its Secretlab Gaming Chairs (the "Chairs" or "Products"). According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the discount is based on the Chairs' purported original price, with a corresponding purported savings advertised to consumers. Unbeknownst to consumers, these price discounts are false because the Chairs were never sold at the purported original price, or if they were ever sold at the purported original price, the Chairs were offered for the original price for an inconsequential period of time and then continuously discounted, rendering the purported original price to be false and misleading, says the suit. SECRETLAB US, INC. markets, sells, and distributes gaming chairs and gaming desk. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com SERVICE KING: Supplemental Filing Date Extended to Feb. 17, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERVICE KING, INC., a California corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and DOES 2 through 100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to continue the supplemental filing deadline in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from December 21, 2022 to February 17, 2023. Service King specializes in auto body repair. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C0kFNb at no extra charge.[CC] SIMPLY MEDICAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Carrico Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrico v. Simply Medical, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08190-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Collen McMahon entered an order regarding case management plan: 1. Discovery pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. Jan. 12, 2023 P.26(a) shall be exchanged by: 2. No additional partied may be Feb. 16, 2023 joined after: 3. No pleading may be amended after: Feb. 16, 2023 4. All discovery, including expert July 6, 2023 discovery, must be completed on or before: 5. A joint pretrial order in the form May 5, 2023 prescribed in Judge McMahon's Individual Rules, together with all other pretrial submissions required by those rules: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V8QLgo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlayers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jamie Haar, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS Suite 1700, 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 492-2070 E-mail: jamie.haar@ogletree.com SKIPPER 1339: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Brooks Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SKIPPER 1339, LLC d/b/a JEN'S DEN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and CYRUS B KURTZ, III, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02203 (N.D. Ohio, December 7, 2022) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at the Defendants' Jen's Den Gentlemen's Club in Akron, Ohio during the period 2016 through about January 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers worked an average total of about 20 to 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them any wages and/or any other form of compensation for hours that they worked or performed as exotic dancers. The Defendants allegedly improperly classified them as non-employee contractors. Instead of paying them wages, the Defendants required them to pay a mandatory “house fee” kickback payment in the amount of approximately $20.00 to $40.00 per shift. In addition, the Defendants deducted and/or assigned portion of the tips they received from the Defendants' customers, including a mandatory $10.00 “tip out” payment to the Defendants' security or bouncer. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated exotic dancers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages found to be due and owing to them, an award in the amount of all kickbacks, tips, and gratuities unlawfully taken and/or assigned by the Defendants, statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Skipper 1339, LLC d/b/a Jen's Den Gentlemen's Club operates a strip club. Cyrus B Kurtz, III is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 444113 Tel: (216) 308-1522 E-mail: Scott@TittleLawFirm.Com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@zagfirm.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Stays Newbold Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLAN NEWBOLD, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01572-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order that: -- The trial set on June 12, 2023, is vacated and all pending motions are denied without prejudice. -- The case is stayed until final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19- cv-02590-CDP. -- Counsel shall file within seven days of the date of Order on class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case 4:19-cv-02590-CDP a stipulation for dismissal, a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent judgment. -- Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hOV8zL at no extra charge.[CC] STELLAR MUTUAL: Vallesillo Allowed Leave to Seek Limited Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO VALLESILLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. STELLAR MUTUAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELLAR MUTUAL GLOBAL INC, a Delaware corporation; DANIEL SHARBANI, an individual; and JOHN DOE, an unknown business entity, Case No. 8:22-cv-00307-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to seek limited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. The Plaintiff may conduct discovery as to the issues of class certification and damages. Plaintiff shall file a proposed scheduling order for the time necessary to complete such discovery by January 10, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 24, 2022, and an Amended Complaint on October 12, 2022, seeking to "stop the defendants' illegal practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers whose phone numbers were registered on the Federal Do Not Call Registry" in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges from April through June 2022, he received approximately a dozen unsolicited phones call from defendants John Doe and/or Stellar Mutual soliciting Stellar Mutual's loan products. The Plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a class of similarly situated individuals defined as those who "(1) from the last 4 years to present (2) Defendants called more than once in a 12-month period (3) whose telephone numbers were registered on the Federal Do Not Call registry for more than 30 days at the time of the call." On December 12, 2022, the Plaintiff obtained Clerk's Entry of Default against all the defendants because they failed to file a responsive pleading after service of the amended complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I0cjcq at no extra charge.[CC] SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Dec. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. f/k/a Spartan Acquisition Corp. II ("Sunlight" or the "Company") SUNL. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Sunlight securities between January 25, 2021 and September 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") Investors are hereby notified that they have until February 14, 2023, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below into a browser: https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/SunlightFinancialHoldingsInc There is no cost or obligation to you. On September 28, 2022, Sunlight issued a press release "announc[ing] that an installer liquidity event and volatile interest rates will impact its full-year 2022 financial performance" and that "[a]s a result, the Company is withdrawing its previously-provided full-year 2022 outlook metrics." Sunlight stated that "[o]ne of Sunlight's largest solar installers has notified the Company that due to cash flow challenges, the installer is in the process of winding down its operations, likely restricting its ability to fully meet its financial obligations. As a result, Sunlight expects to impair $30 to $33 million in advances to that installer on the Company's balance sheet as of September 30, 2022." The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective underwriting and risk evaluation with respect to its contractor advance program; (2) that Sunlight lacked the oversight and periodic monitoring systems necessary to timely detect bad debt associated with its contractor advance program; (3) that the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and reporting of non-cash advance receivables; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to take a non-cash advance receivables impairment charge exceeding $30 million; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sunlight class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Sunlight class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 Investor Relations jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHIE FUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC. f/k/a SPARTAN ACQUISITION CORP. II, GEOFFREY STRONG, MATTHEW POTERE, JAMES CROSSEN, BARRY EDINBURG, and RODNEY YODER, Case No. 1:22-cv-10658 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sunlight securities between January 25, 2021 and September 28, 2022, inclusive (the Class