/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 14 Headlines 3COMMAS TECHNOLOGIES: Freeman Files Suit in N.D. California 49ERS ENTERPRISES: Finch Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII 7-ELEVEN INC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Patel Class Suit A & L OF NY: Court Dismisses Chen FLSA Class Suit With Prejudice A24 FILMS: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Bucio Labor Suit ACORN MEDIA: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AESTHETONICS INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ALLY FINANCIAL: Cavinato Sues Over Undisclosed Fees AMAZON.COM INC: Dorobiala Parties Agree to Suspend Time to Answer AMY PECHACEK: Bemke, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines ANDRA GROUP: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANDREWS WHARTON: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Desai Files Suit in S.D. Florida ANYWHERE REAL: Parties Must Mediate Before March 15 ARC AUTOMOTIVE: McCarthy Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ATHIRA PHARMA: Parties Stipulate Class Certification Discovery AVAYA HOLDINGS: Fletcher Sues Over 14.28% Share Price Decline BAY BRIDGE ADMINISTRATORS: Manson Files Suit in W.D. Texas BELLA BARBIES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BELLEVUE, WA: Fredrickson Loses Class Cert Bid BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Labor Suit in Ontario Superior Court BLOCK INC: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Esposito Suit BMW MANUFACTURING: Clark Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Docs Under Seal Sought CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification CARAWAY HOME: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CASSAVA SCIENCES: Discovery Stay in Securities Suit Won't Be Lifted CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Halim Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CHARTSWAP LLC: Beloff Suit Removed to D. South Carolina CHARTSWAP LLC: Cobb Suit Removed to D. South Carolina CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Suit Removed to D. South Carolina CHEESE MERCHANTS: Continental Seeks Entry of Judgment Under Rule 58 CLASSIC CRANE: Doyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unpaid Wages COSTCO WHOLESALE: Feb. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Employees' Labor Suit for Court Nod COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement Reached in CA Labor Suit DNC SERVICES: Katz Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Protective Order Rider OK'd in Benson Suit EMC SPORTS Inc: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENHANCED RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Hines Terminated ESSENTIAL WHOLESALE: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EUROPHARMA INC: DiGiacinto Sues Over False and Deceptive Labeling EVVI RESTAURANT: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages FEDEX GROUND: Aristizabal Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification FEDEX GROUND: Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by August 17 FORD MOTOR: Oral Argument on Class Certification Set for Jan. 20 FTX TRADING: Papadakis Files Suit to Recover Damages GENERAL MOTORS: Buchholz Files Suit in W.D. Missouri GIGACQUISITIONS3 LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Delman Class Suit GOOGLE LLC: Kumandan Request to File Renewed Class Cert Bid Nixed GRANITE SERVICES: Class Cert. Response Extended to Jan. 30 HERSHEY COMPANY: Grausz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing HI.Q INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Tyner Class Action HOOKED ON SOLAR: Solorzano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. I AM BEYOND: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Appeals Dismissal of Civil Rights Suit MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal MINNESOTA: DOC Appeals Ramsey County Court Ruling in Wagner Suit NETFLIX INC: Parties to Confer on Agreed Stay of Stockholder Suit PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Heidrich FLSA Suit PENTEGRA DEFINED: Khan, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action REALPAGE INC: Mackie Sues Over Rental Housing Price-Fixing RELIANT PRO: Haggerty Files Bid for Conditional Certification REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Court Moots Karnell Bid for Class Notice RICE DRILLING: Class Cert. Hearing Moved to Feb. 15 SN SERVICING: Court Dismisses Gregg Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction SUNY ALBANY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Graham Class Suit SURGE PRIVATE: Zhao Seeks Conditional Collective Certification TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla, et al., Seek to Certify Employee Class TRESS MARKETING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UMG RECORDINGS: Black Sheep Sues Over Unpaid Royalty Payments UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks to Stay Faine Class Cert. Bid VIVE ORGANIC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Stage-One Conditional Certification Sought WASHINGTON DC: Pappas, et al., Seek to Certify Class WELLS FARGO: Easton Files Bid for Conditional Certification WELLS FARGO: Easton Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses WHALECO INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WIDE OPEN ARTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Carney Sues Over Warn Act Violation WOLTERS & KLUWER: Allen Files Suit in D. Arizona ********* 3COMMAS TECHNOLOGIES: Freeman Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3Commas Technologies OU. The case is styled as Charles Freeman, Tigran Melkonyan, Ari Shofet, Shawn Mall, Benjamin Ferris, Bryan Chapman, Nandan Arora, Shafiq Rajani, Vijay Christopher, Marc Ashby, Vincent Van Buskirk, Lawrence Manickam, Edmundo Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3Commas Technologies OU, an Estonian Private Limited Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00101-JST (N.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 3Commas -- https://3commas.io/ -- is a crypto trading platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolin K. Shining, Esq. Jennifer Michelle Leinbach, Esq. Jesse S Chen, Esq. Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: cshining@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com jmann@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Jesenia Anahy Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Email: jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com 49ERS ENTERPRISES: Finch Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------- Kathrine Finch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 49ERS ENTERPRISES, LLC dba THE SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, Case No. 5:23-cv-00109 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and confidential information that it collected and maintained for its pecuniary benefit--specifically, names, Social Security numbers, payment card information, and information regarding National Football League employees' and their dependents' PII and immigration statuses (collectively, "PII"). On February 6, 2022, Defendant's servers were infected with ransomware and cybercriminals were able to take control Defendant's computer network for nearly five days (until February 11, 2022), leading to the exposure of the PII contained on that server (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant then failed to notify victims of the Data Breach that their PII had been compromised for over half of a year, until August of 2022. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion and to timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members in the event of a Data Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and seemingly failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect the sensitive, non-public data it maintained for its own pecuniary benefit. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate data security protocols, the risk of fraud and identity theft to impacted individuals will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed from 2017 to 2020 by an NFL franchise and was required by that franchise to supply her PII and did not authorize that franchise to share her PII with Defendant or any other entity or individual. The Defendant is a National Football League team located in Santa Clara County, California that operates a professional football team for fans throughout the Bay Area and across the world..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry (SBN 262879) Gregory Haroutunian (SBN 330263) CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916)239-4778 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Patel Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Dhananjay Patel, et al., Plaintiffs v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-11414-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: a. denies 7-Eleven's motion for summary judgment; and b. allows the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The dispute over attorneys' fees arises from the two remaining counterclaims and third-party claims in a putative class action against 7-Eleven for the alleged misclassification of its franchisees as independent contractors in violation of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148B. Local 7-Eleven franchise store owners and operators, Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel and Niral Patel brought the putative class action in June 2017 on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs alleged that 7-Eleven (1) misclassified the franchisees as independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148B (Count I) and (2) violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148 (Count II). They also asserted that 7-Eleven violated the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, Sections 1, 7 (Count III) but voluntarily withdrew that claim in July 2020. In response, 7-Eleven counterclaimed for: (1) declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs' franchise agreements (the "Franchise Agreements") are void if they are deemed employees rather than independent contractors (Counterclaim I), (2) breach of contract (Counterclaim II) and (3) contractual indemnity (Counterclaim III). 7-Eleven also filed third-party complaints against DPNEWTO1, Inc., DP Tremont Street, Inc., DP Milk Street, Inc. and DP Jersey, Inc., the corporate entities through which the named Plaintiffs contracted to work for 7-Eleven. In September 2020, the Court allowed summary judgment in favor of 7-Eleven based on a purported conflict between the Massachusetts ICL and the federal franchisor disclosure requirements in the FTC Franchise Rule. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified a question of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("the SJC") in August 2021. In March 2022, the SJC answered the certified question, explaining that the Massachusetts ICL both applies to the franchisor-franchisee relationship and does not conflict with the FTC Franchise Rule. It then vacated the decision of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. With the SJC's guidance on the Massachusetts ICL, the District Court again entered summary judgment for 7-Eleven in September 2022, on Counts I and II, holding that te Plaintiffs are, in fact, independent contractors under the Massachusetts ICL. 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims remained pending. The Plaintiffs subsequently moved for a separate and final judgment to appeal to the First Circuit a second time. The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion and directed the Ddefendant to file its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment on the remaining counterclaims and third-party claims. That motion is pending before the District Court. Because it has determined that the Plaintiffs are independent contractors, the Defendant's declaratory judgment counterclaim and third-party claim is moot, and thus, only the counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity remain. After more than five years of litigation, only two claims remain for the Court to resolve: 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. As an initial matter, both parties agree that there are no factual disputes at issue, and thus, those claims are suitable for resolution at summary judgment. 7-Eleven argues in its motion for summary judgment that the damages should be in the form of attorneys' fees and costs. It alleges that it incurred more than $3.4 million in attorneys' fees, discovery production and experts to defend itself against plaintiffs' misclassification claims. 7-Eleven does not identify any other damages. Judge Gorton is underwhelmed by the Defendant's claim for over $3.4 million in attorneys' fees incurred in defending the Plaintiffs' misclassification claim and will deny the motion for summary judgment. 7-Eleven argues that the Plaintiffs breached their Franchise Agreements by holding themselves out as 7-Eleven employees. In response, the Plaintiffs suggest that they have held themselves out to the Court and the public as independent contractors who allege they should be recognized as employees under the law. Judge Gorton concludes that Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Ins. Co. v. Costa, 789 F.2d 83, 88-89 (1st Cir. 1986), is distinguishable from the case at bar. In the instant case, the third-party defendant corporations are limited liability companies through which the named Plaintiffs contracted to perform work for 7-Eleven. The named Plaintiffs are the principals of the third-party corporate entities and executed personal guaranties making them liable for any money owed to 7-Eleven. Treating the named Plaintiffs' limited liability companies as wholly distinct third parties when the Plaintiffs themselves indemnified them is not comparable to Mutual Fire, where the third party was an entirely independent insurance agent. Thus, 7-Eleven is not entitled to recover its attorneys' fees as damages resulting from its breach of contract claim. 7-Eleven next argues that its attorneys' fees and costs are indemnifiable losses under Section 18 of the Franchise Agreement. In response, the Plaintiffs submit that the ordinary and plain meaning of the indemnification provisions does not suggest that legal fees in a dispute between a franchisee and 7-Eleven would be covered. Judge Gorton agrees with the Plaintiffs. The indemnification provision in the Franchise Agreement makes no mention of defense costs or attorneys' fees. If the Defendant had incurred and sought reimbursement for other losses, such as having to replace a franchisee who refused to manage his store until he was paid as an employee, such losses may be recoverable under the indemnification clause. 7-Eleven is not, however, entitled to recover from the Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, even if those attorneys' fees were substantial. For the foregoing reasons, 7-Eleven, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is allowed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3vjn4p from Leagle.com. A & L OF NY: Court Dismisses Chen FLSA Class Suit With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses with prejudice the case, ANGUS CHEN, on behalf of himself and a class and collective of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. A & L OF NY CORP doing business as IZAKAYA TORIBAR, and SCOTT LEE, FRANK AHN, and JOHN DOE AHN, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03139-MKV (S.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiff filed the action against his former employer, a restaurant located in midtown Manhattan, alleging that the restaurant engaged in "wage theft" by stealing between 20% and 30% of the hourly wages and tips earned by service employees, among other violations. The Complaint asserted a purported collective action claim for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and purported class action claims under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). On Oct. 12, 2022, the Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement. After the Court ordered the parties to file a joint letter with sufficient information to enable it to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), the parties filed a joint letter summarizing the terms of the settlement and providing supporting documentation. The proposed settlement required the Defendants to pay a total amount of $24,000. The Plaintiff would receive $10,000 of that amount, and the remaining $14,000 would be distributed to the Plaintiff's counsel ($11,398 in attorneys' fees + $2,602 in litigation costs). On Dec. 5, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying settlement approval and providing the parties with an opportunity to submit an amended request for judicial approval. It explained that it was unable to conclude that the settlement was fair and reasonable for two principal reasons: first, the parties' materials did not give it enough information to evaluate the Plaintiff's range of possible recovery; and second, the Court found the proposed attorneys' fees questionable under both the lodestar and percentage of the fund methods. In particular, it noted that counsel's requested fee award (after subtracting litigation costs) amounted to 48% of the settlement fund, significantly higher than the 33% agreed to by Plaintiff in his Retainer Agreement. The parties filed a revised request for judicial approval and supporting documentation on Dec. 20, 2022. The revised submission amply addresses the Court's two concerns. First, the parties explain the Plaintiff's range of possible recovery for several causes of action previously omitted from the parties' joint letter. Judge Vyskocil is now therefore able to evaluate the bona fides of the dispute. Second, the Plaintiff's counsel seeks a reduced award -- now requesting only $10,602 ($8,000 in attorneys' fees + $2,602 in litigation costs), as opposed to $14,000 ($11,398 in attorneys' fees + $2,602 in litigation costs). The revised fee request ($8,000) represents one third of the total $24,000 settlement fund. Judge Vyskocil finds that this requested fee accords with the percentage method, as district courts regularly approve attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the settlement amount in FLSA cases. The proposed fee award similarly complies with the lodestar method. The lodestar amount is