/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 15 Headlines AETNA LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Curtis Class Claims Granted in Part ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit ANDREW CUOMO: Parties Seek to Adjourn Class Cert Briefing ANIMA MUNDI HERBALS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Long Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Marshall Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ASSEMBLY PRODUCTION: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ATLANTIC UNION BANK: Overton Files Suit in E.D. Virginia BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval BEACH TRADING: Williams Files Suit in D. New Jersey BELFOR USA: Court Amends Class Cert Deadlines in Hatcher Suit BIRTHDAY CANDLES: Wakefield Files Suit in S.D. New York BOSTON BEER: Hassan Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. BRANDY LIBRARY LOUNGE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CARBONITE INC: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply on Class Cert Bid CARGILL INCORPORATED: Chapones Sues Over Unpaid Wages CAVA GROUP: Ash Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Uniform Costs CENTERRA GROUP: Third Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams CHIMI MUNDO: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH: Vera Files Suit in Texas Dist. Ct. CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Council Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CVR ASSOCIATES: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Files Suit in N.D. California EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Cramer-Banks Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Court OKs Application to Allow Late Opt-in ESSENTIAL WHOLESALE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Donet FAMILY DOLLAR: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIVE GUYS: May Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Case Management Order Entered in Rainford Suit GC SERVICES: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages HEALTH RECOVERY: Frechette, et al., Seek Class Certification HIMS & HERS: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. INSIDER INC: Revised CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson IQVIA INC: Lyngaas TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class J.R. SIMPLOT: Dutra Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend JILL ACQUISITION: Serrieh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIGHTINTHEBOX LIMITED: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Suit Transferred to E.D. California MDL 2873: Barry PFAS Suit Transferred D.S.C. MED-DATA INC: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing by 35 Days MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses Ponce's Class Certification Bid MESA AIR GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit Over IPO for Court OK META PLATFORMS: Gershzon Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Information MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement in Employees' Labor Suit for Final Nod NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bid to Dismiss Doe Class Suit Granted in Part NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Fishell Sues Over Unlawful Business Practice NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Replies Sought OPTAVIA LLC: Douglass Seeks Approval of Class Settlement Deal OREGON STATE: Court Won't Revisit Dismissal Order in Pranger Suit PACE GALLERY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PEAK PERFORMANCE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PELHAM TRANSPORTATION: Conditional Status of Class Action Sought PERFORMIX LLC: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd PERI & SONS: Appeals Consolidation Bid Denial in Guzman to 9th Cir. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fayad Sues Over Paralegals' Unpaid Overtime PROCTER & GAMBLE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Carroll Says PROSEGUR SECURITY: Frattarola Sues Over Unpaid Compensation REALPAGE INC: Bertlshofer Alleges Rental Housing Price-fixing RIDGECREST REGIONAL: Ayers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROC OPCO LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROCKET MORTGAGE: Gilburd Sues Over Mortgage Bankers' Unpaid OT SALUD FAMILY HEALTH: Alexander Suit Removed to D. Colorado SEEKING HEALTH: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOUTH BAY: Brachvogel Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices SSM HEALTH: Doe Suit Alleges Disclosure of Private Medical Info TARGET CORP: Sadler Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. TEAM SCHOSTAK: Cartmill Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages TESLA INC: Costello Sues Over Omitted and Concealed Material Facts TESLA INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Vaughn Class Suit Affirmed TRADER JOE'S: Grausz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing UNITED BEHAVIORAL: R.B. Files Bid for Class Certification WHOLE FOODS: Molock Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 24 ********* AETNA LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Curtis Class Claims Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENNIS E. CURTIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01579-MPS (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants in part and denies in part Aetna's motion to dismiss Curtis' class claims related to Clinical Policy Bulletins governing forms of rehabilitation therapy. Curtis is a beneficiary of a group medical benefits plan established by Yale University for its employees and their beneficiaries. The Yale Plan is an employee benefit plan subject to Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Claims administration for the Yale Plan is provided by Aetna, a Connecticut corporation that performs claims administration services for ERISA plans funded by employers such as Yale, as well as for ERISA plans that Aetna or its affiliated companies directly insure. In July 2016, Curtis began receiving physical therapy treatment, under his treating physicians' orders and prescriptions, to treat balance, strength, and mobility issues caused by neurological and other conditions and surgical procedures. Aetna initially approved coverage and benefits for Curtis' physical therapy, but in September 2017, Aetna began denying coverage on the ground that under Clinical Policy Bulletin ("CPB") 325 physical therapy was no longer "medically necessary." In response to Curtis' appeals, Aetna ultimately reversed its denials and approved payment of benefits for Curtis's physical therapy through April 2018. From April 2018 to the filing of the operative complaint, Curtis's treating physicians have continued to prescribe physical therapy as medically necessary to treat his ongoing balance, strength, and mobility issues. Aetna denied coverage for Curtis' physical therapy from April 