Period), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, the Defendants materially misled the investing public by inflating the price of Sunlight's securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make the Defendants' statements, not false and/or misleading. The statements and omissions were materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose material adverse information and/or misrepresented the truth about Sunlight's business, operations, and prospects as alleged herein. The Plaintiff contend that the Defendants carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to: -- deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members; and -- cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Sunlight's securities at artificially inflated prices. On September 28, 2022, after the market closed, Sunlight disclosed that it would record a "non-cash advance receivables impairment charge of $30 million to $33 million during the Company's fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2022." The Company explained that "the Company was informed of certain actions taken by one of its installer partners to address liquidity issues faced by the installer" which "would likely result in an inability of the Company to collect on advances outstanding to such installer." The same day, the Company also issued a press release withdrawing its full-year 2022 outlook due to the "installer liquidity event." Defendant Matthew Potere was quoted stating, "While our risk exposure with other contractor advances is much smaller (the next three largest partner advances being $10 million, $7 million, and $5 million respectively), we are re-underwriting all contractor partners' advances to further mitigate risk going forward." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or 57.1%, to close at $1.08 per share on September 29, 2022, thereby injuring investors. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: -- the Company lacked effective underwriting and risk evaluation with respect to its contractor advance program; and -- Sunlight lacked the oversight and periodic monitoring systems necessary to timely detect bad debt associated with its contractor advance program. Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS financing platform that provides residential solar and home improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS financing to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or other home improvements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. THE PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com SUPER BREAD: Fuentes, et al., Seek FLSA Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIONICIA FUENTES, LEONARDO RODRIGUEZ, EZEQUIEL CHIOZZA, CANDIDO PERALTA RODRIGUEZ, ANGEL PEREZ, FERNANDO FACAL, DREILYN SANTOS, KELVIN TAVERAS, and CHRISTOPHER VARGAS GARCIAS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. SUPER BREAD II CORP. and SUPER CAKES CORP., d/b/a SUPER BREAD AND SUPER CAKES BAKERY, ROXO3, LLC, d/b/a ROXO3, JOSE MARTINS, and CATARINA MARTINS, Case No. 2:18-cv-06736-EP-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and FLSA Certification; and 2. granting such other relief to Plaintiffs and putative Class and Collective Members as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the PlaintiffS' motion to certify class dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXpOeL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Rozger, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 80 Pine St., 33 rd Fl. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 Facsimile: (212) 509-8088 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Salvador Simao, Esq. Nicole Espin, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 233 Mt. Airy Road, 1st Floor Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 TATA CONSULTANCY: Katz Alleges Employment Discriminatory Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN KATZ, individually and in his representative capacity, Plaintiff v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD. Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07069 (D.N.J., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, to remedy pervasive, ongoing race and national origin discrimination by Defendant in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges Defendant's intentional pattern or practice of employment discrimination against Plaintiff and other individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin and Defendant's utilization of employment practices that have a disparate impact on these same groups. TCS's discrimination is systemic and ongoing, and impacts non-South Asians and non-Indians across the company, as well as applicants, who are disfavored in TCS' hiring, staffing, promotion, and termination/retention decisions, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to redress TCS' discriminatory practices. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. is an IT consulting company that is headquartered in Mumbai, India with its U.S. headquarters in Edison, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK LLC 788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 204 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 842-2070 Facsimile: (732) 879-0213 E-mail: jonr@ronrudlaw.com - and - Daniel Kotchen, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com TAYLOR COUNTY: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Jones Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES G. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAYLOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH FACILITES CORPORATION, d/b/a TAYLOR REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00169-GNS (W.D. Ky., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action for damages against Taylor Regional for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding sensitive patient PII and/or Private Health Information (PHI) including first and last names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, personal addresses, and sensitive patient medical treatment information. In January of 2022, the Defendant discovered unauthorized activity on its computer systems. The Defendant discovered that an unauthorized actor had access to patient PHI, on November 2, 2021, to January 19, 2022. In April of 2022, Mr. Jones received a letter from Taylor Regional. The Defendant offered no explanation for the delay between the initial discovery of the Breach and the belated notification to affected patients – delay that resulted in Mr. Jones and Class members suffering harm they otherwise could have avoided had a timely disclosure been made, the suit contends. The Defendant offered no help to Plaintiff or Class members in the form of credit monitoring services, instead simply encouraging to take on the task of monitoring their credit themselves, the suit adds. TAYLOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH FACILITES CORPORATION is a medical services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Whitfield, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 Facsimile: (270) 825-1163 E-mail: jwhitfield@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-5200 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com TESLA INC: Asks Judge to Send Class Action Suit to Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that until last month, a class-action lawsuit by Tesla owners looked as if it would reveal new details about the carmaker's self-driving technology, which has been blamed for serious accidents and deaths. But then Tesla deployed a legal strategy that has allowed it to avoid the kind of attention-grabbing lawsuits other carmakers regularly contend with. The company asked a judge to send the case to an arbitrator, who would hear it in private. Tesla's gambit is likely to succeed because of a provision in the contracts that the company's customers agree to when they buy electric cars from the company. Disputes between buyers and Tesla "will not be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator," the agreement says. In other words, buyers with grievances must give up their constitutional right to a trial in front of a judge and jury. Instead, their cases must be heard by an arbitrator paid for by Tesla. The contract language is an example of a long-running trend that legal scholars say has denied thousands or millions of people their day in court. Arbitration clauses buried in the fine print are widely used by businesses like banks, cable companies and nursing homes. But forced arbitration had been rare in the auto industry. Tesla is able to use arbitration more widely than its rivals because it sells cars directly to buyers. Established carmakers like General Motors, Ford Motor and Toyota sell through dealers and are less likely to have a direct contractual relationship with buyers. Conceived as a way to avoid costly litigation and relieve overburdened courts, arbitration has evolved into a system that favors corporations and leaves consumers little recourse, consumer groups and legal scholars say. Cynthia Estlund, a professor of law at New York University, calls arbitration a "black hole" because it helps companies make complaints effectively disappear. That's because arbitrators, often retired judges, typically hear cases in private, unlike courts