the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case. The Plaintiff's counsel submitted detailed time records indicating that he spent 48.2 hours on the case. Using a billable rate of $300 per hour, the lodestar amount is $14,460, net of costs, resulting in a lodestar multiplier of 0.55. The lodestar multiplier is significantly lower. Accordingly, Judge Vyskocil finds the revised fee request fair and reasonable. She also approves the $2,602 requested in litigation costs. A settlement of $24,000, with $8,000 devoted to attorneys' fees and $2,602 applied to litigation costs, is approved as fair and reasonable. Judge Vyskocil therefore orders that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate all pending motions, adjourn any remaining dates, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cxynv48 from Leagle.com. A24 FILMS: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A24 FILMS, LLC, Case No. 150228/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought challenging the Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to the Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates shop.a24films.com ("Website"). Through the Website, Defendant sells products, such as brand limited edition goods, merchandise, and more. The Defendant and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following: the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells. The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person. The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: shop.a24films.com which is a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212/595-6200 Fax: 212/595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Bucio Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------ ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended October 21, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2022, that on July 7, 2021, the company entered into a class action settlement and release agreement to settle the case captioned "Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services" (April 7, 2006, Cal. Sup.) for $140 million and to obtain a release of the certified class claims that were asserted in the Bucio case. The settlement also resolved the PAGA claim. The release of the certified class claims covers the time period from April 7, 2002, through April 30, 2013. The release of the PAGA claim covers the time period from November 15, 2005, through July 18, 2021. Final approval of the class settlement, approval of Plaintiffs' counsels' request for attorneys' fees, and judgment was entered by the court on April 7, 2022. ABM Industries is a leading provider of integrated facility solutions based in New York. ACORN MEDIA: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACORN MEDIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 150230/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought challenging the Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to the Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates acornonline.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). Through the Website, Defendant sells products, such as movies, clothing, accessories, books, and more. The Defendant and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following: the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells. The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person. The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: acornonline.com which is a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212/595-6200 Fax: 212/595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com AESTHETONICS INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aesthetonics, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aesthetonics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00099 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aesthetonics, Inc. doing business as Remains -- https://remains.com/ -- offers custom made to order, high-end luxury lighting, sustainably hand-crafted in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Cavinato Sues Over Undisclosed Fees --------------------------------------------------- Stefano Cavinato, on behalf of HIMSELF and all others similarly situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-10054-JEL-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought on behalf of similarly situated who leased a vehicle through Ally, later purchased the vehicle pursuant to the lease contract, and were charged fees in connection with the vehicle purchase that were never disclosed by Ally in the lease contract, asserting a claim under the federal Consumer Leasing Act as a result of undisclosed fees. According to Ally's financial reports, Ally originates over $30 billion annually in automobile leases in the per year, involving hundreds of thousands of lessees. All of Ally's leases are executed pursuant to a standardized form contract that Ally calls the "SmartLease" agreement. The SmartLease agreement provides that the lessee has the option of purchasing the vehicle at the end of the lease term for a set price, plus official fees and taxes, which the agreement defines as governmental fees, such as license, title, registration, testing and inspection fees. At the end of the lease term, however, Ally refuses to sell the vehicle to its lessees for the set price listed on the SmartLease agreement. Instead, its lessees are forced to purchase the vehicle through a dealer for a higher price, which is inflated due to the inclusion of additional fees that were never disclosed in the SmartLease agreement. As a result, Plaintiff, and each Class Member, has been damaged in the amount of the undisclosed fees that are added to the purchase option price listed in the SmartLease agreement. In Plaintiff Cavinato's case, Cavinato was charged an additional $2,390.45 after several undisclosed fees were included in the purchase of the vehicle, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entered into a thirty-eight-month lease with Rick Case Alfa Romeo Fiat Maserati on November 23, 2018 for a new 2019 Alfa Romeo Stelvio. Ally is one of the largest vehicle lessors in the country and originated more than $35 billion in automobile leases in 2020 alone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perrin Rynders, Esq. Jailah D. Emerson, Esq. VARNUM LLP 480 Pierce Street, Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 Phone: (248) 567-7800 Email: prynders@varnumlaw.com jdemerson@varnumlaw.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. Jack Bunn, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2105 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com jbunn@baileyglasser.com - and - Joshua Feygin, Esq. JOSHUA FEYGIN, PLLC 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208F Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (954) 228-5674 Email: josh@jfeyginesq.com - and - Darren Newhart, Esq. NEWHART LEGAL PC 14611 Southern Blvd., Suite 1351 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Email: darren@newhartlegal.com AMAZON.COM INC: Dorobiala Parties Agree to Suspend Time to Answer ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the parties' stipulation relating to the Defendant's motion to consolidate the case, THOMAS DOROBIALA, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01600-RSM (W.D. Wash.), with the two other actions now pending before the Court: Daly v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00910-RSM, and Nicholas v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01616-RSM. Among other things, and in light of the Consolidation Motion, the parties stipulate and agree to suspend the deadline for Amazon to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this action. On Nov. 9, 2022, Dorobiala filed a putative class action complaint against Amazon.com. On Dec. 12, 2022, Amazon was served a copy of the complaint and summons, making its answer or response to the complaint due on Jan. 3, 2023. On Dec. 15, 2022, Amazon filed a notice of related cases in this and two other actions now pending before this Court: Daly and Nicholas (the "Related Actions"). On Dec. 19, 2022, the instant case was reassigned to this Court. On Dec. 28, 2022, Amazon filed a motion to consolidate this action with the Related Actions. The Consolidation Motion is pending in the Daly action, as the first-filed action. The Plaintiff intends to oppose consolidation. Amazon and the Plaintiff have agreed that the Plaintiff may have until Jan. 20, 2023, to file an opposition to the Consolidation Motion and Amazon may have until Feb. 8, 2023 to file a reply in support of the Consolidation Motion. In light of the Consolidation Motion, the parties stipulate and agree to suspend the deadline for Amazon to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this action to the date that is 30 days after the Court denies Amazon's Consolidation Motion (if that occurs). If the Court grants Amazon's Consolidation Motion, and does not issue a new case schedule, the parties agree to meet and confer on a schedule for Amazon to answer or otherwise respond to any amended consolidated complaint filed in the consolidated action. Judge Martinez so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bkk3ysn from Leagle.com. FENWICK & WEST LLP Brian D. Buckley -- bbuckley@fenwick.com -- Seattle, WA, Counsel for Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC. AMY PECHACEK: Bemke, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BEMKE, SCOTT COLLETT, JOHN FERIOZZI, JUDY FINTZ, SARAH JAMIESON, EVAN JOHNSON, TRACY LONG, and CLIFFORD NEUMANN, et al v. AMY PECHACEK, in her official capacity as Secretary-designee of the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Filed concurrently in support of this motion are the following documents: (1) Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (2) the Declaration of Paul A. Kinne in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XaKjXQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. Kinne, Esq. Riley C. Leonard, Esq. GINGRAS, THOMSEN & WACHS, LLP 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 E-mail: Kinne@gtwlawyers.com rleonard@gtwlawyers.com - and - Victor Forberger, Esq. VICTOR FORBERGER, ESQ. 2509 Van Hise Ave Madison, WI 53705 Telephone: (608) 352-0138 E-mail: Forberger@fastmail.fm - and - Heath Straka, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP 2 E. Mifflin Street, Ste. 200 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 283-6755 E-mail: HStraka@axley.com ANCESTRY.COM: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA and MARK SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.), the parties seek an order of the Court extending the class certification deadlines as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Last Day to Oppose Motion Jan. 17, 2023 Feb. 2, 2023 to Certify Class Last Day to File Reply Feb. 14, 2023 Mar. 2, 2023 Supporting Motion to Certify Class On May 16, 2022, the Court approved the parties' Amended Joint Discovery Plan setting the close of fact discovery for October 25, 2022 and the last day to move to certify a class as November 29, 2022. On November 17, 2022, the parties jointly requested a one-week extension of the class certification briefing deadlines, to permit the parties time to complete document production and review. On December 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class Certification. Ancestry gave notice to Plaintiffs of its intent to take the deposition of the Plaintiffs' expert identified in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the parties met and conferred and agreed that Ancestry will take the deposition of Plaintiffs' expert on January 26, 2023. Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and resources. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GxP2Mo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miles N. Clark, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC 5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 856-7430 Facsimile: (702) 447-8048 - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 E-mail: MRam@forthepeople.com MAppel@forthepeople.com - and - Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 E-mail: Ben@benosbornlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: H. Stan Johnson, Esq COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (702) 823-2500 Facsimile: (702) 823-3400 E-mail: sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com - and - John W. Baumann, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com - and - Cristina Henriquez 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5000 E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com ANDRA GROUP: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andra Group, LP. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Andra Group, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00163 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Andra Group, LP -- https://www.andragroup.com/ -- is a retail, lingerie, and bras company located in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ANDREWS WHARTON: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrews Wharton, Inc. The case is styled as Toby Edward Hoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Andrews Wharton, Inc. doing business as: Healthy Access, Case No. 2:23-cv-00122 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Andrews Wharton -- https://www.andrewswharton.com/ -- is known for sourcing data across the entire marketplace and curating it for your unique needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 410 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Desai Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anker Technology Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sagar R. Desai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anker Technology Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-20070-KMW (W.D. Mo., Jan. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. Anker Technology -- https://www.anker.com/ -- is a company that specializes in wireless charging, car charging offering cordless chargers, and phone case chargers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard. 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - Robert Michael Stein, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 423-3437 Fax: (305) 376-6176 Email: rstein@rvmrlaw.com - and - Daniel Scott Maland, Esq. MARK MIGDAL AND HAYDEN 80 SW 8th Street Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: dmaland@kttlaw.com ANYWHERE REAL: Parties Must Mediate Before March 15 --------------------------------------------------- Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ordered the Antitrust class suit parties to mediate not later than March 15, 2023. Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel 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. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This case had been scheduled to go to trial in February 2023. The court has now continued the trial until October 2023. On December 16, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a decision denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment in this matter, an antitrust class action pending against the Company and others, alleging that certain MLS rules mandated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court's summary-judgment decision holds that plaintiffs have raised a dispute of fact about whether the challenged rules constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act. Because other courts considering similar antitrust challenges to MLS rules have held that such rules cannot be treated as per se violations, the defendants have filed a motion asking the court to certify the issue for a discretionary interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The motion remains pending. On December 29, 2022 the court also entered an order directing the parties to conduct a mediation no later than March 15, 2023. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. ARC AUTOMOTIVE: McCarthy Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel McCarthy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arc Automotive, Inc., General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05708 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00101-ELR to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability. ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators for automotive airbag applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey Taylor, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: ltaylor@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ATHIRA PHARMA: Parties Stipulate Class Certification Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO BACHAALANI NACIF and WIES RAFI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00861-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. The January 31, 2023 deadline to complete discovery on class certification issues be vacated and, 2. Discovery on class certification issues track the Court-ordered deadlines for briefing on class certification as follows: -- The Plaintiffs will put forth their proposed class representative(s) in their motion for class certification and may provide expert opinions in support of their motion for class certification; -- The Defendants may subsequently take the depositions of any proposed class representative and the depositions of Plaintiffs' expert(s) prior to filing any responses to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and Defendants may provide expert opinions in support of their responses to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and; Plaintiffs may subsequently take the depositions of Defendants' expert(s) prior to filing a reply in support of their motion for class certification. Athira Pharma is a late clinical stage American biopharmaceutical company developing small molecules to restore neuronal health and stop the neurodegeneration brought on by diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZmPTbn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Natalie S. Pang, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com thoffman@labaton.com - and - Benjamin T.G. Nivison, Esq. ROSSI VUCINOVICH PC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1780 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (425) 646-8003 Facsimile: (425) 646-8004 E-mail: bnivison@rvflegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory L. Watts, Esq. John C. Roberts, Jr., Esq. Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Telephone: (206) 883-2500 Facsimile: (206) 883-2699 E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com jroberts@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com - and - Sean C. Knowles, Esq. Joseph E. Bringman, Esq. Zachary E. Davison, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: sknowles@perkinscoie.com jbringman@perkinscoie.com zdavison@perkinscoie.com AVAYA HOLDINGS: Fletcher Sues Over 14.28% Share Price Decline ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY A. FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVAYA HOLDINGS CORP., JAMES M. CHIRICO, JR., ALAN B. MASAREK, and KIERAN J. MCGRATH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00003 (M.D.N.C., Jan. 3, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchase or otherwise acquired Avaya securities between November 22, 2021 and November 29, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Avaya purports to be a "global leader in digital communications products, solutions and services for businesses of all sizes delivering its technology predominantly through software and services." The Company claims that its "global, experienced team of professionals delivers award-winning services from initial planning and design, to seamless implementation and integration, to ongoing managed operations, optimization, training and support." Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) was deficient in several areas; (ii) as a result of these deficiencies, the Company had failed to design and maintain effective controls over its whistleblower policies and its ethics and compliance program, (iii) the Company's deteriorating financial condition was likely to raise substantial doubt as to its ability to continue as a going concern; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint further alleges that before the market opened on November 30, 2022, Avaya disclosed in a Current Report filed on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission that "control deficiencies [] management had been reviewing represent material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting" and that "management's assessment of ICFR included in Item 9A of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year 2021 ended September 30, 2021, filed with the (SEC] on November 22, 2021 [] should no longer be relied upon." Specifically, the Form 8-K stated that the Company "did not design and maintain effective controls related to the information and communication component of the COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) framework," "did not design and maintain effective controls to ensure appropriate communication between certain functions within the Company," and "did not design and maintain effective controls over the ethics and compliance program," says the suit. On this news, Avaya's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or 14.28%, to close at $0.96 per share on November 30, 2022. 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: Ellis B. Drew, III, Esq. CRAIGE JENKINS LIIPFERT & WALKER LLP 110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 300 Winston-Salem, NC 27103 Telephone: (336) 725-2900 E-mail: BoD@craigejenkins.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood I, 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 BAY BRIDGE ADMINISTRATORS: Manson Files Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Bridge Administrators, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Manson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bay Bridge Administrators, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00030 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bay Bridge Administrators -- https://www.bbadmin.com/ -- is a full-service, nationally recognized, third party administrator of fully-insured employee benefit plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Armstrong, II, Esq. THE ARMSTRONG FIRM, PLLC 310 S Saint Mary's St., Suite 2700 San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone: (210) 277-0542 Fax: (210) 277-0548 Email: rwaii@tafpllc.com BELLA BARBIES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bella Barbies International LLC. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bella Barbies International LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00118 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bella Barbies International is a beauty, cosmetic & personal care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com BELLEVUE, WA: Fredrickson Loses Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACEY FREDRICKSON, et al., v. CITY OF BELLEVUE, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01517-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification of the two damages classes: 1. City of Bellevue: "Individuals, who, from October 8, 2018 to present, were arrested by the City of Bellevue without a warrant, incarcerated in the SCORE jail, and held more than 48 hours following their arrest without a timely probable cause determination and who were not released within 48 hours." 2. SCORE Jail: "Individuals, who, from October 8, 2018 to present, were arrested without a warrant, incarcerated in the SCORE Jail, and held more than 48 hours following their arrest without a timely probable cause determination and who were not released within 48 hours." The Defendant City of Bellevue argues that the Plaintiff's claim is not typical because the facts of her arrest are factually different than those of the purported class, and therefore her damages requests will be different too. The Court finds this argument persuasive. Just because the purported class members were all detained in a SCORE jail does not make their cases factually transferable with one another. Even the identified purported class members appear to have significant factual differences that are dispositive of the legal outcome. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the City of Bellevue and South Correctional Entity ("SCORE"). The Plaintiff claims that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated because she was arrested without a warrant and held in a SCORE jail for over 48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W7UImk at no extra charge.[CC] BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Labor Suit in Ontario Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2022, that a trial date for an employment class action filed against the company has not yet been set. On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the company in the Ontario Superior court of Justice (Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements, (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such other amount as the court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the court deems just. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The company filed its Statement of Defense on December 19, 2019. The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an agreement. Discovery is proceeding and the court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BLOCK INC: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Esposito Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONNA ESPOSITO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCK, INC., JACK DORSEY and AMRITA AHUJA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08636-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appoints: a. Fotios Sotiropoulos as the Lead Plaintiff; and b. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as the Lead Counsel and The Schall Law Firm as additional counsel. Judge Abrams has considered the motion of Mr. Sotiropoulos for entry of an Order: (1) appointing him as the Lead Plaintiff on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Block or SQ securities between Nov. 4, 2021 and April 4, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); (2) approving his selection of the law firm of Hagens Berman as the Lead Counsel for the class and The Schall Law Firm as additional counsel; and (3) granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Lead Counsel will have authority to speak for the Lead Plaintiff in matters regarding pretrial and trial procedure and settlement negotiations, and will make all work assignments in such manner as to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of this litigation and to avoid duplicative or unproductive efforts. It will be responsible for coordination of all activities and appearances on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and for the dissemination of notices and orders of the Court. No motion, request for discovery or other pretrial proceedings will be initiated or filed by the Lead Plaintiff except through the Lead Counsel. The Lead Counsel will also be available and responsible for communications to and from the Court. The Defendants' counsel may rely upon all agreements made with the Lead Counsel or other duly-authorized representatives of the Lead Plaintiff, and such agreements will be binding on the Lead Plaintiff. Judge Abrams adjourns the conference scheduled for Jan. 6, 2023. As stipulated by the parties on Nov. 8, 2022, the Defendants and the Lead Plaintiff will jointly submit, within 14 days of the Order, (1) a proposed schedule for filing an amended complaint or designating a complaint as the operative complaint, and (2) a briefing schedule on the Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xzr8m4a from Leagle.com. BMW MANUFACTURING: Clark Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ryan Charles Clark, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, BMW of North America, L.L.C., Arc Automotive, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03244 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00102-ELR to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC manufactures automobiles. The Company produces sport activity vehicles for the automotive markets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John David O'Neill, Esq. Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC-SC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 216-9629 Fax: (843) 216-9450 Email: jdoneill@motleyrice.com kdean@motleyrice.com CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Docs Under Seal Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: CALIFORNIA GASOLINE SPOT MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, Defendants, and certain non-parties will move the Court, pursuant to the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class Certification Briefing, for an administrative order to file under seal all or portions of: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and -- Exhibits 1-16 to the Declaration of Dena Sharp in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs are conditionally filing the above documents under seal pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in the case and the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class Certification Briefing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WVRzqG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Samantha J. Stein, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com sstein@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com tkim@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class: "All persons or entities that purchased gasoline from a retailer, for their own use and not for resale, within the California counties of Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura ("Southern California") from February 20, 2015, through May 25, 2015, and August 12, 2015, through August 24, 2015 (the "Class Period");" Excluded from the Class are the following persons or entities: (a) Defendants; (b) any of the corporate Defendants' parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (c) any of the Defendants' officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates or agents; (d) all governmental entities; and (e) the judges and chambers staff assigned to this case, as well as the members of their immediate families; and (f) all jurors assigned to this case. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Bogard Construction Inc., Asante Cleveland, and Ritual Coffee Roasters, Inc. as Class representatives and to appoint the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Hausfeld LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' claims are well-suited for class treatment. Plaintiffs allege that theg Defendants agreed with each other to raise Oil Price Information Service, LLC ("OPIS") spot price benchmarks for gasoline blendstocks sold in Southern California ("LA OPIS Spot Prices") in restraint of trade. Capitalizing on a market disruption caused by an explosion of an oil refinery in Torrance, California in February 2015, the Defendants engaged in trading activity on the Los Angeles spot market that drove up the price, not because the market dictated a higher price but because Defendants stood to profit on contracts that were based on that higher price. The result was greater profits for the Defendants, and higher costs for consumers. The Plaintiffs bring their antitrust claim under the California Cartwright Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GXvZgd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Samantha J. Stein, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com sstein@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com tkim@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com CARAWAY HOME: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caraway Home, Inc. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caraway Home, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00165 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caraway Home, Inc. -- https://www.carawayhome.com/ -- design non-toxic ceramic-coated home goods that have raised the standards of what you cook and bake with.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com CASSAVA SCIENCES: Discovery Stay in Securities Suit Won't Be Lifted ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, denies the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Partial Relief From the PSLRA Discovery Stay in the lawsuit entitled IN RE CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Master No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.). Named Plaintiffs Mohammad Bozorgi, Ken Calderone, and Manohar K. Rao bring this securities fraud class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Cassava Sciences, Inc., and Cassava executives Remi Barbier, Eric Schoen, Lindsay Burns, and Nadav Friedmann (collectively, "Defendants"). Cassava is a biotechnology company based in Austin, Texas, that is developing an investigational drug, simufilam, to treat Alzheimer's disease. On Aug. 18, 2021, a "Citizen Petition" was filed with the Food and Drug Administration accusing Cassava of research misconduct related to simufilam. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice began investigating and requested certain documents from Cassava in the fall of 2021. The Defendants deny any wrongdoing. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Cassava securities between Sept. 14, 2020, and July 26, 2022 (the "Class Period") and suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' federal securities law violations, false and misleading statements, and material omissions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to materially mislead investors regarding the prospects for Cassava's primary product candidate, a purported treatment for Alzheimer's disease, simufilam. The Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. On June 30, 2022, the District Court consolidated three other related shareholder actions against Cassava and its executives with and into this action (Case Nos. 1:21-cv-760-DAE, 1:21-cv-856-DAE, and 1:21-cv-971-DAE). The Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint on Aug. 18, 2022. On Oct. 25, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is pending. Judge Hightower notes that Section 78u-4(b)(3)(B) of the PSLRA mandates an automatic stay of "all discovery" during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, discovery in this case is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs now move the Court to lift the discovery stay for the limited purpose of allowing them to obtain (1) documents Cassava produced in a separate non-PSLRA stockholder derivative action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery accusing Casava and its executives of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment (Calamore v. Barbier, No. 2022-0737-MTZ (Del. Ch. Aug. 24, 2022)), and (2) "documents, interviews, and information" Cassava provided to the SEC, DOJ, and National Institutes of Health during those agencies' investigations. The Defendants oppose the motion. To meet their burden to lift the automatic discovery stay under the PSLRA, the Plaintiffs must prove either that the requested discovery is needed to (1) preserve evidence or (2) prevent undue prejudice. The Plaintiffs rely only on the latter exception, arguing that the Court should lift the stay to prevent undue prejudice. The Plaintiffs argue that they would be "unduly prejudiced" without the requested discovery because they would be the only major party in any of the several proceedings involving the same core events that have not been provided the sets of documents in question, and the resolution of the government investigations could potentially reduce Cassava's limited (and fast shrinking) resources to settle this action. The Plaintiffs emphasize that courts have routinely granted stays in cases involving concurrent investigations by governmental agencies when doing so would not frustrate Congress' purposes in enacting the PSLRA. In such cases, Judge Hightower notes, courts have granted stays on the ground that the cost of such discovery to defendants is minimal, as the documents have already been compiled for production, while plaintiffs would suffer severe prejudice if discovery in their case is delayed while government investigations and other lawsuits proceed ahead of them. Thus, while the Plaintiffs are correct that courts have granted stays in cases involving concurrent investigations, the plaintiffs in those cases also met their burden to show undue prejudice without the requested discovery, Judge Hightower opines. Judge Hightower holds that the Plaintiffs fail to show that they will be unduly prejudiced without the discovery requested. The Plaintiffs argue that: "Absent access to the Demand Documents and Government Productions, Plaintiffs will be forced to pursue this litigation at an unfair informational disadvantage, making the risk of undue prejudice and inconsistent rulings particularly severe." But they do not meaningfully explain why they have a particular need for early discovery of this material, or how the specific documents and deposition testimony they seek will actually prevent undue prejudice, Judge Hightower points out. In addition, although the Plaintiffs argue that Cassava has limited assets and that the Plaintiffs and other litigants "are all vying for a piece of a limited pie," Cassava has not filed for bankruptcy and the Plaintiffs do not allege that bankruptcy is imminent. Nor do the Plaintiffs allege that any parties are in settlement negotiations. Judge Hightower opines that it is, thus, unclear how the discovery stay will unduly prejudice the Plaintiffs. Rather, this appears to be a "garden variety" case in which the only thing which has happened, apart from ordinary litigation activities, is that the Defendants have produced documents to government agencies and to non-parties in other litigation. Again, Judge Hightower points out, prejudice caused by the delay of the PSLRA's discovery stay cannot constitute "undue prejudice." If the Plaintiffs are allowed to take discovery before the District Court has sustained the legal sufficiency of the Consolidated Complaint, moreover, the Plaintiffs might attempt to use the information in addressing a motion to dismiss or amending their claims in direct contravention of one of the purposes of the PSLRA. Because the Plaintiffs have not established that they will suffer undue prejudice, as required to lift the PSLRA's mandatory discovery stay, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Partial Relief From the PSLRA Discovery Stay. The case will be removed from the Magistrate Court's docket and returned to the docket of the Honorable David Alan Ezra. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 2, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/jv3zxey2 from Leagle.com. CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Halim Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Olena Halim, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Inc., Islestarr Holdings Ltd., Case No. 2022 CH 11832 was removed from Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00094 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Ltd. -- https://www.charlottetilbury.com/ -- is a cosmetics company registered in the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CHARTSWAP LLC: Beloff Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Emily Beloff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ChartSwap LLC, ACS Primary Care Physicians Southeast PC, Prisma Health-University Medical Group, Newberry County Memorial Hospital Board d/b/a Newberry County Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2022CP1801759 was removed from the Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00103-BHH to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. ChartSwap -- https://www.chartswap.com/ -- is a secure healthcare provider Release of Information (ROI) Medical Records Retrieval software & Health Information Exchange (HIE).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA) 32 Ann Street, Unit B Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine Farrell Wrenn WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP (GRE) PO Box 10208 550 S Main Street, Suite 400 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 255-5424 Email: cwrenn@bakerdonelson.com - and - Zachary Bruce Hayden RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON (COLA) PO Drawer 7788 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 576-3716 Email: zhayden@richardsonplowden.com CHARTSWAP LLC: Cobb Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nathan Cobb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ChartSwap LLC, Charleston Radiologists PA, ACS Primary Care Physicians Southeast PC, Case No. 2022CP2000337 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-00105-BHH to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. ChartSwap -- https://www.chartswap.com/ -- is a secure healthcare provider Release of Information (ROI) Medical Records Retrieval software & Health Information Exchange (HIE).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA) 32 Ann Street, Unit B Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine Farrell Wrenn WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP (GRE) PO Box 10208 550 S Main Street, Suite 400 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 255-5424 Email: cwrenn@bakerdonelson.com CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vaughn Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ChartSwap LLC, Charleston Radiologists PA, ACS Primary Care Physicians Southeast PC, Case No. 2022CP1005274 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00102-BHH to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Employment Discrimination. ChartSwap -- https://www.chartswap.com/ -- is a secure healthcare provider Release of Information (ROI) Medical Records Retrieval software & Health Information Exchange (HIE).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA) 32 Ann Street, Unit B Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine Farrell Wrenn, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP (GRE) PO Box 10208 550 S Main Street, Suite 400 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 255-5424 Email: cwrenn@bakerdonelson.com CHEESE MERCHANTS: Continental Seeks Entry of Judgment Under Rule 58 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CONTINENTAL WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. CHEESE MERCHANTS OF AMERICA, LLC and ZACK WYPYCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01571 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Continental Western files with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, before Judge Steven G. Seeger, its Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Continental Western filed the lawsuit on March 22, 2021, seeking a declaration that it owed and owes no duty to defend and/or indemnify Cheese Merchants in a putative class action lawsuit currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Case Number 2020 CH 02437 ("Wypych Lawsuit"). It filed a First Amended Complaint on Sept. 13, 2021, seeking the same relief. Continental Western premised its position that it owed no duty to defend and/or indemnify Cheese Merchants in the Wypych Lawsuit on three main exclusions found in the insurance policy it issued to Cheese Merchants: (1) the "Recording and Distribution of Material or Information in Violation of Law Exclusion"; (2) the "Access or Disclosure of Confidential or Personal Information Exclusion"; and (3) the "Employment-Related Practices Exclusion." Defendant Zack Wypych was named in the lawsuit solely as a necessary party due to his position as the plaintiff in the underlying Wypych Lawsuit; however, Continental Western did not (and does not) seek any affirmative relief against Wypych. Rather, it named Wypych as a defendant so that he would be bound by the Court's rulings with respect to coverage for the underlying Wypych Lawsuit. With no material facts in dispute, Continental Western filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Nov. 22, 2021. On Sept. 27, 2022, the Court issued its Memorandum Order and Opinion on Continental Western's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In its Opinion, it granted in part and denied in part Continental Western's Motion. Continental Western believes that the Court's Sept. 27, 2022 Opinion should be considered a final judgment, as it resolves the sole issue between the parties in this lawsuit -- i.e., whether Continental Western has or had a duty to defend or indemnify Cheese Merchants in the Wypych Lawsuit. The Court concluded that Continental Western owes no coverage for the claims asserted in the Wypych Lawsuit because two of the three exclusions in the Continental Western Policy apply. As a result, Continental Western believes that the Court's Opinion resolves all issues between the parties in this litigation. Additionally, the PACER system for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois does not, at present, reflect that this matter has been terminated Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, Continental Western respectfully requests that the Court enters an Order specifically and separately declaring that, for the reasons set forth in the Court's Sept. 27, 2022 Opinion, Continental Western has and had no duty to defend or indemnify Cheese Merchants in the Wypych Lawsuit and that this matter has been fully disposed. A full-text copy of Continental Western Insurance Co.'s Motion for Entry of Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88sz8p from Leagle.com. TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP Dana A. Rice -- drice@tlsslaw.com -- Adam P. Joffe -- ajoffe@tlsslaw.com -- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Chicago, IL, ATTORNEYS FOR CONTINENTAL WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY. CLASSIC CRANE: Doyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb Doyle and Benton Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLASSIC CRANE AND TRANSPORT, LP, Case No. 9:23-cv-00004 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought to recover back wages of overtime pay, minimum wage, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were or are employed." The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA because they knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether their pay practices were unlawful, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as crane operators. Classic Crane offers a variety of services and truck rentals in Midland, Odessa, and East Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended November 20, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2022, that in March 2022, an employee filed a class action against the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the failure to: pay wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages, and reimburse business expenses. The case is captioned "Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," (Case No. 22STCV09513, Los Angeles Superior court). The company filed an answer denying the material allegations. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, and its subsidiaries operate membership warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Feb. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended November 20, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2022, that in September 2021, an employee filed a class action against the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the alleged failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of California's unfair competition law. The case is captioned De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS; Sacramento Superior court). The company answered the complaint in January 2022, denying its material allegations. In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 28, 2022. A final approval hearing is set for February 10, 2023. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, and its subsidiaries operate membership warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Employees' Labor Suit for Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended November 20, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2022, that in February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. The case is captioned Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). In May 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss later that month. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to amend. In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and filed a separate representative action under PAGA asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The company filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint, denying the material allegations. The company also filed an answer to the PAGA representative action, denying the material allegations. On September 27, 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. The settlement requires court approval. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, and its subsidiaries operate membership warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement Reached in CA Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended November 20, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2022, that in March 2019, employees filed a class action against the company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. The suit has been settled. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. Settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the settlement was granted on May 3, 2022. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, and its subsidiaries operate membership warehouses. DNC SERVICES: Katz Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETHANY KATZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. DNC SERVICES CORP., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05800-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order 1. Granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release between Plaintiffs and Pennsylvania Democratic Party; 2. Certifying a Rule 23 Settlement Class consisting of: "all individuals who worked as a Field Organizers for the Defendant at any point from November 9, 2013-December 31, 2021;" 3. Appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as Class Counsel; 4. Appointing Angeion Group as Claims Administrator; 5. Preliminarily Approving Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees, costs and service awards; 6. Approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement; 7. Setting the date for the fairness hearing and the submission of the Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and 8. Specifying the dates for certain actions in this case. DNC operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization promotes democratic platform and coordinating party organizational activities including civil rights, health care, and social security. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X0rd76 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Ste. 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Protective Order Rider OK'd in Benson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, And IGT, a Nevada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-0525-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, enters a Stipulated Order approving the Agreed Rider To Protective Order Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery Produced By Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc. The Agreement is entered into between and among Amazon and named Plaintiffs Benson and Simonson. The Plaintiffs and Amazon anticipate that Amazon will produce documents that contain sensitive consumer information and are necessary to provide notice of the Class Action Settlement Agreement to members of the Settlement Class. Their agreement is intended to supplement the protective ordered entered by the Court on July 8, 2020. Amazon Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider will be used by the Class Action Administrator and the Parties solely for the purpose of providing notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount owed to each member of the Settlement Class. It will not be used directly or indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever. No Amazon Protected Material provided by Amazon to the Class Action Administrator under the terms of the Rider may be shared with any of the Parties, unless specifically authorized by it. It is the intention of Amazon and the Parties that the Rider will protect all materials produced by Amazon in the Action unless otherwise specified. For the avoidance of doubt, in all circumstances not specifically addressed by the Rider, all Amazon Protected Material will be treated as if designated "CONFIDENTIAL" under the Protective Order regardless of whether the Amazon Protected Material has been stamped or marked in accordance with that Order. The protections conferred by the Rider cover not only the Amazon Protected Material governed by the Rider, but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their counsel in court or in other settings that might reveal Amazon Protected Material. Nothing in it will prevent or restrict Amazon's own disclosure or use of its own Amazon Protected Material for any purpose, and nothing in it will preclude Amazon from showing its Amazon Protected Material to an individual who prepared the Amazon Protected Material. Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Stipulated Order will remain in effect until Amazon agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs, subject to the Final Disposition clause therein. Absent written permission from Amazon or a court Order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, the Parties may not file or disclose in the public record any Amazon Protected Material. Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure does not change the status of Amazon Protected Material or waive the right to hold the disclosed document or information as Protected. Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of this case, the Parties and the Class Action Administrator will return all Amazon Protected Material to outside counsel for Amazon or destroy such Material, at the option of Amazon. For purposes of this Order, "Final Disposition" occurs after an order, mandate, or dismissal finally terminating the above-captioned action with prejudice, including all appeals. The counsel for the Plaintiffs that has received any such Amazon Protected Material, as well as the Class Action Administrator, will certify in writing that all such materials have been returned to counsel for Amazon or destroyed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2df9d5e5 from Leagle.com. EMC SPORTS Inc: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMC Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMC Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00120 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. EMC Sports, Inc. -- https://emcsports.com/ -- is a sporting goods store in Acworth, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Hines Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hise v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00317 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Mcglynn entered an order: 1. terminating scheduling order deadlines; and 2. deferring any ruling on the outstanding Motion to Certify Class to Feb. 8, 2023. The nature of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit involving consumer credit.