2018 through Nov. 17, 2019 as not medically necessary, notwithstanding his submission of documentation from his treating physicians. On Jan. 14, 2020, Aetna advised Curtis that it had determined that the physical therapy services ordered by his physicians from Nov. 18, 2019 through Jan. 2, 2020 and 10 additional sessions beginning on Jan. 3, 2020 were eligible health services under the Yale Plan. Curtis asserts that the physical therapy ordered by his treating physicians is a covered benefit under the Yale Plan as both a "short-term rehabilitation service" and a "habilitation therapy service." He thus alleges that he has been denied covered benefits under the Yale Plan for physical therapy services from April 2018 through November 2019 based on Aetna's "policy and practice of denying benefits for therapy services based on non-plan provisions in its CPBs." Curtis has an ongoing need for physical therapy services. Curtis, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings the action against Aetna alleging that Aetna has violated the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., by failing to administer Curtis' and the proposed class members' claims for benefits under their ERISA group medical benefits plans in accordance with the plans' provisions. Specifically, Curtis alleges that Aetna has violated ERISA by denying benefits to plan members based upon definitions of "medically necessary" contained in a series of internal CPBs that are not a part of, or incorporated in, any of the ERISA plans, in violation of Aetna's duty to administer each plan in accordance with its terms. Curtis claims that these CPBs modify and limit, to plan members' detriment, the plans' definition of "medically necessary." Curtis brings the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on his own behalf and on behalf of the following Class and Sub-Class of persons similarly situated to him: a. Class 1 is defined to include: All participants or beneficiaries in the ERISA-governed group medical benefit Plans (both for self-funded employers or as an insurer, directly or through its affiliates) as to which Aetna provides claims administration services. b. Sub-Class 1a is defined to include: All participants or beneficiaries in the ERISA-governed group medical benefit Plans (both for self-funded employers or as an insurer, directly or through its affiliates) as to which Aetna provides claims administration services, who, during the relevant limitations period, have been denied benefits for therapy services covered by their Plans, as not medically necessary, based on requirements for establishing the therapy was medically necessary contained in Aetna's CPB #325, 243, 0032, 0214, 0250 and 0640 or other non-plan documents inconsistent with the Plans' definition of medical necessary. Curtis has not yet filed a motion to certify the proposed class. Aetna filed a motion to dismiss only the class claims related to CPBs governing "forms of rehabilitation therapy for which Curtis never submitted claims for coverage" because it claims that Curtis lacks "class standing" to bring these claims. Aetna argues that Curtis does not have class standing to bring class claims concerning forms of rehabilitation therapy for which he never submitted claims for coverage. Curtis responds to Aetna's motion by arguing that Judge Shea should not consider class standing until after he moves for class certification because a challenge to Curtis' standing to seek class relief is not a basis for a motion to dismiss. Curtis then argues that even if Judge Shea considers class standing at this stage, he has standing to assert claims on behalf of persons seeking medical services for which he never submitted claims for coverage. Judge Shea first addresses whether Curtis has class standing to bring the class claims challenged by Aetna before addressing Curtis' argument about timing. First, he finds that Curtis' individual claim gives him no incentive to develop the medical evidence necessary to prove class allegations about different therapies for which he was never denied coverage. Curtis thus lacks class standing to pursue the class claims challenged by Aetna because the allegedly unlawful conduct in his individual claim does not depend on the same proof as the conduct in the challenged class claims. The claims related to the different CPBs do not implicate the "same set of concerns" as Curtis' individual claims. Although Curtis might be able to offer evidence concerning whether Aetna's other CPBs contradict the Plans, Judge Shea says the fact that it would be possible for a plaintiff to litigate a given claim plainly does not imply that he should be the one to litigate it. Because Curtis does not have class standing for the claims challenged by Aetna, Judge Shea must dismiss them. Second, Judge Shea holds that one purpose of the class standing test is to ensure that the named plaintiff has "the right incentives" to develop the proof contemplated for all of the claims. As shown, Curtis does not, and so it would not be helpful to launch class discovery as to Aetna's handling of claims for therapies Curtis did not receive before deciding whether Curtis has standing to advance claims related to those therapies. Nor would it be consistent with the Court's and the parties' obligation to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action, as unleashing discovery on claims the plaintiff lacks standing to litigate would waste time and resources. For these reasons, Judge Shea grants Aetna's motion to dismiss the class claims related to CPBs governing all forms of rehabilitation therapy for which Curtis never submitted a claim for coverage (claims concerning speech therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation therapy, cognitive rehabilitation therapy, occupational therapy, and voice therapy), leaving only his claims on behalf of a class related to CPB 325, which governs the physical therapy benefits for which he sought coverage. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/237fnwjt from Leagle.com. ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Ray Weisbein filed an appeal from the District Court's December 2, 2022 Order and Judgment entered in the lawsuit entitled RAY WEISBEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-SSS-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 2, 2022, the Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action; 2. designating him as class representative; and 3. appointing his attorneys as class counsel. According to the complaint, Allergan and its Marketing Executives, Andrew Barton and Tara Capalbo, engaged in an unlawful practice of sending identical advertisement and telemarketing text messages en masse to thousands of consumers to try to mislead them into buying pharmaceutical products. The Defendants committed this misconduct without first obtaining the consumers' prior express consent to be subjected to such intrusive marketing tactics, asserts the complaint. This conduct violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, it adds. On December 2, 2022, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes entered an Order and Judgment granting Defendants motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First and Second Causes of Action, and DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for class certification was DENIED AS MOOT. The appellate case is captioned as Ray Weisbein v. Allergan, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 4, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Ray Weisbein Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 11, 2023; -- Appellant Ray Weisbein opening brief is due on March 6, 2023; -- Appellees Allergan, Inc., Andrew Barton and Tara Capalbo answering brief is due on April 5, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RAY WEISBEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley Keith King, Esq. Christopher Stiner, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-911 - and - David Philip Milian, Esq. MILIAN LEGAL GROUP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 788-6680 Defendants-Appellees ALLERGAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., are represented by: Raymond A. Cardozo, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 101 2nd Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 ANDREW CUOMO: Parties Seek to Adjourn Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M. G., et al., v. ANDREW CUOMO, et al., Case No. 7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the parties jointly seek a brief adjournment of the current briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification, Pursuant to Parts 1(E) and 2(B)(i) of Judge Seibel's Individual Practices and Parts 1(A) and (D) of Judge Krause's Individual Practices. The parties jointly propose that the Court enter the following schedule: Submission Current Proposed Revised Deadlines Deadlines Service of Moving Papers Jan. 18, 2023 Feb. 8, 2023 Service of Opposition Feb. 22, 2023 March 15, 2023 Papers Service of Reply Papers March 15, 2023 April 5, 2023 & Bundled of Filing Date A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWGsZc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter Ricciardi, Esq. Crystal L. Parker, Esq. Emily A. Vance, Esq. Chantalle Hanna, Esq. Samuel Margolis, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: wricciardi@paulweiss.com cparker@paulweiss.com evance@paulweiss.com channa@paulweiss.com smargolis@paulweiss.com - and - Elizabeth Woods, Esq. Sabina Khan, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 279 Troy Road, Ste 9, PMB 236 Rensselaer, NY 12144 Telephone: (518) 432-7861 E-mail: elizabeth.woods@drny.org sabina.khan@drny.org - and - Twyla Carter, Esq. Elena Landriscina, Esq. Stefen R. Short, Esq. Robert M. Quackenbush, Esq. Sophia A. Gebreselassie, Esq. The LEGAL AID SOCIETY 199 Water Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 577-3530 E-mail: elandriscina@legal-aid.org sshort@legal-aid.org rquackenbush@legal-aid.org sgebreselassie@legal-aid.org The Defendants are represented by: Adam Sansolo, Esq. Owen T. Conroy, Esq. Erin Kandel, Esq. Gee Won Cha, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Telephone: (212) 416-6133 ANIMA MUNDI HERBALS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anima Mundi Herbals, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anima Mundi Herbals, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00209-LDH-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anima Mundi -- https://animamundiherbals.com/ -- is a family owned and operated business, herbal medicine store in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Long Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Preshawn Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARC Automotive, Inc., FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01098 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00106-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of 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: Jeanie S. Sleadd, Esq. Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC - AL 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 326-3332 Email: jsleadd@hgdlawfirm.com taylor@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Kevin R. Dean, Esq. Lance V. Oliver, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC-SC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 216-9152 Email: kdean@motleyrice.com loliver@motleyrice.com The Defendants are represented by: Bert P. Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR RITTER, P.C. P.O. Box 489 Orange Beach, AL 36561 Phone: (251) 981-8430 Email: bert@taylorritter.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Marshall Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rittie Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals v. ARC Automotive, Inc., Autoliv ASP Inc., Autoliv Inc., General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02637 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of 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 Defendants are represented by: Jessalyn H. Zeigler, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC-N. TN 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 742-6289 Fax: (615) 742-2789 Email: jzeigler@bassberry.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Earl Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARC Automotive, Inc., FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09432 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00124-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators for automotive airbag applications.[BN] ASSEMBLY PRODUCTION: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assembly Production, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Assembly Production, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00208 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Assembly Production -- https://www.assemblyproduction.com/ -- is a full-service creative production company focused on art, fashion and design industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ATLANTIC UNION BANK: Overton Files Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank. The case is styled as Wilma Overton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Union Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00024-RCY (E.D. Va., Jan. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Atlantic Union Bank -- https://www.atlanticunionbank.com/ -- offers a variety of Personal Banking services including accounts, lending, credit cards, online banking and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon James Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD P.C. 120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540) 283-9343 Fax: (540) 328-9290 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALRATH and HARLEY REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK and any related entities, Case No. 6:21-cv-01179-DNH-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order that: 1. The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is granted; 2. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the class settlement memorialized in the parties' Settlement Agreement and filed with the Court falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and other applicable laws; 3. Preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is granted; 4. For settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class is certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and FED. R. CIV. P. 23: "all individuals who worked for Bassett Healthcare Network at Little Falls Hospital, Cobleskill Regional Hospital, Fox Memorial Hospital, O'Connor Hospital, or Bassett Medical Center as an LPN or Nurse Assistant between October 27, 2015 and the date of this Order. 5. The Court finds that the proposed Class Notice and proposed Claim Form are accurate, objective, and informative, and provide members of the Settlement Class with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the settlement; 6. The Court finds that the Class Notice constitutes the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed class settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the State of New York, and other applicable laws; 7. The Class Notice and Claim Form are APPROVED and shall be mailed to the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedure outlined below; 8. The named plaintiffs and defendant are ordered to carry out and effect the proposed class action settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and 9. The Court adopts the following procedure for Final Approval: (1) On or before January 13, 2023, defendant's counsel will provide Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator with the Class List; (2) On or before January 30, 2023, the Class Notice shall be mailed to all members of the Settlement Class; (3) On or before March 27, 2023, members of the Settlement Class may "opt-out" or submit written objections to the Settlement (the "Bar Date"); (4) On or before March 27, 2023, members of the Settlement Class may qualify as an Authorized Claimant by filing a Claim Form (the "Bar Date"); (5) On or before April 17, 2023, Class Counsel shall submit a motion for Final Approval; (6) On May 18, 2023, the Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing at 1:00 p.m. in Utica, New York; and (7) The Final Approval Hearing may be continued or held remotely without further notice to the Settlement Class On October 27, 2021, the named plaintiffs filed this putative collective action against defendant Bassett Healthcare Network alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). On November 30, 2022, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. The named plaintiffs have now moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(e) for preliminary approval of the settlement and an order directing notice of the settlement agreement to the class members. Bassett Healthcare is an integrated health care system that provides care and services in upstate New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VYLSai at no extra charge.[CC] BEACH TRADING: Williams Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beach Trading Co., Inc. The case is styled as Zachary Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beach Trading Co., Inc. doing business as: BUYDIG, Case No. 2:23-cv-00141-EP-JBC (D.N.J., Jan. 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Beach Trading Co., Inc. doing business as BuyDig -- https://www.buydig.com/ -- is the Internet's Digital Superstore offering everyday low prices on HDTVs, Digital Cameras, Notebook Computers, GPS, and other consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roshan Deven Shah, Esq. ANDERSON & SHAH, LLC 1040 Broad Street, Ste. 304 Shrewsnury, NJ 07702 Phone: (732) 398-6545 Fax: (732) 573-0027 Email: rshah@andersonshahlaw.com BELFOR USA: Court Amends Class Cert Deadlines in Hatcher Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hatcher Investments, LLC v. Belfor USA Group, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00128 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order amending class certification deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Feb. 20, 2023 Certification is now due on or before: -- The Defendant's response is now March 29, 2023 due on or before: -- The Plaintiff's reply is now March 20, 2023 due on or before: -- All other deadlines remain the same. The nature ofsuit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Belfor provides property restoration and disaster recovery services.[CC] BIRTHDAY CANDLES: Wakefield Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birthday Candles, LLC. The case is styled as Rachel Wakefield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Birthday Candles, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00190 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Birthday Candles doing business as Birthdate -- https://birthdate.co/ -- craft one-of-a-kind astrology birthday candles and books that make the perfect personalized gift for any occasion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arun Gopal Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 203-4573 Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com BOSTON BEER: Hassan Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Ayhan Hassan filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated December 5, 2022 and Judgment dated December 6, 2022, granting Defendants' joint motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissing with prejudice, an amended complaint in the Plaintiff's case styled JOSEPH SIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOSTON BEER COMPANY, INC., DAVID A. BURWICK, FRANK H. SMALLA, and C. JAMES KOCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07693-DLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed this putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the alcoholic beverage manufacturer and certain of its executives. The Plaintiff alleged that the company made misleading statements related to the performance of the company's products in the hard seltzer market as the pandemic subsided and consumers returned to bars and restaurants. The Court assessed three categories of alleged misstatements and held that none was actionable. First, the Court assessed April 2021 statements in the company's SEC filing, press release, and earnings call regarding the company's growth prospects. The Court concluded that most of the statements containing language such as "the Company believes," "[w]e still think the category is going to grow significantly," and "[w]e are optimistic" -- were non-actionable because they were either statements of opinion or forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Second, the Court assessed statements allegedly made by the chairman of the company's Board of Directors at a beverage forum in May 2021, including that "I think our best guesses now are somewhere between 60 and 90 percent [growth]" and "I think this is the year for acceptance of hard seltzer on-premise." Third, the Court assessed a statement by the company's CEO in a June 2021 industry publication. The CEO was quoted as stating that the company was "still confident in [its hard seltzer product's] ability to grow significantly despite the recent segment slowdown" and that the product "is the only established player that's growing at high double digits, growing at double the segment." Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff's request for leave to amend, concluding that amendment would be futile because plaintiff had not identified how further amendment would cure the deficiencies the Court identified. The appellate case is captioned as Siegel v. The Boston Beer Company, Inc., Case No. 23-8, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 4, 2023.[BN] Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants Ayhan Hassan and the Class are represented by: Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com BRANDY LIBRARY LOUNGE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brandy Library Lounge, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brandy Library Lounge, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00207 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brandy Library Lounge -- https://brandylibrary.com/ -- is a clubby, refined bar & lounge specializing in rare spirits with an eclectic menu of small plates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CARBONITE INC: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply on Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luna v. Carbonite, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11662 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order allowing the motion for leave to file sur-reply on Lead Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. The nature of suit states Other Statutes – Securities/Commodities/Exchange. Carbonite is an American company that offers an online backup service, available to Windows and macOS users. In 2019 it was acquired by Canadian software company, OpenText. It backs up documents, e-mails, music, photos, and settings.[CC] CARGILL INCORPORATED: Chapones Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Anthony Chapones, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CARGILL INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:23-cv-00038-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought to recovery statutory damages for violation of the New York Labor Law and to seek unpaid wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers employed in the State of New York "on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned." Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and similarly situated manual workers on a bi-weekly basis pursuant to its payroll policy in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Pellet Mill Operator. The Defendant is a global food corporation, which purchases and distributes grain and other food product in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James T. Towne, Jr., Esq. THE TOWNE LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 15072 500 New Kramer Road Albany, NY 12212-5072 Phone: (518) 452-1800 CAVA GROUP: Ash Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Uniform Costs ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Ash, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CAVA GROUP INC., and CAVA MEZZE GRILL, LLC, Case No. 150325/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, The New York City Administrative Code ("Fair Workweek Law") as a result of the defendant failure to reimburse costs with regards to laundering and maintaining their uniform given by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was given only two uniforms despite working five days or more per week. The uniform consisted of a t-shirt and hat emblazoned with Defendants' logo. The Defendants do not and have not maintained records of the number of uniforms provided to their employees. The Plaintiff was required by Defendants to wear the required uniform every shift. The Plaintiff did wear the required uniform each shift. This uniform does not fall under the wash and wear exception. The Plaintiff's uniform would become dirty, odorous, and soiled after each shift, requiring daily washing, after each shift. The Defendants failed to supply sufficient articles of uniform clothing consistent with the average number of days per week worked by the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not offer to wash, iron, dry clean, alter, repair, or perform other maintenance necessary for Plaintiff's required uniform. The Defendants did not maintain Plaintiff's required uniform under the meaning of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants did not offer to launder the required uniforms free of charge and with reasonable frequency, and did not inform Plaintiffs in writing of such service. The Plaintiff's uniform was issued by the Defendants to him for the express benefit of the Defendants and it was a condition of his employment to wear them in a clean condition during each shift. The Plaintiff's uniform required daily washing. The Plaintiff was entitled to uniform maintenance pay. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Plaintiff routinely spent time off-the-clock and money to clean and maintain his uniform consistent with the uniform appearance standards Defendants require. The Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement or additional pay for time spent off the clock and money spent in laundering and maintaining Defendants' uniform, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a fast food employee from November 2022 through December 2022. The Defendants operate restaurants that prepare and offer food and beverage for customer consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Phone: (516) 742-4949 Email: mark@bglawny.com CENTERRA GROUP: Third Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN WILLIAMS, et al., v. CENTERRA GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered a third amended scheduling order as follows: -- A. Initial expert disclosures The parties shall file and serve a document identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom they expect to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or, where allowed, a report prepared by counsel has been disclosed to the other parties by June 30, 2023. B. Responsive expert disclosures: The parties shall file and serve a document identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom they expect to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or, where allowed, a report prepared by