open to the public. And arbitration clauses usually prohibit people with grievances from banding together in class-action suits to share the costs of lawyers, expert witnesses and so on. A Tesla owner whose bumper falls off or trunk latch malfunctions must file a complaint as an individual, even if hundreds of other people have the identical problem. In most cases, the cost of pursuing claims in arbitration exceeds the potential payoff, discouraging filings. "It's considered a get-out-of-jail-free card" for corporations, said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston labor lawyer whose clients include Tesla employees who say that the company laid them off this year without giving them adequate notice. In October, a federal judge in Texas dismissed a class-action suit by the workers, accepting Tesla's argument that the employees had signed binding arbitration agreements. (Other automakers such as Toyota also make at least some of their employees sign contracts with binding arbitration clauses.) In the class-action suit about Tesla's self-driving system, filed in federal court in California, customers are asserting that the company cheated them by exaggerating the capabilities of its technology. One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Thomas LoSavio, a resident of Hillsborough, Calif., said he paid $8,000 above the list price for optional self-driving software when he bought a new Tesla Model S in 2017, according to court documents. But he and other owners say the technology never delivered the level of autonomous driving promised by Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive. On the contrary, it has been implicated in fatal crashes, the lawsuit claims. Tesla argues that buyers knew that performance of the self-driving software depended on future advances in technology. "Since 2016, Tesla has made good on its promise by continuously improving the software and deploying it to customers via over-the-air software updates," the company said in court documents in November. Then Tesla filed a motion to force most of the owners to pursue their claims individually through arbitration. The judge in the case, Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., has not yet ruled on the motion. But the Supreme Court has given corporations a broad mandate to enforce arbitration agreements. Arbitration prevents the public from learning which vehicles have quality problems, said Gretchen Freeman Cappio, a partner at Keller Rohrback, a firm that has been involved in many lawsuits against automakers. "It makes you wonder what vehicle manufacturers are afraid of becoming public," she said. This year, inspired by the #MeToo movement, Congress banned forced arbitration for employees claiming sexual harassment or sexual assault. But for consumers and workers with other complaints, it remains ubiquitous. Tesla buyers can opt out of arbitration, and preserve their right to a trial, by sending a letter to the company within a month of buying a car. But few are aware of or exercise that option, plaintiff's lawyers said. Tesla and its lawyers did not respond to requests for comment. The American Arbitration Association, a nonprofit group that provides arbitration services to Tesla and other corporations, said in a statement that it "has implemented various procedures aimed at providing a fair and equitable forum for the resolution of consumer disputes," including a $200 limit on filing fees. The organization says it resolves consumer cases more than three times as fast as federal district courts. In recent years, some lawyers who represent consumers or employees have found a way to get around arbitration clauses. Lawyers recruit hundreds or thousands of clients with identical complaints and help them file individual claims in return for a cut of any judgment. The practice is similar to a class action, but more costly in part because of filing fees and the logistics of managing so many claims. For that reason, such mass arbitrations make financial sense only when customers can expect to collect at least $1,000 or so apiece in compensation. "Mass arbitration is not a magic bullet," said Warren Postman, managing partner of Keller Postman, which used the approach to pursue claims by DoorDash couriers that they had been underpaid. Consumers with smaller claims still fall through the cracks. And mass arbitrations remain largely confidential. Ms. Liss-Riordan, the Boston labor lawyer, said she planned to use the strategy on behalf of the laid-off Tesla workers. Arbitration does not protect Tesla from lawsuits by people who are not employees or customers. Tesla has been sued by shareholders and by victims of accidents involving Teslas owned by other people. Still, Tesla's relative immunity from consumer and employee litigation gives it a financial advantage over more established automakers. Since the end of 2017, the American Arbitration Association has handled 21 consumer complaints against Tesla, awarding a total of $280,000, according to the group's data. The association does not disclose what Tesla owners complained about, but they typically sought damages in the tens of thousands of dollars. By comparison, Ford Motor agreed in 2019 to pay $17 million to owners who complained about defects in their cars' entertainment systems. And Volkswagen agreed to pay $15 billion to owners of diesel vehicles with illegal emissions systems. Ford and Volkswagen have sold many millions of cars over the years, while Tesla sold fewer than one million last year. Even taking into account the difference in the number of cars produced by Tesla and its competitors, legal experts said the company's use of binding arbitration appeared to have saved it a lot of money. Recently other automakers have also been trying to deploy the same legal force field. Ford and others have begun inserting arbitration agreements into contracts for car loans from their credit divisions. In at least one case, in which owners of Ford F-150 pickup trucks claimed that defective V-8 engines consumed a lot of engine oil, a federal judge ruled that those agreements could be used to force buyers into arbitration. Ford maintains that arbitration is a better way to resolve disputes. Resolution of claims "should be fair, fast, efficient and proportional to the dispute," Ian Thibodeau, a Ford spokesman, said in an email. "Arbitration often achieves those goals faster and more effectively than the court system." In another recent case, though, a federal judge in Illinois denied a motion by Subaru to compel arbitration for an owner who had signed an arbitration agreement with a dealer. The owner claimed her privacy was violated by Subaru technology designed to tell whether drivers are being attentive. The judge ruled that an agreement between the dealer and the buyer did not apply to disputes with the manufacturer. Because of its direct sales model, Tesla stands apart from much of the industry, lawyers said. "Tesla appears to be unique among car companies in their use of arbitration clauses to avoid responsibility in courts of law," said Donald Slavik, who represents Derrick Monet, whose wife, Jenna Monet, was killed when their Tesla hit a parked fire truck on I-70 in Indiana. A lawsuit by Mr. Monet, who was seriously injured, attributed the crash to Tesla's Autopilot system, which can steer, brake and accelerate a car on its own. Tesla, which is contesting the lawsuit, has not yet tried to force the case into arbitration. The company has maintained that Autopilot improves the safety of its cars. Kristin Hull, chief executive of Nia Impact Capital, an investment firm, has pushed Tesla to eliminate forced arbitration for employees, arguing that it conceals problems investors should know about. In August, almost 40 percent of shareholders supported a resolution proposed by Nia that would have instructed Tesla to study whether forced arbitration affects employees' ability to seek redress for discrimination or other complaints. "As investors we don't have any insight into company culture and what is happening," Dr. Hull said. "Managers aren't held accountable." [GN] TIREMAN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yarger Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN YARGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIREMAN AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02291 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Yarger was employed by the Defendant as technician. TIREMAN AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, LTD. operates automobile service centers throughout Ohio and Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com TOWER HILL: Wins Summary Judgment v. MSP Recovery Claims -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the following extent: All claims against Tower Hill Select are dismissed on the merits, and all claims against Tower Hill Prime are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and -- denying as moot MSP Recovery's motion for class certification, Tower Hill's motions to strike, and MSP Recovery's motion for summary judgment. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC's and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44 LLC's claims against Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, and Omega Insurance Company were earlier resolved on a motion to dismiss." The court ordered those claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Count II was also resolved on a motion to dismiss, and the court later ordered that claim be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were resolved at the summary-judgment stage. It is ordered that Plaintiffs' claims against Tower Hill Select Insurance Company are dismissed on the merits. " The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' claims against Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction." The clerk will then close the file. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GgqWH9 at no extra charge.[CC] ULTA BEAUTY: Bylaws Contrary to Delaware Law, Lovoi Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD LOVOI v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, LORNA E. NAGLER, DAVID C. KIMBELL, MICHELLE L. COLLINS, KELLY E. GARCIA, CATHERINE A. HALLIGAN, PATRICIA A. LITTLE, MICHAEL R. MACDONALD, GEORGE R. MRKONIC, GISEL RUIZ, and MICHAEL C. SMITH, Case No. 2022-1162 (Del. Ch., Dec. 16, 2022), is a class action on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of Ulta Beauty against Ulta Beauty and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision violates Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law and the Delaware common law and is thus invalid. Accordingly, Ulta Beauty's Bylaws are contrary to Delaware law and thus invalid for requiring "the affirmative vote of the holders of 66 2/3% of voting power of the shares of stock of the Corporation" to remove a director with cause. Under Delaware law, stockholders of a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law, have the authority to remove directors by a simple majority vote. The Removal Provision adopted and presently maintained by The Defendants requires a higher threshold of shareholder votes than a majority to remove directors, the lawsuit contends. Plaintiff Gerald Lovoi is and has been at all relevant times an owner of Ulta Beauty common stock. Ulta Beauty operates more than 1,000 retail stores across fifty states selling beauty products such as cosmetics and fragrances, and related accessories and services, and its stores also feature full-service salons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Andrew R. Ralli, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com aralli@coochtaylor.com UMITJON KAMOLOV: Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Kargar Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINA KARGAR, SERGIO PEREZ DIAZ, and SHAINA FOSTER, in their individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UMITJON KAMOLOV et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00664-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. In particular, between the First and Second Amended Complaints and two declarations, the Plaintiffs have carried their "low" burden at this stage of making a "modest factual showing" that they and "potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 (2d Cir. 2010). To the extent Defendants argue otherwise, they ignore the First Amended Complaint. the Plaintiffs in this case, familiarity with which is presumed, bring claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"). A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpMSFA at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER PLC: Product Safety Class Action Pending in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Daniels, writing for ModernRetail, reports that it's not uncommon for CPG brands to run into product safety issues. The U.S. saw an average of five to six recalls issued each week this calendar year, according to Consumer Product Safety Commission data. But it is rare to see a company recall nearly all of its products from the shelves -- and that's what The Laundress had to do after a potential bacteria exposure risk in its detergent and cleaning supplies. The Laundress, founded in 2004 and bought by Unilever in 2019, on Nov. 17 urged its customers to stop using all its products due to a yet-unnamed bacteria risk. Since then, the company issued a voluntary recall with CPSC as well as Canadian regulators. It's specified what kinds of bacteria the products potentially contain, the potential health risks, and how customers can re-treat their clothes and products. The company is also facing a proposed class action lawsuit in federal court, and an outpouring of criticism from concerned customers online. The recall brings to light the difficulties that brands can face when something goes wrong in its manufacturing process. And while experts say The Laundress is likely doing what it can to ensure the issue doesn't happen again, the brand has yet to identify exactly how and where what led to such a wide-scale recall. Meanwhile customers continue to hammer the company for information on its social media accounts. Attorney Henry Noye, a partner with Obermayer who focuses on commercial litigation and product liability, said the first priority for companies facing product safety issues is to be transparent. And that seems to be what The Laundress has done, Noye said, citing its initial social media posts, emails to consumers and its work with regulators on the voluntary recall. "Nobody starts a business to lose money," said Noye, who is not involved with the case or the affected brands. "If there's some breakdown in their process that's going to affect their bottom line, no business is motivated to ignore that, or not be responsive." The brand response The Laundress developed a reputation as a high-end, plant-based detergent brand that could be used as an alternative to dry cleaning. A gallon of its signature detergent sells for $94, while a 33 ounce bottle goes for $24. Compare that to about $31 for a 1.2-gallon of Tide sold at Walmart. Marketed as having "sophisticated fragrances" and powerful stain removal properties without the mystery chemicals of dry cleaning, the brand catered to a wealthy demographic. In addition to its own website, The Laundress' products could be purchased at high-end retailers like Bloomingdale's, Saks Fifth Avenue and Jenni Kayne. It also wooed customers with luxury collaborations; one popular line was scented with Le Labo's Rose 31and Santal 33 scents. In the fall of 2021, the brand launched a collaboration with John Mayer called "Way out West" with a rich and woodsy signature scent. But even high-end brands can run into unexpected issues. An initial notice on Nov. 17 posted across social media and issued to retailers who sell the product urged customers to immediately stop using its products due to a bacteria risk. The Laundress issued FAQs providing more detail, and then it set up a separate website for customers to place requests for a refund. In the days to come, the brand provided a complete list of potentially affected products spanning over 150 individual items plus about 100 gift sets and kits. By Dec. 1, it had issued an official voluntary recall and the full number of products affected: eight million units, produced between January 2021 and September 2022. Noye from Obermayer said the public response and voluntary indicates that the brand was looking out for its customers, and its business. Still, there's a tension between what a brand can say and what customers might want to hear. An investigation may still be ongoing, preventing any new updates from being disclosed, even as customers take to social media to raise concerns. "There wasn't TikTok 20 years ago," Noye said. "This makes the response more difficult." But companies can get into trouble if it is found out that they hid information from customers, Noye said. "When you get to the point where you're in the need to recall, this is not the time to worry about egos or reputation. You need to be forward thinking," he said. "It's in their best interest to remain accountable, to remain forthright and to remain transparent, because they're trying to recover the brand." It can also be helpful to bring in third-party investigators or firms to help address what went on, Noye said. "When you have a real verified defect that is that is out the in the public, you want to show that it's not you alone (responding)," he said. "What you want to show from a company perspective is, 'Listen, we understand we need help, and that's why we brought in ABC Company, and they have tremendous credentials in this area.'" The potential for exposure Still, the brand has yet to directly address exactly how and where the bacteria risk occurred. A request for comment from Modern Retail was unreturned. But the company issued a media statement on Dec. 1 confirming the recall applied to "products manufactured by a third-party contract manufacturer in the United States due to a risk of exposure to bacteria." Those bacteria could include the naturally-occurring environmental organisms of Burkholderia cepacia complex, Klebsiella aerogenes and varieties of Pseudomonas, the brand said. While healthy people are usually not affected by the bacteria, the recall states that "People with weakened immune systems, external medical devices, and underlying lung conditions who are exposed to the bacteria face a risk of serious infection that may require medical treatment." Symptoms could include "mild skin symptoms to more serious signs of infection." Dr.Nancy Falk, a cleaning products