[CC] ESSENTIAL WHOLESALE: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essential Wholesale & Labs. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Essential Wholesale & Labs, Case No. 1:23-cv-00164 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Essential Wholesale & Labs -- https://essentialwholesale.com/ -- is a cosmetic manufacturer and ingredient supplier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com EUROPHARMA INC: DiGiacinto Sues Over False and Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph DiGiacinto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EuroPharma, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00076 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought seeking to challenge Defendant's false and deceptive practices in the labeling, marketing and sale of its Terry Naturally CuraMed Curcumin Supplements (the "Product(s)"). Specifically, the Defendant has marketed and labeled the Products in a manner which grossly overstates the amount of curcumin contained per serving of the Products. For example, in the 750 mg version of the Product, the Defendant prominently promises "750 mg" of "Superior Absorption Curcumin" on the front label. Based on this representation, consumers expect that the product contains 750 mg of curcumin. Despite this unequivocal representation, the Product only contains 500 mg of curcuminoids, with only a portion of that being curcumin. As such, the Product is falsely labeled and advertised. The remaining Products suffer from the same false and deceptive labeling. The Plaintiff and other class members purchased the Products and paid a premium price based upon their reliance on the Defendant's front label representations. Had the Plaintiff and Class members been aware that the Products do not contain the amount of curcumin per serving promised on the front labels, the Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for them. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by the Defendant's deceptive business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Terry Naturally CuraMed Super Absorption Curcumin, 375 mg Product from Walmart in Santa Rosa, California. The Defendant is responsible for the formulation, ingredients, manufacturing, marketing, labeling, packaging, and sale of the Products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 751-5948 Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com EVVI RESTAURANT: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVVI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a "Jimmy's Egg," Case 1:23-cv-00023 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for Defendant paid on a hybrid sub-minimum wage and tips basis. The Defendant pays their tipped employees at an hourly rate below the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage plus tips. By paying the Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members less than the applicable minimum wage per hour, the Defendant takes advantage of a tip credit which allows the Defendant to include in their calculation of wages a portion of the amounts the Plaintiff receives as tips. The Defendant did not satisfy the strict requirements under the FLSA that would allow them to pay a tip credit. The Defendant maintained a policy and/or practice whereby they failed to provide tipped employees with the statutorily required notice that the Defendant intended to pay tipped employees the tipped minimum wage rate. The Defendant maintained a policy and/or practice whereby tipped employees were required to perform non-tip producing side work unrelated to the employees' tipped occupation. As a result, tipped employees are engaged in a dual occupation while being compensated at the tip credit rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress by Defendant from 2018 to 2022. EVVI Restaurants Group, LLC operates a chain of restaurants known as Jimmy's Egg.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com FEDEX GROUND: Aristizabal Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARDO ARISTIZABAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00529-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional certification of this action and for court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and section 40.1-29(J) of the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"); 2. approving of the proposed FLSA notice of this action, consent form, and reminder notice; 3. directing the production by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; JAK Logistics, Inc.; Keraj Industries Inc. of the names, job titles, last known mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers, business and home email addresses, dates of employment, locations of employment, ISP employer, last four digits of Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Court's Order; 4. directing the distribution of the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder notice to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and 5. requiring the Defendants to post the Notice in a conspicuous location at every FedEx terminal in Virginia where putative plaintiffs work, and to enclose said Notice in putative plaintiffs’ paystubs. Fedex Ground provides package delivery services. A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IEojk2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. Francisco Mundaca, Esq. THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 3601 Eisenhower Ave., Suite 425 Alexandria, VA 22304 Telephone: (202) 449-8527 Facsimile: (202) 517-9179 E-mail: rtucci@spigglelaw.com fmundaca@spigglelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian F. Chandler, Esq. Mark Emilio S. Abrajano, Esq. James B. Kinsel, Esq. PROTORAE LAW, PLLC 1921 Gallows Road, 9th Floor Tysons Corner, VA 22182 Telephone: (703) 749-8507 Facsimile: (703) 942-6758 E-mail: bchandler@protoraelaw.com mabrajano@protoraelaw.com jkinsel@protoraelaw.com - and - Gregory F. Jacob, Esq. Anwar L. Graves, Esq. Scott Voelz, Esq. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 E-mail: gjacob@omm.com agraves@omm.com svoelz@omm.com - and - David J. Schaller, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O’DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202-5647 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 Facsimile: (303) 244-1879 E-mail: schaller@wtotrial.com FEDEX GROUND: Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by August 17 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01644 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order on motion for extension of time. -- Any motion for class certification August 17, 2023 by Plaintiffs must be filed by: -- The Defendant's opposition brief September 18, 2023 will be due by: -- The Plaintiffs' reply brief will October 10, 2023 be due by: -- Dispositive motions will be due 3 months after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- In addition, the parties shall file a joint status report on May 15, 2023, containing: (1) a detailed description of the discovery conducted up to the date of the report, including fact and expert witness discovery and depositions; (2) a detailed description of the discovery yet to be completed and an indication of whether this discovery pertains to liability or damages; and (3) whether the parties expect to seek any further extensions of the remaining deadlines of the case. -- The parties shall file a second joint status report by July 31, 2023, confirming that discovery has been completed. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation – Diversity-(Citizenship). FORD MOTOR: Oral Argument on Class Certification Set for Jan. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TUCKER, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00430-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order setting an oral argument on the Defendant's motion to deny class certification and strike class allegations on Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. If any party or counsel wishes to attend via teleconference or video conference, they must promptly file a request to do so. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XfjCRS at no extra charge.[CC] FTX TRADING: Papadakis Files Suit to Recover Damages ----------------------------------------------------- JULIE CHON PAPADAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, CAROLINE ELLISON, ZIXIAO "GARY" WANG, NISHAD SINGH, ARMANINO LLP, and PRAGER METIS CPAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00024 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants that have deposited funds and/or assets in accounts with FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX or West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US, and who have been unable to access or withdraw the deposited funds and/or assets in the accounts. As alleged herein, and being currently spilled out in the parade of actions being pursued against Bankman-Fried, Ellison and Wang, the FTX Entities were operated essentially as a Ponzi scheme, with customer funds entrusted to the FTX Entities becoming a casualty of the greed of the Individual Defendants and of their agents, such as the Auditor Defendants, who (upon information and belief) received substantial fees for their active participation in, and/or aiding and abetting of, the conduct alleged herein. The complaint asserts that a key component of the highly lucrative promotional marketing campaign included the air of legitimacy that the Auditor Defendants' purported auditing work and other supportive statements provided to the FTX Entities. For example, throughout 2021 and 2022, Bankman-Fried represented that the FTX Entities had completed several successful audits under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. In March 2022, the Auditor Defendants, Armanino and Prager, reportedly issued certified reports that purportedly found the FTX Entities to be in good financial health. The statements negate any claim of auditor independence by either of the Auditor Defendants, and as a result of the massive fraud undertaken by the FTX Entities and the Individual Defendants, of which numerous red flags dangled in front of the Auditor Defendants, the so-called audits and Audit Reports thereon failed to comport with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, as well as common law claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting violations of the UCL, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment; and a declaratory judgment. FTX Trading started as a cryptocurrency exchange by Bankman-Fried, who served as its Chief Executive Officer until his November 11, 2022 resignation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com kherkenhoff@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES LAW FIRM 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (866) 558-9631 E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Buchholz Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC. The case is styled as Rachel Buchholz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-06004-BCW (W.D. Mo., Jan. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. The General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 945-7110 Fax: (816) 945-7118 Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com GIGACQUISITIONS3 LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Delman Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD DELMAN, Plaintiff v. GIGACQUISITIONS3, LLC, AVI KATZ, RALUCA DINU, NEIL MIOTTO, JOHN MIKULSKY, ANDREA BETTI-BERUTTO, and PETER WANG, Defendants, C.A. No. 2021-0679-LWW (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Court of Chancery of Delaware denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss. GigCapital3, Inc. -- now Lightning eMotors, Inc. ("New Lightning") -- is a Delaware corporation formed as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in Feb. 2020. A SPAC is a financial innovation that traces its origins to the "blank check" companies of the 1980s. It is a shell corporation, most commonly incorporated in Delaware, that lacks operations and takes a private company public through a form of reverse merger. The number of SPAC mergers skyrocketed in 2020 and 2021.4 That trend has recently slowed. The SPAC is formed by a sponsor that raises capital in an initial public offering (IPO). Its IPO units are customarily sold for $10 each and consist of a share and a fraction of a warrant (or alternatively a warrant to purchase a fraction of a share). The IPO proceeds are held in trust for the benefit of the SPAC's public stockholders, who have a right to redeem their shares after a merger target is identified. These redemption rights essentially guarantee public IPO investors a fixed return. The sponsor, most often a limited liability company, is responsible for administering the SPAC. It will also make an investment concurrently with the IPO to cover the SPAC's underwriting fees and other expenses, since those expenses cannot be paid using cash in the trust. At the time of its merger, a SPAC may also issue new shares as private investment in public equity (PIPE). The SPAC's charter sets a fixed period -- generally between 18 and 24 months -- to complete a de-SPAC transaction with a yet-to-be-identified private company. The SPAC must liquidate if it fails to merge within that window. In the event of liquidation, the trust distributes its cash (IPO proceeds plus accrued interest) to the SPAC's public stockholders. The founder shares, meanwhile, become worthless. Gig3 fell within these structural norms. Its sponsor was GigAcquisitions3, LLC (the "Sponsor"), a Delaware limited liability company. The Sponsor was responsible for incorporating the entity, appointing its directors, and managing its IPO. In February 2020, shortly after it was incorporated, Gig3 issued founder shares to the Sponsor amounting to approximately 20% of Gig3's post-IPO equity for the nominal sum of $25,000. This came to about five million founder shares, referred to as the "Initial Stockholder Shares," at a price of $0.005 per share. Gig3 completed its IPO on May 18, 2020, selling 20 million units to public investors at $10 per unit and raising proceeds of $200 million. Each unit consisted of a share of common stock and three-quarters of a warrant to purchase a share of common stock at an exercise price of $11.50 per share. The IPO proceeds were deposited in a trust. Nomura Securities International, Inc. and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. acted as the joint lead book-running managers for the offering, and Odeon Capital Group LLC acted as co-manager. The underwriters agreed to defer two-thirds (or $8 million) of their underwriting fees until a merger was accomplished. Simultaneously with the IPO, the Sponsor purchased 650,000 Gig3 units for $10 per unit in a private placement. The $6.5 million in proceeds were used to pay Gig3's underwriting fees and operating expenses. Defendant Avi Katz is a "serial founder of SPACs" affiliated with GigCapital Global, where he is a founding managing partner, CEO, and Executive Chairman. He served as a member of Gig3's Board of Directors and as Gig3's Executive Chairman, Secretary, President, and CEO. He held a controlling interest in the Sponsor and was its managing member. After the IPO, Gig3's officers and directors began to search for a merger target. They identified Lightning eMotors Inc., an electric vehicle manufacturer focused on zero-emission medium duty vocational vehicles and shuttle buses. Katz and Dinu "dominated" the Company's negotiations with Lightning. Oppenheimer and Nomura -- two of the three IPO underwriters -- were hired to serve as Gig3's financial advisors. The Board did not ask Oppenheimer or Nomura to provide a fairness opinion on the merger. On Dec. 9, 2020, the Board approved a proposed transaction with Lightning. The next day, Gig3 and Lightning announced that they had entered into a merger agreement. At the same time that it announced the proposed merger, Gig3 entered into a PIPE subscription agreement and a convertible note subscription agreement. Both agreements were contingent on the merger closing. Gig3 ultimately raised $25 million in PIPE financing from a single investor, who "was the largest owner of Lightning's pre-merger equity." With the failure of the PIPE, Gig3 pursued a dilutive convertible debt financing. It entered into an agreement with 30 undisclosed investors for the purchase of convertible notes at an aggregate price of $100 million. Gig3's definitive proxy statement was filed with the SEC on March 22, 2021. The Proxy indicated that the merger consideration to be paid to Lightning stockholders consisted of Gig3 stock valued at $10 per share. Gig3's Proxy contained projections prepared by Lightning management that forecast dramatic growth over the next five years. Approval of the merger required the affirmative stockholder vote of a majority of the votes cast at the special meeting. Stockholders overwhelmingly approved the transaction, with more than 98% of the votes cast being in favor. Approximately 29% of public stockholders elected to redeem 5.8 million shares. On May 6, 2021, a merger subsidiary of Gig3 merged with and into Lightning, with Lightning surviving the merger. Upon closing, Gig3 changed its name to Lightning eMotors, Inc. New Lightning subsequently elected a nine-member board of directors, which included Miotto, Dinu, and Katz. Before the vote, Gig3's stock price had traded around the redemption price, closing at $10.07 on April 15. By the May 6 closing date, Gig3's stock price had fallen to $7.82 per share. Still, the Initial Stockholder Shares were worth more than $39 million when the merger closed. On May 17, New Lightning issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2021 financial results and 2021 projections. It announced quarterly revenues of $4.6 million and reduced its 2021 revenue guidance, stating that projected 2021 revenues would "be in the range of $50 million to $60 million." Taking the midpoint ($55 million), this was a 12.7% downward revision from the projection in the Proxy. By August 2, Gig3's stock price had fallen to $6.57 per share. As of the day before the Opinion was filed, trading closed at $0.41 per share. Delman has held stock in Gig3 since Aug. 26, 2020. On Aug. 4, 2021, he filed a putative class action Complaint on behalf of himself and current and former Gig3 stockholders. His Complaint advances three claims. Count One is a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the six members of the Gig3 Board. Count Two is a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Katz and the Sponsor as the controlling stockholders of Gig3. Count Three is a direct claim for unjust enrichment against the Sponsor and the director defendants. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on Aug. 31, 2021. They moved to dismiss the Complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to plead demand futility and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Briefing was completed on March 1, 2022. Judge Will heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on September 23. She understands that the Plaintiff asserts that the sponsor and directors of a SPAC failed to live up to their fiduciary obligations. The Defendants allegedly undertook a value destructive deal that generated returns for the sponsor at the expense of public stockholders. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants impaired stockholders' ability to decide whether to redeem or to invest in the post-merger company. Public stockholders were left with shares worth far less than the guaranteed redemption price; the sponsor received a windfall. Judge Will holds that barring legislation providing otherwise, the fiduciaries of a Delaware corporation cannot be exempted from their loyalty obligation and the attendant equitable standards of review that the Court will apply to enforce it. That the corporation is a SPAC is irrelevant. Long-established principles of Delaware law require fiduciaries to deal candidly with stockholders and avoid conflicted, unfair transactions. In the case, Judge Will concludes that it is reasonably conceivable that the Defendants breached those duties by disloyally depriving public stockholders of information material to the redemption decision. Therefore, she denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Complaint states reasonably conceivable claims against the Defendants in Counts One, Two, and Three. The standard of review is entire fairness with the Defendants bearing the burden of persuasion at trial. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2c5k2cm4 from Leagle.com. Michael J. Barry -- mbarry@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFFER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Michael Klausner -- klausner@stanford.edu -- Stanford, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Delman. John L. Reed -- john.reed@dlapiper.com -- Ronald N. Brown -- ronald.brown@dlapiper.com -- & Kelly L. Freund -- kelly.freund@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP (US), Wilmington, Delaware; Melanie E. Walker -- melanie.walker@dlapiper.com -- & Gaspard Rappoport -- gaspard.rappoport@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP (US), Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants GigAcquisitions3, LLC, Avi Katz, Raluca Dinu, Neil Miotto, John Mikulsky, Andrea Betti-Berutto & Peter Wang. GOOGLE LLC: Kumandan Request to File Renewed Class Cert Bid Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIF KUMANDAN, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying the plaintiffs' administrative request for leave to file renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs seek to submit a renewed motion for class certification in which they would move to certify a new class not considered by the Court in its order granting in part and denying in part their last motion for class certification. Google opposes Plaintiffs' motion. On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Plaintiffs sought certification of three classes and two subclasses. Relevant to the present issue, the Plaintiffs sought to certify a "Privacy Class" which they defined to be "All Opted-In Users of Google Home Devices who have a recording resulting from a False Accept associated with their Google account." The Plaintiffs defined "Opted-In" to mean "Users who have enabled Voice and Audio Activity. The Plaintiffs' operative complaint did not include this class. On August 17, 2022, Google filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Google argued that the Privacy Class could not be certified because no named Plaintiff was a member. Google further argues that Google witness deposition testimony provided over the course of fact discovery and months before Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification put Plaintiffs on notice of the difference between the WAA and VAA settings. 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 Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GlPP37 at no extra charge.[CC] GRANITE SERVICES: Class Cert. Response Extended to Jan. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez, Jr. v. Granite Services International Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02689 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting motion for extension of time, through and including January 30, 2023, to file a response regarding motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act. Granite Services provides professional engineering services.[CC] HERSHEY COMPANY: Grausz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing ----------------------------------------------------- Eva Grausz, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00028-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to enjoin the Defendant's from deceptively marketing the Product, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. Hershey, the ubiquitous American confectionary company, manufactures and sells various chocolate products, including Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet Chocolate, Lily's Extra Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa, and Lily's Extremely Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa [the "Products"]. A December 2022 report by Consumer Reports states that "research has found that some dark chocolate bars contain cadmium and lead—two heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in children and adults," in amounts such that "eating just an ounce a day would put an adult over a level that public health authorities and Consumer Report's experts say may be harmful for at least one of those heavy metals." Among those containing substantial levels of lead and cadmium are the Products Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet tested at 265% of "California's maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead." One ounce of this Products contains 1.325mcg of lead, whereas California's MADL is 0.5 micrograms. Similarly, Lily's Extra Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa tested at 144% of the MADL for lead, and Lily's Extremely Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa tested at 143% of the MADL for lead, and 101% for cadmium. Lead and cadmium are heavy metals and their presence in food, alone or combined, poses a serious safety risk to consumers because they can cause cancer and serious and often irreversible damage to brain development, liver, kidneys, bones, and other serious health problems. As Consumer Reports noted, "both cadmium and lead pose serious health risks" and, with respect to lead specifically, "no amount of it is considered safe." Consumers, like the Plaintiff, who purchased the Products were injured by Hershey's acts and omissions concerning the presence of lead and cadmium. No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the Products contain heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. Worse, as companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit heavy metals in their dark chocolate products, Hershey has stood idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and well-being, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Hershey Product in reliance upon Hershey's labels that contained omissions. Hershey sells the Products throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Paul K. Joseph, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq. FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com HI.Q INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Tyner Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKI TYNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HI.Q, INC. d/b/a HEALTH IQ, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00608-F (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Friot entered an scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Defendant to file any motion for January 18, 2023 leave to file a third-party complaint Plaintiff's final expert witness list September 20, 2023 and expert reports Defendant's final expert witness list October 10, 2023 and expert reports Plaintiff's final witness and exhibit October 10, 2023 lists Defendant's final witness and exhibit October 24, 2023 lists Class certification, dispositive and November 1, 2023 Daubert motions Discovery cutoff January 15, 2024 Hi.Q offers life and health insurance solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vLClbX at no extra charge.[CC] HOOKED ON SOLAR: Solorzano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hooked On Solar, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Solorzano, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Hooked On Solar, Inc., Case No. S-CV-0049692 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Jan. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Hooked on Solar -- https://sunpowerca.com/ -- specializes in professionally designing and integrating solar electric photovoltaic (PV) systems.[BN] I AM BEYOND: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I Am Beyond LLC. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I Am Beyond LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00161 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I Am Beyond LLC, doing business as Beyond Yoga -- https://beyondyoga.com/ -- operates as an apparel company. The Company offers wide range of athleisure wear such as tops, leggings, skirts, and loungewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Appeals Dismissal of Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- IMRE KIFOR is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Imre Kifor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11948-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Nov. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Defendants for alleged systemic and sustained discriminatory conspiracies to silence and enslave him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On Dec. 7, 2022, Judge Patti B. Saris granted Mr. Kifor's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered that the case be dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Imre Kifor v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 23-1013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 8, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant IMRE KIFOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth N. Dewar, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2204 MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------ IMRE KIFOR is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Imre Kifor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11141-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On July 14, 2022, the Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Patti B. Saris on Nov. 22, 2022. The Court further ordered the dismissal of the case. The appellate case is captioned Imre Kifor v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 23-1008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 8, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant IMRE KIFOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth N. Dewar, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2204 MINNESOTA: DOC Appeals Ramsey County Court Ruling in Wagner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tanya Mae Wagner, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Defendant, in the Civil Division Ramsey County District Court, in Minnesota. The case category is stated as Civil. Tanya Mae Wagner is a 37 year-old who was listed as being under the supervision of the Department of Corrections in Mndoc Center City District, Minnesota. This person was sentenced/adjudicated in Sherburne County. This person was listed on the state department of corrections website in relation to the criminal offense, Drugs, on September 23, 2013. The appellate case is captioned Tanya Mae Wagner, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Appellant, Case No. A23-0031, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed on January 6, 2023. [BN] NETFLIX INC: Parties to Confer on Agreed Stay of Stockholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California orders the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether a stipulated stay may be entered in the case, IN RE NETFLIX, INC. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 22-cv-04134-JST (N.D. Cal.). The case raises similar allegations to the securities class action that is also before the Court, In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-02672-JST. Parties in two recent shareholder derivative cases before the Court have agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related securities class action, In re eHealth, Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., No. 20-cv-4477, or at least until the Court has resolved challenges to the complaint in the related securities class action, In re Meta Platforms, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 22-cv-0903. Judge Tigar orders that the parties will meet and confer to discuss whether a stipulated stay may be entered in the instant case. By Jan. 27, 2023, they will file either a stipulation and proposed order staying the case or a joint written response showing cause as to why this case should not be stayed. Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will be taken under submission without oral argument. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3h98bj5u from Leagle.com. PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Heidrich FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ERICH HEIDRICH, ERIC KIDD, and MARIA ANGELICA CASTRO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENNYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, and PRIVATE NATIONAL MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02821-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: (1) grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike; and (2) denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. The Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in this putative class action on Sept. 17, 2021. The Plaintiffs are the Defendants' former and current employees. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants do not include all their non-exempt employees' compensation in calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, do not provide their employees with wage statements that comply with California law, do not pay employees their bonuses on a timely basis, and do not pay employees all wages owed at the time of their termination. The Plaintiffs allege claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, and the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On Oct. 8, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Dec. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to toll the statute of limitations for their FLSA claim. The Defendants move to dismiss for these reasons: (1) the FLSA claim in the SAC (the basis for this Court's federal question jurisdiction) is not alleged with the specificity required by Landers v. Quality Comms., Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014); (2) once the FLSA claim is dismissed, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims; (3) if the FLSA claim is not dismissed, the Court should still decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims based on the Colorado River doctrine; (4) if the Court decides to entertain the state law claims, it must at minimum dismiss the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim based on a judgment entered in an identical California state case against the Defendants; and (5) even if the Court does not dismiss the PAGA claim, it should strike the Plaintiffs' request for underpaid wages as part of the PAGA claim because that remedy is not available to private litigants suing under PAGA. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to satisfy the rule set forth in Landers. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue Landers is inapplicable because Landers involved an employer's alleged failure to properly record overtime hours under a piecework pay system. The Plaintiff argues that unlike Landers, the allegation here is not that the Defendants failed to properly record overtime hours, but that the Defendants incorrectly calculated the overtime rate of pay. The Plaintiffs cite paragraph 13 of the SAC, which states the Plaintiffs worked a considerable amount of overtime, but the Defendants did not include the benefit stipend, the draw, or non-discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay in determining their overtime. The Defendants also miscalculated the Plaintiffs' overtime by calculating the bonus overtime rate for a specific month by using the hours worked (in whole or in part) from a different month, or some other means that resulted in the inaccurate payment of overtime. The Plaintiffs also cite paragraphs 39-41 of the SAC, which state that the Defendants did not include all applicable compensation in calculating its employees' rate of pay for overtime purposes. The FLSA requires employers to calculate the overtime rate of pay based on amounts earned while the overtime is being worked. The Defendants did not calculate the overtime rate of pay for the Plaintiffs based on amounts earned while the overtime was being worked. The Plaintiffs argue these allegations indicate that every time the Defendants paid overtime during the applicable period, it was calculated incorrectly. The Defendants argue these allegations are insufficient. The Court agrees. Judge Nunley opines that the Plaintiffs do not cite any case law to support the contention that Landers only applies to overtime claims based on a piecework pay system. Nor do the Plaintiffs persuade the Court that Landers does not apply in the context of this case. Even if the Plaintiffs' ultimate focus is the Defendants' alleged miscalculation of the rate of overtime pay, Judge Nunley points out the Plaintiffs still must allege facts indicating that they worked overtime and were, thus, entitled to overtime pay on a specific occasion. Instead, the Plaintiffs merely allege they worked a "considerable amount of overtime." This is the same type of conclusory language found to be insufficient in Landers, Judge Nunley says. The Court, therefore, concludes the Plaintiffs' overly general allegations fail to provide sufficient detail about the length and frequency of their unpaid work to support a reasonable inference that they worked overtime and were underpaid. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the FLSA claim. Because this is the first time the Court has ruled on this issue and the Plaintiffs indicate they can cure these deficiencies in an amended complaint, the Court will give the Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend. The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Because the Court's jurisdiction depends on the Plaintiffs stating a viable FLSA claim, the Court declines to rule on the Defendants' challenges to the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims at this stage. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. The Plaintiffs will file their amended complaint not later than thirty (30) days from the electronic filing date of this Order. The Defendants will file their responsive pleading not later than twenty-one (21) days from the filing of the amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 2, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddpk79y from Leagle.com. PENTEGRA DEFINED: Khan, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IMRAN KHAN, et al., v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-07561-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Imran Khan, Joan Bullock, and Pamela Wood Joy ask the Court to enter an order certifying all claims in the action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiffs move that the class be defined as follows: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan for Financial Institutions from September 15, 2014 through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants." The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint each of them as representatives of this class and appoint their attorneys --Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP -- as class counsel. Pentegra offers a comprehensive array of retirement plan solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ipWHo3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. SCHLICHTER , BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 REALPAGE INC: Mackie Sues Over Rental Housing Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY MACKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC., ALLIED ORION GROUP LLC, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, BELL PARTNERS, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, CORTLAND PARTNERS LLC, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC and UDR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00011 (D. Colo., Jan. 3, 2023) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater Denver Metro Area in violation of the Sherman Act and the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992. According to the complaint, AI Revenue Management, the software developed by RealPage, works by collecting vast amounts of non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every other possible data point that drives rent. This data is fed into an algorithm, along with additional data collected from Defendant RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management software products. The RealPage's algorithm uses that data to generate a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units, which is updated daily. RealPage and the property managers who use its revenue management services constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through coordinated price setting. Specifically, within the Greater Denver Metro Area, both rents and vacancy rates had been trending higher from 2015-2020, demonstrating that the forces of supply and demand no longer control the price of rent in the Greater Denver Metro Area, says the suit. The suit alleges that the Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in the Greater Denver Metro Area. The Plaintiff and the Class, who rent in the Greater Denver Metro Area from property managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges on rent and suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental units they could reasonably afford, the suit adds. Plaintiff Mackie rented a residential unit in Denver, Colorado from 2018 through the date of this filing. During that time, Lincoln Property Company managed the property using RealPage software. Consequently, Tiffany Mackie has paid higher rental prices by reason of the violations alleged herein. RealPage, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that provides property management software for the multifamily, commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Alexander Sweatman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com asweatman@caffertyclobes.com - and - Ellen Meriwether, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 N. Monroe Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com RELIANT PRO: Haggerty Files Bid for Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA HAGGERTY and MATT DOHERTY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RELIANT PRO REHAB LLC, d/b/a RELIANT REHAB, Case No. 1:22-cv-11329-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action to proceed Collectively and authorizing the Plaintiffs and their counsel to disseminate notice to all class/collective members: "All persons employed as an hourly paid Therapist, including but not limited to Physical Therapist (PT), Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), Occupational Therapist (OT), Certified and non-Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA)(OTA), Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), or any other job titles used to describe persons performing similar job requirements, who are currently employed or who were previously employed by Reliant Pro Rehab LLC, d/b/a Reliant Rehab in the U.S., from August 17, 2019 to the present;" 2. approving and adopting the Plaintiffs’ proposed form of Notice and Consent to Join, as well as the proposed Reminder Card, and the methods for distribution and submission of the Consent to Join forms; and 3. compelling Reliant to produce within 10 days, the information requested necessary to facilitate notice to the Putative FLSA Collective. This is an FLSA collective action unpaid wage case for which courts routinely grant conditional certification. Reliant created and disseminated common policies and practices nationwide setting Therapist productivity requirements and strictly limiting the number of hours Therapists could self-report each work week on their electronically created time sheets in a program called Rehab Optima. Reliant provides rehabilitation services to alcoholics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XhPJ37 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, PC. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617)607-3261 Facsimile: (617)-488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com www.fairworklaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Court Moots Karnell Bid for Class Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE KARNELL, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. REVELETTE ENTERPRISES, LLC, REVELETTE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN No. 3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- SPRING HILL, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE – MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE RESTAURANT, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE -- FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE, LLC, MASON REVELETTE, and CURTIS REVELETTE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00380 (M.D. Tenn.), the Court enteren an order mooting the Plaintiff's motion authorizing notice of this action, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), using the following methods: -- U.S. Mail, e-mail, posting in a conspicuous location in Defendants' restaurants, enclosed in the next regularly scheduled paycheck for currently employed potential Opt-In Plaintiffs, and a reminder notice half-way through the notice period. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WTZaGp at no extra charge.[CC] RICE DRILLING: Class Cert. Hearing Moved to Feb. 15 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order resetting date for class certification hearing: -- Due to an adjustment in the Court's calendar, the Class Certification Hearing in this case is rescheduled for Wednesday, February 15, 2023. The Class Certification Hearing in this case may not be continued by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WXNt1w at no extra charge.[CC] SN SERVICING: Court Dismisses Gregg Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SYLVESTER GREGG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SN SERVICING CORPORATION a/k/a SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION; and SECURITY NATIONAL MASTER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01640 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, and New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 ("NYGBL 349") alleging that Defendant debt collectors SN Servicing Corp. ("SNSC") and Security National Master Holding Co., LLC ("SNMHC") sent false, misleading, and deceptive letters regarding consumer debts and the debt collection procedures required by New York State law. Under New York law, when a debt collector knows or has reason to know that the statute of limitations has lapsed on a given debt, the debt collector must inform the former debtor that "the debt collector believes that the statute of limitations applicable to the debt may be expired." This notice must be "clear and conspicuous." The Plaintiff's claim is that -- although SNSC and SNMHC sent notice letters purporting to comply with this requirement -- the letters improperly put the onus on the recipient to determine whether the statutory period had lapsed. In his view, it was the Defendants' duty to determine whether the statutory period had lapsed, and if it had, communicate that to him (and the putative class members) in a "clear and conspicuous" manner. He claims that the Defendants wrote these letters in an intentionally confusing way, hoping to induce recipients into making debt payments they were no longer legally obligated to make. Although the Plaintiff did not himself make such a payment, the complaint alleges that "the Class includes members who are entitled to actual damages in connection with purported debts that were collected by the Defendants from the Class but were collected after the applicable statutes of limitations had lapsed." The Plaintiff also alleges that he and all members of the putative class suffered an "informational injury" insofar as the Defendants compelled him (and the putative class) to perform tasks allocated to his debt collectors -- i.e., calculating the applicable limitations period. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and the Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. While these motions were pending, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), so Judge Cogan ordered supplemental briefing to address whether the Plaintiff has alleged a "concrete harm" sufficient to confer Article III standing. Having considered their submissions, Judge Cogan concludes that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury in fact as to the FDCPA claim. He reasons that TransUnion clarified that in suits for damages, plaintiffs cannot establish Article III standing by relying entirely on a statutory violation or risk of future harm: 'No concrete harm; no standing.' Stated another way, an injury in law is not an injury in fact. Thus, a violation of the FDCPA, standing alone, cannot satisfy the "concrete harm" element of Article III standing. In addition, Judge Cogan holds that the Plaintiff's purported "injury" would not exist but for a state regulation that shifts the informational burden from consumers to debt collectors. State law cannot piggyback on a federal statute (in the case, the FDCPA) to create an Article III injury that would not otherwise exist. Finally, the Plaintiff's complaint alleges that some purported class members were misled by the Defendants' mailings and thus made payments on debts for which the statutory period had already lapsed. These hypothetical class members would satisfy the concrete injury requirement, but the named Plaintiffs who represent a class must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent. For these reasons, Judge Cogan declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claim and thus dismisses the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/37wnu6vw from Leagle.com. SUNY ALBANY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Graham Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GORDON GRAHAM, DANIELLE DUGUID, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, OLIVIA SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, COURTNEY TRUDEAU, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, TAYLOR WATTS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, AND JOYCE KAGAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ISIDORA PEJOVIC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, CHAE BEAN KANG, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, ALBA SALA HUERTA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, CHASSIDY KING, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, BRIANNA CICORIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, RHEONNA KOSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY AND MARK BENSON, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1927 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the July 6, 2021 judgment of the district court, granting the University's motion for summary judgment and denying the Student-Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Graham served as the women's varsity tennis coach for Defendant-Appellee State University of New York at Albany until 2016 when the University disbanded the team. The following year, the University declined to renew Graham's employment contract. Soon thereafter, Graham, together with a group of female student-athletes (the "Student-Plaintiffs"), filed suit against the University and its former athletics director Mark Benson, alleging that the University failed to provide equal opportunity for female students to participate in varsity athletics in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. Graham and the Student-Plaintiffs now appeal from the July 6, 2021 judgment of the district court, granting the University's motion for summary judgment and denying the Student-Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. As a preliminary matter, the Second Circuit must determine whether it possesses jurisdiction to reach the merits of the Student-Plaintiffs' claims. The University urges that each of the named Student-Plaintiffs has either graduated from the University or no longer retains eligibility to participate in varsity athletics, thereby rendering moot their claims for injunctive relief. It proffers that the Student-Plaintiffs' personal stake in this litigation expired, at the latest, following the spring 2022 semester, because that is when the final Student-Plaintiff's eligibility to participate in varsity athletics expired Because the Student-Plaintiffs and their putative class seek only prospective injunctive relief, the Second Circuit holds that their ineligibility to participate in varsity athletics means they do not stand to personally benefit from an order requiring equal athletic opportunities. As such, their claims are moot, and we possess jurisdiction only to review the district court's decision not to certify their class. As to this issue, the Student-Plaintiffs argue only that we should grant their motion for class certification for all of the reasons set forth in detail in their class certification motion before the district court. They have therefore waived the issue of class certification on appeal. As such, the Second Circuit lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their Title IX claims. The Second Circuit next turns to Graham's Title IX claim, which poses no jurisdictional hurdle. According to him, his individual Title IX claim derives from the discrimination experienced by the female student-athletes he coached, because he too, suffered gender discrimination because of the cancellation of the women's tennis program. On appeal, Graham argues that the district court committed legal error by importing into Title IX a requirement that he proffer evidence that the University eliminated the women's tennis team under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. This was not error, the Second Circuit holds. It has held that the burden-shifting framework established by the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) line of cases for claims of discrimination on account of race, religion, or national origin under Title VII also applies to Title IX claims alleging discrimination on account of sex in education programs. For the case to continue, the plaintiff must then come forward with evidence that the defendant's proffered, non-discriminatory reason is a mere pretext for actual discrimination. Thus, the district court did not err in requiring Graham to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination to sustain his Title IX claim. Graham also asserts that the University exaggerates the burdens associated with operating the team independently or joining an out-of-region conference, and that both were viable