counsel has been disclosed to the other parties by August 18, 2023. C. Discovery: Discovery shall be completed no later than June 1, 2023. The Parties will substantially complete the production of documents subject to FRCP 26(a) or FRCP 34 by March 15, 2023. The parties reserve their right to supplement or correct their prior responses or disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(e) and to produce documents identified in connection with expert discovery after March 15, 2023. All discovery requests shall be served in time for the responses thereto to be served by June 1, 2023. Expert discovery shall be completed no later than September 22, 2023. D. Class Certification: The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than April 25, 2023. The Defendants shall file their response in opposition to class certification no later than June 21, 2023. E. Motions: All dispositive motions, Daubert motions, and all other motions, except those to complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial (other than Daubert motions), shall be filed on or before October 3, 2023. F. Mediation: Mediation shall be completed in this case on or before September 22, 2023. G. Motions in Limine: At a date convenient for the Court, the Court shall set the deadline for motions in limine and the deadline for written responses to motions in limine. H. Jury Selection and Trial: On January 7, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' jury demand. Centerra is the an international Government solutions group, specializing in business processes in sectors where security and safety risks are considered a strategic threat. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VY4E1l at no extra charge.[CC] CHIMI MUNDO: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Esmerlyn Diaz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated V. Chimi Mundo and Restaurant Corp., Chimi Mundo Lounge, Inc., Chimi Mundo on Wheels, Inc., and Maria Leonardo, Case No. 1:23-cv-00141 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of the New York State Labor Law, the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one- and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff's, and other tipped employees', credit card tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' wages. The Defendants only distributed cash tips to Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals. Credit card tips were required to be distributed to non-tipped managers at Chimi Mundo, to wit: the Individual Defendant. As the owner and manager of Chimi Mundo, the Individual Defendant should not have taken a share of Plaintiff's, and all similarly situated individuals', tips. The employer-mandated tip sharing scheme imposed on Plaintiff and other waitresses is not customary. The employer-mandated tip sharing imposed on Plaintiff was not reasonable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress, cleaner, and general worker at the Defendants' restaurant known as "Chimi Mundo". The Defendants own, operate and/or control Chimi Mundo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH: Vera Files Suit in Texas Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christus Spohn Health System Corporation. The case is styled as Maria Vera, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Christus Spohn Health System Corporation, Case No. 2023CCV-60024-1 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Tex., Nueces Cty., Jan. 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Civil Case." Christus Spohn Health System Corporation -- http://www.christusspohnfoundation.org/-- are a faith-based, value driven health care ministry dedicated to providing excellent, effective, compassionate care to the people of South Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hilliard, Esq. HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP 719 South Shoreline Boulevard Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 800-491-1493 Fax: 361-882-3015 CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Council Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connexin Software Inc. The case is styled as Cierra Council, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Connexin Software Inc. doing business as: Office Practicum, Case No. 2:23-cv-00103-KBH (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Connexin Software doing business as Office Practicum -- https://www.officepracticum.com/ -- is a provider of electronic medical records and practice management systems for use in pediatric clinical settings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market St., 52nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connexin Software Inc. The case is styled as Sandra Rodriguez, individually, as natural parent and next friend of A.G. I and A.G. II, minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connexin Software Inc. doing business as: Office Practicum, Case No. 2:23-cv-00098 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Connexin Software doing business as Office Practicum -- https://www.officepracticum.com/ -- is a provider of electronic medical records and practice management systems for use in pediatric clinical settings.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 274-9420 Fax: (202) 463-2103 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com CVR ASSOCIATES: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------- Leo Castillo and Rafael Grulllon, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. CVR ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-00180 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought seeking recovery against Defendant for Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and allege that they and all others who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the collective action, are entitled to recover from the Defendant: unpaid wages for work performed for which they received no compensation at all; unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay; reimbursement for Defendant's violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act in refusing to reimburse Plaintiffs' business expenses; liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant intentionally, willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of violating the FLSA and NYLL with respect to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. This policy and pattern or practice includes but is not limited to: willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated any compensation at all for certain hours worked, including failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated when they worked through their lunch breaks; willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime wages for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek; willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in a timely manner; willfully withholding wages from Plaintiffs and others similarly situated; and willfully failing to accurately record all of the time Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have worked for the benefit of the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been employed or are employed as building inspectors working for Defendant throughout the state of New York. The Defendant describes itself on its website as offering solutions for the "affordable housing industry," through use of its "experienced, high-performing team."