formulation scientist and consultant who previously worked at Unilever and Clorox, is not familiar with the specifics of The Laundress' supply chain or situation. But in general, she said, cleaning manufacturers have several main strategies in place to prevent bacteria exposure in the formulation process. The first strategy comes down to the design of the formula. That can include a low water content, as bacteria need water to live. Adjusting the pH so it's too acidic for bacteria growth is another option, she said, or adding preservatives. Another strategy is ensuring that batches of raw materials put into the product are safe, and can be processed before getting spoiled. Brands will work with suppliers to ensure there are quality control requirements to keep raw materials from getting contaminated, Falk said. "If you're cooking, you wouldn't bring a spoiled ingredient into your dish," she said. "You wouldn't bring in an ingredient, including the water in the formula, with a high bacterial count." It's also critical to make sure that machines at detergent manufacturing facilities aren't contaminated, Falk said. That can be done with regular, effective clean-outs of pumps, piping and equipment. "If you had some bacteria growing in a particular place, you could get a pretty high dosage of bacteria coming off the pipes into the product, and it could overwhelm the product's ability to preserve itself," Falk said, "and therefore you could wind up, potentially, with soiled product." Falk said each of those areas -- the product formula, the raw materials and the manufacturing facility -- is likely being investigated to determine where the exposure occurred, and how to prevent it from happening again. "Companies really want to do right by the consumer," she said. "The brands, and the manufacturers really try to do a very good job of preventing these things from happening." The customer response Since the safety notice came out, customers have flooded The Laundress' social media with comments and concerns. Some spell out health situations they've experienced. Others complain about the length or process of how to get a refund. Many express disappointment in the brand. "Sickening to think we wrapped ourselves in blankets and slept on pillows in beds with sheets that were washed in Laundress detergents on this recall list," one customer commented. On Thanksgiving, a proposed class action against Unilever was filed in federal court. It alleges violations of consumer protection statutes, and also claims that plaintiff Margaret Murphy and her household had respiratory problems and skin infections after using the products. Ryan Gustafson, plaintiff attorney with law firm Good Gustafson Aumais, told Modern Retail the legal team plans to vigorously try the case to assist customers who believe they have been harmed. "It is unbelievable that a company charging a significant premium for its products, while touting those products as 'non-toxic' and 'better for you' could fail consumers in such a manner," Gustafson said. Court records show Unilever has retained defense counsel from Winston & Strawn. The company was granted an extension to Jan. 19 to issue a response to the complaint. Affected products on The Laundress website are listed as out of stock. But it is still selling a handful of physical goods unaffected by the recall, like a sweater comb and laundry storage bags. And a header with a link to the recall site remains fixed on the page. "We are undertaking decisive steps with our suppliers to ensure production processes meet our safety and quality standards," the brand said in its media statement. [GN] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Lifts Stay on Samson Class TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order lifting the stay: -- The Court finds that Samson has demonstrated a change of circumstances that permit lifting the current stay. The Court therefore lifts the stay and gives Samson 30 days to amend his Motion for Class Certification. -- The Court does so without prejudice to United to bring a motion to dismiss. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. -- The Court finds that the holding in ACA Int'l and the FCC's yet to be determined standard is not incompatible with lifting the stay. -- The Ninth Circuit's decision in Lemos, made it the third circuit to rule on a company's liability for calling a party whose number had been reassigned. -- Turning to Samson's second argument, the Court finds that amending the classes further lifting the stay. Samson's proposed class amendments not only avoid duplicative litigation, but the classes would fall into categories in which it is clear the caller did not have prior express consent of the called party. Samson seeks leave to amend his class certification to classes that are limited to (1) prerecorded voice calls only, and (2) calls placed by the same teams that called Samson. -- Lastly, the Court finds it unlikely that the Eastern District of California will be able to resolve the Matlock cases in a timely manner. As of September 2022, the Eastern District of California has 5,744 pending civil cases and 2,088 pending criminal cases. Of the available judges, that is 1,566 pending cases per judge. The Eastern District of California has the highest pending caseload in the Ninth Circuit and priority is first given to criminal cases. Because of the change in circumstances and Samson's request to narrow the classes to ensure they do not overlap with the Matlock cases, the Court finds that waiting for the Eastern District would unnecessarily draw out Samson's case. The Plaintiff Frantz Samson filed this suit against the Defendant in 2019 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Samson began receiving automated calls from United in 2018, asking him to call United regarding health insurance coverage. Samson never provided prior consent to receive these calls, but appears to have inherited a phone number of someone whom United previously called. Samson tried blocking the number, calling United and asking to be taken off the list, and even attempting to "opt out" of the calls, but nevertheless continued to receive calls. United Healthcare was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vfkQ3w at no extra charge.[CC] UPG ROADSIDE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Wright Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPG ROADSIDE & TOWING INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02829-SHM-atc (W.D. Tenn., December 7, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired as a driver of both larger trucks weighting in excess of 5 tons and the smaller “snatch” truck weighting less than 5 tons in towing and recovering vehicles for the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated truck drivers typically worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay them at the FLSA minimum wage rate of pay of $7.25 per hour within weekly pay periods, and did not pay them for all hours worked over 40 per week at the applicable overtime rates of pay within weekly pay periods. In addition, the Defendants failed to keep proper time and payroll records as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff and collective members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damage from the unlawful compensation plans and practices of the Defendant. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated truck drivers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses, and disbursements together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. UPG Roadside & Towing Inc. owns and operates a mixture of larger tow trucks and a smaller “snatch” truck in which it tows and recovers vehicles in the Memphis, Tennessee area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com V&B AUTO: Fails to Pay Saleswomen's Minimum Wages, Gomez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lina M. Gomez and other similarly situated individuals v. V & B Auto Sales Corp, Victor R. Abreu, and Bianellys T. Marte de Abreu, individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02342 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 16, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees worked for the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after September 2022 without being adequately compensated. Accordingly, the Defendants set a fixed commission per car sold. This fixed commission per unit sold fluctuated due to many reasons. As per Plaintiff's understanding, the Defendants changed that fixed flat commission all the time, at their discretion, causing Plaintiff a lot of confusion and great uncertainty about her expected earnings for the week. Every week, Defendants settled the Plaintiff's commissions, but they did not pay her the total amount of earned commissions. The Plaintiff received only irregular partial payments. The remaining balance was always carried forward to the next payment period, the suit claims. Regardless of the Defendants' payment plan arrangements, Plaintiff was a commission-based inside salesperson, and she was entitled to be paid at least at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked in a week period, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff was hired as an inside, full-time used car saleswoman. She had a mandatory pre-set regular schedule of 7 days per week, a total of 65 hours every week. Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch periods. V & B Auto is a used automobile dealership located at 5626 S. Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VIACOMCBS INC: Order on Parties' Proposed Class Notice Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara DeRosa v. ViacomCBS, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order regarding Parties' proposed class notice and unsealing class certification. -- Dispute over Class Notice The parties dispute the characterization of the New York Wage and Hour Class claims certified in the Court's order granting Class Certification. The Court heard argument on December 19, 2022. The Court certified a New York Wage and Hour Class under New York Labor Law sections 191(1)(d), 195(1), and 195(3) "consisting of: "all persons who were paid through Sessions Payroll for work as a background or stand-in actor or CBS television shows in New York, at any time from March 30, 2014 to [October 11, 2022], against Sessions and the Viacom Defendants." -- Unsealing Order Granting Class Certification The Defendants Sessions Payroll Management Inc., Gail Levine, and Gregg Levine seek to keep page 11, lines 5 through 23 of the Court's Order granting class certification under seal. ViacomCBS is a global media and entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YGqLMF at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Mag. Judge Recommends Part Dismissal of Sousa Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GEORGE SOUSA, et al., Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. Sousa worked at the Hanford Walmart store as a non-exempt employee in various positions, including associate, overnight support manager, and other titles, from 2014 through October 2017. During that time, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week during the retail "busy season," leading up to December 25th. After October 2017, he was promoted to assistant manager and retains that title to the present day. Martha Castro worked as a "greeter" at Walmart's retail location in Roseville, California from approximately July 8, 2006, until Aug. 10, 2019. During this time, she routinely worked more than eight hours per day. She was further required to wait in line off-the-clock for security checks each day at the end of each shift. The proposed Class members are all people who are or who have been employed by the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees, including but not limited to associates, cashiers, stockers, attendants, pharmacists, custodians, security guards, and other hourly and non-exempt employees throughout the State of California within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC. The proposed Night Shift Manager Subclass are all people who are or who have been employed by the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt overnight support managers and/or night managers, or other positions with similar job duties, throughout the State of California within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC. Pursuant to a uniform policy originated by the Defendants and used across all their facilities throughout California, all hourly employees are subject to daily bag searches for potential contraband when they leave the premises. As a result of Defendants' uniform security check policy, the Plaintiffs and the Class members were systematically denied minimum wage for all time worked, as well as required overtime pay. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants employ, or employed, thousands of people similarly situated to them during the four-year period prior to the filing of the FAC. The Defendants' method of paying the Plaintiffs and the Class members was willful and not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied with California law. The Defendants routinely failed to maintain true and accurate records of the hours worked by Class members. In particular, they failed to record hours that the Plaintiffs and the Class members work while off the clock. Their conduct is willful, is carried out in bad faith, and causes significant damages to non-exempt hourly employees. The FAC raises the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to California Labor Code section 510; (2) failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1182.11, 1182,12, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) failure to authorize and permit and/or make available rest periods pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226 and 512; (4) waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201-203; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (6) statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. On March 24, 2020, Castro filed her initial complaint in Placer County Superior Court -- Castro v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00928 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2020). On May 6, 2020, Walmart removed the matter to the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. On May 22, 2020, Castro filed a first amended class action complaint. On June 5, 2020, Walmart filed a motion to dismiss Castro's claim for inaccurate wage statements under California Labor Code section 226 on the ground that it was derivative of her claims for off-the-clock work and thus sought an improper double recovery. On Aug. 17, 2020, the Court granted Walmart's motion to dismiss and dismissed Castro's failure to provide accurate wage statements claim with prejudice. Meanwhile, on April 7, 2020, Sousa filed his initial complaint against Defendants in this Court. On June 15, 2020, the Defendants filed an answer. On April 29, 2021, Sousa and the Defendants filed a stipulation to consolidate his action with Castro. On May 7, 2021, the parties in Castro stated they agreed to consolidation. On May 11, 2021, the Court consolidated the cases and the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a consolidated complaint. On May 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On June 9, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to partially dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Aug. 12, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation for the Defendants to withdraw the motion to dismiss and for the Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs have filed an opposition, and the Defendants have filed a reply. On Sept. 12, 2022, the motion to dismiss was referred to Judge Grosjean. The Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action is for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." THe Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claim because the Plaintiffs: (1) fail to allege an inadequate remedy at law, (2) lack standing for injunctive relief, and (3) cannot recover penalties under the UCL. Judge Grosjean finds that the FAC does not allege that the Plaintiffs lack an adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground and the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed with leave to amend. She also finds that to the extent the Plaintiff attempts to rely on the unnamed putative class members' potential future harm as the basis for injunctive relief, that argument fails. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground and the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed with leave to amend. Turning to the Defendants' alleged failure to provide rest periods and accurate wage statements, Judge Grosjean finds that the rest period premium wages are recoverable under the UCL, so she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied on this ground. She also recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted as to the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed without leave to amend insofar as it seeks recovery for wage statement violations because it is well recognized that penalties for wage statement violations are not recoverable under the UCL as they are not restitutionary. In addition, all allegations in the FAC pertaining to Sam's Club, including the putative class definitions, should be dismissed. Judge Grosjean finds that the Plaintiffs agree that class allegations pertaining to Sam's club employees should be dismissed. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground and that all allegations in the FAC pertaining to Sam's Club be dismissed without leave to amend. She also recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss the UCL claim on behalf of the night manager subclass be denied because the district court should defer consideration of whether a plaintiff is an adequate class representative until the class certification stage of proceedings. Because the FAC makes clear that the PAGA claims do not begin until July 8, 2021, Judge Grosjean recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground and the Sixth Cause of Action be dismissed for lack of Article III standing with leave to amend. She further recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the PAGA claim as to the overtime, rest break, and expense reimbursement violations be granted in part and denied in part and that the Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action be dismissed without leave to amend insofar as it seeks recovery for rest break and unreimbursed expenses violations. Despite her conclusion that the Plaintiffs satisfy PAGA's notice requirements as to the overtime violations, she notes that their PAGA claim for overtime violations is subject to dismissal given her determination that the Sixth Cause of Action should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. The Defendants also move to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim for alleged violations of Labor Code sections 226 (wage statement) and 2802 (expense reimbursement) because the FAC does not provide any allegations that support these claims. The Plaintiffs concede that they neglected to include Section 226 allegations in the PAGA cause of action. Accordingly, Judge Grosjean recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground, the Sixth Cause of Action be dismissed for failure to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 with respect to the wage statement violations, and the Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend. Finally, given that a PAGA claim and penalties are legally and conceptually distinct from an employee's own suit and damages or penalties for individual violations, Judge Grosjean finds that a PAGA claim for wage statement violations would not be barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine in this instance. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied on this ground. Despite this conclusion, she notes that the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim for wage statement violations is subject to dismissal given the Court's determination that the Sixth Cause of Action claim should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Accordingly, Judge Grosjean recommends that: a. the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part; b. the Plaintiffs' Sam's Club allegations, the Fifth Cause of Action (UCL claim) with respect to wage statement violations, and the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) with respect to expense reimbursement and rest break violations be dismissed without leave to amend; c. save and except as noted, the Fifth Cause of Action (UCL claim) and the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) be dismissed with leave to amend ; and d. the Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections will be served and filed within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Findings & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/22w699ky from Leagle.com. WASHINGTON: Fails to Comply With Youth Outpatient Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Seattle Times reports that Gov. Jay Inslee and other top government officials are pitching budget increases and a series of potentially transformative policy proposals aimed at curbing long psychiatric-related hospitalizations known as "boarding" among the state's youth. Inslee is proposing an additional $14 million to support a long-term inpatient program for youth, plus $23.5 million in construction funds for children's behavioral health facilities, according to his two-year budget. About 20 children and teens with psychiatric conditions are living unnecessarily in Western Washington hospitals every day, according to data from the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. They're "boarding," which means it's unsafe for them to discharge home, but there's no suitable place for them to receive the psychiatric treatment they need. Housed at the Hospital In an occasional series, The Seattle Times Mental Health Project is investigating why children are waiting days or weeks for vital psychiatric care. The Seattle Times has spent a year reporting on kids stuck inside hospitals, revealing that youth inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations have nearly doubled since 2015 and youth behavioral health services were consistently underfunded in the years before the pandemic. The Times' Housed at the Hospital series also found that hundreds of youth live in emergency departments and other hospital units each year and wait months for inpatient care. The state is failing to comply with a class-action lawsuit that guarantees youth outpatient care, and public agencies no longer step in when children are abandoned in emergency rooms. Washington currently funds 129 youth long-term inpatient psychiatric beds, but has struggled to keep many of the beds online because of a workforce shortage and an inability to compete with higher paying behavioral health agencies. Inslee's budget proposal would add an additional eight beds to the Children's Long-term Inpatient Program and raise Medicaid reimbursement rates by 31% to keep existing CLIP providers afloat. The budget also includes $9.3 million to extend a pilot program for youth that involves intensive outpatient care and is an alternative to full-time hospitalization. Nearly $4 million would support youth inpatient navigators, who help families find alternative resources when inpatient care isn't available. An additional $10.6 million would raise reimbursement rates for programs that provide Applied Behavior Analysis, a therapy for youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. "[Inslee] is really going to put this at the top of the list and he's going to ask the Legislature to do the same," said Amber Leaders, senior policy advisor on behavioral health, aging and disability in the governor's office. The recommendations are mostly in line with policy proposals from the state's Children and Youth Behavioral Health Work Group, which advises the Legislature and has said boarding and mental health workforce concerns are top policy priorities next session. The group is proposing a package of policies that would improve access to outpatient behavioral health care, expand a program for high-needs youth called Wraparound with Intensive Services (WISe), codify the process for finding treatment for youth in crisis and study the pros and cons of therapeutic boarding schools, which don't exist in Washington. Hospitals, which are eating thousands of dollars each day in nonreimbursable costs tied to boarding, are also pushing for policy change. Seattle Children's, for instance, is floating a bill that would hold the state responsible when youth are abandoned at hospitals. News coverage of the boarding crisis has "daylighted it for the broader community," said co-chair of the workgroup state Rep. Lisa Callan, D-Issaquah. She said the reporting has allowed the Legislature, "when we are in a tougher economic time budget-wise . . . to still keep a behavioral health priority high on the agenda." The 2023 legislative session begins Jan. 9. [GN] WATERWORKS OPERATING: Scheduling Order Entered in Amica Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as subrogee of Brian Marchiony, v. WATERWORKS OPERATING CO., LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00751-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend the complaint January 13, 2023 or join parties must be filed by the Plaintiff no later than: -- Any motion to amend the answer or January 13, 2023 join parties must be filed by the Defendant no later than: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to January 17, 2023 Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by: -- All discovery relating to class August 15, 2023 certification will be completed (not propounded) by: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class August 15, 2023 certification shall be filed no later than: -- The Defendant will file any September 12, 2023 opposition to the motion for class certification no later than: -- The Plaintiff shall file any September 26, 2023. reply in further support of its motion for class certification no later than: Waterworks provides building products and equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HY84xM at no extra charge.[CC] WELLA OPERATIONS: Collects Data Without Consent, Shores Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANA SHORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLA OPERATIONS US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07152 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite consumer concerns regarding facial-scanning technology, and BIPA's clear mandate, the Defendant, a multi-million-dollar haircare company, has refused, and continues to refuse, to inform users that it is using technology on its website to collect the Plaintiff and the Class's biometric facial scans, and neither informs users that their biometric identifiers are being collected, nor asks for their consent. Unbeknownst to its website users, including the Plaintiff and the Class, the Defendant collects detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including complete facial scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On tool, and it does this without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being collected, says the suit. Wella Operations US LLC operates as a special purpose entity. The Company manufactures and markets a wide range of personal care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com WELLS FARGO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUY BLESSINGER, AUDRA NISKI, NELSON FERREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Case No. 8:22-cv-01029-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion seeking class certification until January 31, 2023, with Defendant's response due March 31, 2023. The Parties have been working together to schedule and complete depositions to support their forthcoming class certification briefs. However, despite their efforts, they require some additional time to complete the depositions and submit well-supported briefs to the Court. This is also due, in part, to the intervening Christmas and New Year's Eve Holidays. Importantly, no other deadlines from the Case Management Order will be impacted by the extension sought here. The Plaintiffs' current deadline to file their Motion for Class Certification is January 13, 2023, and the current deadline for Defendant's response is March 14, 2023. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjdtVX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813)229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Equi, Esq. Shawn y. Libman, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE, LLP 1064 Greenwood Boulevard, Suite 212 Lake Mary, FL 32746-5419 Telephone: (407) 585-7600 Facsimile: (407) 585-7610 E-mail: brian.equi@bowmanandbrooke.com shawn.libman@bowmanandbrooke.com - and - Edward J. Meehan, Esq. Mark C. Nielsen, Esq. Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP , CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-2602 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: emeehan@groom.com mnielsen@groom.com prinefierd@groom.com WESTPAC LIFE: Settles BT Funds Class Action for $29.95 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Slater and Gordon on Dec. 18 disclosed that tens of thousands of Australians may receive compensation after Slater and Gordon and Westpac reached a $29.95 million settlement in a class action against the bank's subsidiaries BT Funds Management Limited and Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was negotiated on behalf of customers who had invested their super in the BT Super cash option between 2007 and 2019. The class action was filed in 2019 -- the third in Slater and Gordon's Get Your Super Back campaign. It alleged that members who invested in the BT Super for Life cash-only option received lower returns because BT invested their funds through Westpac Life allowing Westpac Life to earn fees without providing a valuable service. Slater and Gordon Special Counsel Nathan Rapoport said: "The case alleged BT prioritised Westpac Life's profits over its duty to seek the best returns available for its members' retirement savings, leading to lower returns for members". "Superannuation members trust their funds with their retirement savings and place their faith in them to protect their future," Mr Rapoport said. "We are pleased this settlement means that group members will be getting millions of dollars of compensation. "This result would not be possible without a class actions regime that allows one person to represent the interests of thousands of others like them who might not even be aware of their legal rights." The settlement was reached on a 'no admissions' basis and BT and Westpac Life both deny any liability. [GN] WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hornthal Suit Over Whole Hot Pizzas' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HORNTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07114 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for misbranding and false and misleading advertising of its prepared whole hot pizzas as "18" Hot Pizza," "18" hand-stretched pizzas," and "18" Whole Pies" (collectively, "18" Claims"). At certain Whole Foods locations, the pizzas marketed using the 18" Claims are not 18 inches, but instead are only 16 inches and are sold in 16-inch by 16-inch boxes (the "Product"). The difference is not the result of normal variation in handmade food -- the Product is sold in 16 -- inch by 16-inch boxes (the "Product box" or "Product boxes"). With respect to the Product, the 18" Claims are false, misleading, and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. Whole Foods continues to market and promote the Product using the 18" Claims while selling consumers pizzas that are approximately 20% smaller in area, says the suit. Whole Foods breached the express warranty by selling a product that did not conform to the affirmations of fact and descriptions. The Product is not 18 inches in diameter. It is approximately 16 inches in diameter, and contains less dough, cheese, sauce, and toppings than a pizza of the advertised size. Plaintiff did not receive what he paid for, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers to recover the amounts Plaintiff and the Class members overpaid, and to prevent Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful, deceptive, and unfair conduct, and to correct the false perception it has created in the marketplace through its misrepresentations of material facts. Whole Foods sells whole hot pizzas at Whole Foods as part of its prepared food offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. Nicholas W. Blue, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com nblue@barnowlaw.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Lumsden Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG LUMSDEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.; WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC.; Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10341 (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2022) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff seeking for damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendants for their alleged improper compensation policies in violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a visual merchandiser in 2015 to work at a Pottery Barn store. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to timely compensate him and other similarly situated Manual Workers on a timely basis. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis, the Defendants paid them on a bi-weekly basis. As a result of the Defendants' improper compensation policies, they suffered actual and acute injuries. The Defendants' late wage payments deprived them of the time value of their earned money, resulting in tangible financial loss calculated as interest and in other amounts, including fees, penalties, and interest; and loss in the form of the negative impact on their ability to save, invest, and plan for the future, says the Plaintiff. The Corporate Defendants operate furniture and home goods stores and outlets across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB: Hopkins Sues Over Golf Caddie's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT "BOBBY" HOPKINS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime premium pay, failure to pay spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide wage statements. Plaintiff Hopkins was employed by the Defendant as a golf caddy from 1993 to November 2022. Wykagyl Country Club is a private golf club in New Rochelle, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: Doug@lipskylowe.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Pays $1.3BB to Resolve Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that Honeywell International Inc. won court approval to make a $1.3 billion final payment that ends evergreen financing obligations to an asbestos injury trust established in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a former affiliate. Judge Thomas P. Agresti of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a 93-page opinion Thursday, December 8, 2022, approving the settlement between Honeywell and the North American Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust. As reported in the TCR, Honeywell International Inc. has reached a deal to pay more than $1.3 billion to end claims of asbestos exposure in the Chapter 11 case of its former subsidiary North American Refractories Co. On Nov. 18, 2022, Honeywell International filed a current report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing, among other things, that Honeywell had entered into a definitive agreement (the "Buyout Agreement") with the North American Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the "Trust"), providing for the elimination of Honeywell's funding obligations to the Trust. Honeywell will make a one-time, lump sum payment in the amount of $1.325 billion (the "Buyout Amount") to the Trust in exchange for the release by the Trust of Honeywell from all further and future obligations of any kind related to the Trust and/or any claimants who were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by North American Refractories Company ("NARCO") or its predecessors, including Honeywell's ongoing evergreen obligation to fund (i) claims against the Trust, which comprise Honeywell's NARCO asbestos-related claims liability, and (ii) the Trust's annual operating expenses, including its legal fees (which operating expenses, for reference, were approximately $21 million in 2021) (such evergreen obligations referred to in (i) and (ii), the "Honeywell Obligations"). Following the consummation of the foregoing transactions (the "Buyout Closing"), Honeywell will have limited obligations to the Trust as set forth in the Buyout Agreement and the Existing Confidentiality Agreement. ********* 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 ***