options to keep the women's tennis team competitive. However, he does not point to any evidence that calls into question the legitimacy of the University's stated rationale for eliminating the tennis team and reallocating the resources to other women's sports. To the contrary, Graham's opinion testimony evidences merely his disagreement with the University's decision to terminate the team, not that the decision was a pretext for discrimination. Under these circumstances, the Second Circuit finds that Graham has failed to carry his burden to rebut the University's non-discriminatory rationale for disbanding the team. The Second Circuit has considered the parties' remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, it dismisses the Student-Plaintiffs' Title IX claims as moot and affirms the judgment of the district court as to Graham's Title IX claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Summary Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uz8kc9vp from Leagle.com. CARLOS F. GONZALEZ, Carlos F. Gonzalez, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Bernays T. Barclay -- buz.barclay@rimonlaw.com -- on the brief, Rimon, P.C., Albany, NY, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. SARAH L. ROSENBLUTH, Assistant Solicitor General, ( Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General & Jeffrey W. Lang, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James , Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for the Defendants-Appellees. SURGE PRIVATE: Zhao Seeks Conditional Collective Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANNA ZHAO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. SURGE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC, d/b/a SURGE PRIVATE EQUITY HIPPODROME SERVICES CORP. d/b/a HIPPODROME SERVICES HIPPODROME LLC, d/b/a HIPPODROME SERVICES LLC DOUGLAS KOPELMAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-07314-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting bid for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Surge Private is a growth-oriented, middle market majority control leveraged buy out private equity firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xfe6yx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla, et al., Seek to Certify Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, and SHIRIN LESSAN, and DENNIS FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC; NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 2. Authorizing notice be sent to all current and former employees of Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC in California with the title "promotional specialist," or the functional equivalent however titled, who worked at any time from January 1, 2015 through the present and who signed an arbitration agreement on or after February 15, 2019; and 3. Require Defendants to produce a computer readable data file containing the names, last known residence address, last known telephone numbers, last known cell phone numbers, last known email addresses and social security numbers of all such potential class members so that notice may be implemented. The Plaintiff brings this motion for class certification on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the defendant Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC, who are or were employed as "promotional specialists" in California at any time from January 1, 2015 to the present and who signed an arbitration agreement on or after February 15, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to properly pay meal and rest period premiums, and failing to reimburse for reasonable and necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff's claims for wage statement violations, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices are ancillary and derivative of the wage and expense claims identified above. On January 1, 2015, Team reclassified all of its promotional specialists from independent contractors to employees. Although Team began issuing W-2's instead of 1099's, it did not change how it effectively treated the promotional specialists. The Defendants allegedly did pay promotional specialists through their lunch breaks, they failed to pay meal period premiums for the missed meal breaks. Likewise, when promotional specialists were not provided rest breaks, Defendants did not pay any rest break premium pay. Team Enterprises provides plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and similar work. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k9w1s0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com - and - Bryan J. McCormack, Esq. MCCORMACK LAW FIRM 1299 4th Street, Suite 505A San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 925-5161 Facsimile: (415) 651-7837 E-mail: bryan@bmcclaw.com TRESS MARKETING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tress Marketing Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tress Marketing Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00158-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tress Marketing Solutions LLC -- https://tressmarketingsolutions.teachable.com/ -- is a company that operates in the Health, Wellness and Fitness industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com UMG RECORDINGS: Black Sheep Sues Over Unpaid Royalty Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES TITUS & WILLIAM MCLEAN, p/k/a "BLACK SHEEP," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00015 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2023) seeks to remedy Universal's breach of its standardized contract and bad faith conduct that is depriving Plaintiffs and other artists of the royalties they are contractually owed. According to the complaint, Universal is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties from artists through a previously undisclosed arrangement whereby Universal licensed artists' recordings to the Spotify music streaming service in exchange for Spotify stock and lower royalty payments. Under this arrangement, instead of paying artists their full royalty payments, Universal made smaller payments and held onto the Spotify stock that contractually belongs to Universal's artists, says the suit. Universal's standardized contract with Plaintiffs and the Class grants Defendant the right to monetize artists' works in exchange for, among other things, royalties to artists set at 50% of Universal's "net receipts" with respect to "any use or exploitation(s)" of the "Master Recordings" created by artists. Yet, rather than distribute to artists their 50% of Spotify stock or pay artists their true and accurate royalty payments, for years, Universal shortchanged artists and deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members of the full royalty payments they were owed under Universal's contract, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs are members of the rap duo "Black Sheep." UMG Recordings, Inc. is an American global music corporation organized under Delaware law, with its principal place of business and global corporate headquarters located in Santa Monica, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Steven L. Wittels, Esq. Ethan D. Roman, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, Floor 7 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com slw@wittelslaw.com edr@wittelslaw.com UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Seeks to Stay Faine Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE FAINE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, d/b/a “Estes Dedicated,” a Virginia limited liability company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00524-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion for stay of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Action, pending completion of mediation: On January 6, 2023, the parties engaged in mediation with mediatory Kathryn E. Miller of Littleton Alternative Dispute Resolution, Inc. The parties suspended the mediation on January 6 and will reconvene on January 24, 2023. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court take no further action with respect to the Motion until January 27, 2023, by which date Defendant will file a report advising the Court of the status of the mediation. Universal is a full-service provider of customized transportation and logistics solutions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IvPGwu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James T. Spolyar, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: jspolyar@scopelitis.com - and - Sterling LeBoeuf, Esq. DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLP 1550 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9400 Facsimile: (303) 893-1379 E-mail: sterling.leboeuf@dgslaw.com VIVE ORGANIC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vive Organic, Inc. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vive Organic, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00159 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vive Organic -- https://viveorganic.com/ -- is an organic, function focused line dedicated to providing the highest quality wellness shots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Stage-One Conditional Certification Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order for stage-one conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff Cheryl Yslas filed her class and collective action complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated past and present employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged violations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order ("COMPS") and the Colorado Wage Act. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff requested leave to file a First Amended Complaint which sought to add Michael Sprague as a Named Plaintiff and add and clarify other allegations. On December 5, 2022 Judge N. Reid Neureiter, on referral from the District Court, granted Plaintiff's Motion and entered the First Amended Complaint on the record. The Plaintiffs Cheryl Yslas and Michael Sprague filed this collective action on behalf of past and present employees who worked for Wal-Mart. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated MRs and STMs, in violation of the FLSA and state wage laws, were denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ipkfcP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com - and - Naomi G. Beer, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6549 BeerN@gtlaw.com WASHINGTON DC: Pappas, et al., Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class and sub-classes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X1s5Is at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eve Hill, Esq. Andrew D. Levy, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: ehill@browngold,com adl@browngold.com - and - Ellen Eardley, Esq. Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: eeardley@findjustice.com cmehri@findjustice.com WELLS FARGO: Easton Files Bid for Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE EASTON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06070-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action on behalf of: "all individuals working as non-exempt loan adjuster employees working in the various call centers of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from March 31, 2016 through the resolution of this case;" 2. Authorizing the parties to send Notice pursuant to U.S.C. Section 216(b) filed concurrently with this Motion, to all potential Opt-In Plaintiffs that they may join this action and assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S.C. section 206; 3. Directing the Defendant to produce a putative collective action member list setting forth the last known addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of training, and partial social security numbers of all putative collective action members within 10 days the Court grants their Motion for Conditional Certification, if this Court is inclined to do so; and 4. Extending tolling through the date the Defendant produces a putative collective action member list, in the event this Court grants their Motion for Collective Action Certification. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GpWSrr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Jefferey T. Green, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com jtg@quintlaw.com - and - David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa R. Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Roger R. Carter, Esq. Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (888) 914-6900 E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net bianca@carterlawfirm.net - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2533 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com WELLS FARGO: Easton Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE EASTON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06070-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certify the following class and subclasses: -- Class "All persons who are employed or have been employed by the Defendants in the State of California, during the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through resolution of this action (March 31, 2016 to the present), who have worked as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters;" -- The Unpaid Wages Subclass "All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who worked at least one shift less than eight hours in a workday and/or less than 40 hours in a workweek;" -- The Overtime Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who worked at least one shift more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than 40 hours in any given week;" -- The Meal Period Premium Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016), and who worked at least one shift longer than five hours in a workday;" -- The Rest Period Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and worked at least one shift longer than three and a half (3.5) hours in a workday;" -- The Termination Pay Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters, and whose employment terminated during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present);" -- The Wage Statement Subclass "All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who received at least one wage statement from Defendant;" -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present) who incurred at least one business expense in performance of their work duties;" -- The Unfair Competition Class Subclass "All California residents who worked for the Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present) who were subjected to Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices due to the Defendants’ violations of the California Labor Code and California Wage Orders/" Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ikNLAi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Jefferey T. Green, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com jtg@quintlaw.com - and - David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa R. Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Roger R. Carter, Esq. Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (888) 914-6900 E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net bianca@carterlawfirm.net - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2533 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com WHALECO INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. WHALECO, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00169 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://temu.com/, (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. WHALECO, INC., operates the Temu online retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal WIDE OPEN ARTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wide Open Arts, LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wide Open Arts, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00103 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wide Open Arts is an arts organization in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Carney Sues Over Warn Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Brian Carney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WIRELESS ADVOCATES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; CAR TOYS INC., a Texas corporation; DAN BRETTLER, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive, Case No. 23CV409697 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought arising out of the Defendants' mass layoff ordered by the Defendants on December 5, 2022 which violated the California's Warn Act. On December 5 2022, the Defendants laid off over 1800 employees across the country with no notice. In light of the foregoing, the defendants have failed to provide the plaintiff and class members with the required notice pursuant to California's WARN Act. The Plaintiff brings his complaint as a class action on behalf of other similarity situated individuals who have worked for the Defendants in California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a Kiosk Manager within a Costco Wholesale from September 2017 through December 5, 2022. The Defendant jointly maintained owned and operated nearly 700 phone kiosks throughout the country, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Grombacher, Esq. Lirit King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361-5600 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Jeff Holmes, Esq. HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC 1613 Chelsea Road, Suite 238 San Marino, CA Phone: (310) 396-9045 Fax: (970) 497-4922 Email: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com WOLTERS & KLUWER: Allen Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolters & Kluwer NV, et al. The case is styled as Justin Robert Allen, Lisa A. Allen, Unknown Party and all similarly situated v. Wolters & Kluwer NV, Van Tuyl Group Incorporated named as Van Tuyl Group, Holdco Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00032-MTM (D. Ariz., Jan. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Wolters Kluwer -- https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en -- is a global provider of professional information, software solutions, and services..[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. ********* 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 2023. 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 ***