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Granovsky, Esq. Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq. GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC 48 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: 646-524-6001 Email: ag@g-s-law.com delson@g-s-law.com DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daiso California LLC, et al. The case is styled as Makiko Fukaya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Daiso California LLC, Daiso Holding USA Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-TSH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. Daiso California -- https://daisous.com/ -- is a Japanese variety-store chain with housewares, toys, stationery, decorations, bento supplies & gifts..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara R. Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: (650) 437-6840 Fax: (650) 403-0909 Email: ara@arajlaw.com EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Cramer-Banks Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CAROLE CRAMER-BANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV36147, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 4, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00031 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's civil action was served on Defendant on December 6, 2022. Educational Credit Management Corporation is a United States nonprofit corporation based in Minnesota.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David J. Kaminski, Esq. Martin Schannong, Esq. CARLSON & MESSER LLP 5901 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 242-2200 Facsimile: (310) 242-2222 E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com schannongm@cmtlaw.com ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Court OKs Application to Allow Late Opt-in ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, et al., v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08010-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order granting the application to allow the late opt-in. -- The Plaintiffs shall provide by January 20, 2023, responses from Villasenor to all previous discovery requests that were made to other opt-in plaintiffs. -- If defendants seek a deposition, it shall take place by February 3, 2023. On or before February 6, 2023, the parties shall file a joint letter giving a joint proposal or separate proposals for deadlines for the filing of any summary judgment, class certification motion, or other contemplated motion. The Court said,"To disallow late opt-in because a potential plaintiff was not properly identified by defendant would only incentivize discovery misconduct by employers and undermine the goals of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to permit plaintiff DiegoVillasenor to be deemed a "similarly situated" person pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Court had set a July 8, 2022 deadline for the filing of any form to "opt in" to this lawsuit -- that is, a form indicating that an employee of defendant was "similarly situated" to the plaintiffs in this action. See Docket # 123. Villasenor's first request to "opt in" to the lawsuit as a similarly situated person was filed with the Court on October 10, 2022. Villasenor seeks to have his "opt in" form deemed to be timely filed. Escobar Construction is a general contractor, specializing in commercial construction. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iyZFGK at no extra charge.[CC] ESSENTIAL WHOLESALE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Donet ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARICELA DONET, v. ESSENTIAL WHOLESALE & LABS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00164-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants serve hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. Essential Wholesale is an eco-friendly cosmetics manufacturer and ingredient supplier. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IASUPq at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar, Inc. The case is styled as Jason A. Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100064 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] FIVE GUYS: May Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Brittany May, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00029 (E.D. Va., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") of Defendant's job applicants and current and former employees, including, but not limited to, name and Social Security number. Prior to and through September 17, 2022, the Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant stored the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On September 17, 2022, Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on or around September 17, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor accessed files containing the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that may have been accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included name and Social Security number. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, Defendant waited more than three months after the Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys General and affected individuals. Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied for a job with the Defendant and ceased working ten years prior to the Data Breach and received the Defendant's Notice dated December 29, 2022. The Defendant's website states it operates 1,700 hamburger restaurants worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 300 N. Washington St., Suite 404 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (888) 987-9991 Email: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: rmaxey@ForThePeople.com FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Case Management Order Entered in Rainford Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nickeisha Rainford, v. Freedom Financial Network LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02014-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered a case management order as follows: -- Depositions shall be limited to seven hours each, as Fact Discovery. -- Expert Disclosures, Expert Discovery, and Motions Challenging Expert Testimony. a. The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than November 17, 2023. b. The responding party (not having the burden of proof on the issue) shall 3 provide full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than December 22, 2023. c. The party with the burden of proof on the issue shall make its rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, no later than February 2, 2024. Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by the opposing party's experts. -- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than February 23, 2024 -- Rule 23 Class Certification deadline shall be April 19, 2024. -- Defendant's Motion for Decertification Deadline shall be April 19, 2024. Freedom Financial provides consumer credit and financial advocacy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GQPlDA at no extra charge.[CC] GC SERVICES: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Cano, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:23-cv-00137 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought to challenge Defendant's practices of: failing to compensate Plaintiff, Class, and Collective members for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff, Class, and Collective members all minimum wages owed and overtime wages; failing to provide adequate meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenses; failing to pay all wages owed upon separation of employment; and failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. Throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members have been denied payment for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime, and have been forced to wait in security-check lines and complete additional tasks while off-the-clock without compensation. Additionally, Plaintiff, Class, and Collective members have been denied proper meal and rest breaks, and have been denied reimbursements for necessary business expenses. As a result of the violations stated herein, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as the putative Class and Collective members, seeks compensation, damages, penalties, and interest to the full extent permitted by the FLSA, the California Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Defendant is also liable for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt regional superior court representative by the Defendant from March 2017 through September 2019 and continued working as an administrative assistant until May 2020. The Defendant operates as a provider of contact center outsourcing services throughout the United States and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Kristabel Sandoval, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: Tel: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com HEALTH RECOVERY: Frechette, et al., Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiana Frechette, et al., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Health Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all HRS patients whose personal information or medical information was compromised as a result of the data breach first disclosed by the Defendant Health Recovery Services, Inc. on April 5, 2019." Health Recovery offers medication assisted treatment to those who need help with alcohol and drug addiction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gp0Hx4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. Andrew J. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road, Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HIMS & HERS: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a FORHIMS.COM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2022-00047422-CU-MT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 4, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00011-L-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a California class, consisting of: "All persons within California who within the statute of limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via the chat feature on Defendant's Website using a cellular telephone, and (2) whose communications were recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent." The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act; and (2) violations of CIPA, Cal. Penal Code. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is an American telehealth company that sells prescription and over-the-counter drugs online, as well as personal care products.[BN] Defendant Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is represented by: John A. Vogt, Esq. Edward S. Chang, Esq. Ryan D. Ball, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 E-mail: jvogt@jonesday.com echang@jonesday.com rball@jonesday.com INSIDER INC: Revised CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Insider Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06529-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered a revised civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: 1. This case is to be tried to a jury. 2. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this Order. 3. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall be completed by January 10, 2023. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than October 6, 2023. 4. The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York. 5. Initial requests for production of documents to be served by January 23, 2023. 6. Initial interrogatories served by January 23, 2023. 7. Depositions for fact witnesses to be completed by the end of fact discovery, as set forth in paragraph 5. 8. Initial requests for admission to be served no later than March 10, 2023. 9. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 6, 2024. The suit involves Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation. Insider is an American online media company known for publishing the financial news website Insider and other news and media websites. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QsHLlz at no extra charge.[CC] IQVIA INC: Lyngaas TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 defined as follows: "All persons: (1) who were sent one or more facsimiles between September 29, 2016, and August 28, 2018, inviting them to participate in Impact Network's "National Healthcare Census" in exchange for monetary payment; (2) who did not participate in and had never participated in the "National Healthcare Census" survey; and (3) as to whom Defendant has not produced evidence showing SK&A verified the person's fax number. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court grant its motion appointing him as class representative, appointing his attorneys as class counsel, and awarding any other relief the Court deems just under the circumstances. At Plaintiff's request, Howard removed/subtracted from his totals the fax transmissions to those fax numbers and concluded that there were numbers. The Defendant describes itself as "a leading global provider of advanced analytics, technology solutions and clinical research services to the life sciences industry dedicated to creating intelligent connections that deliver unique innovations and actionable insights." The Plaintiff alleges that IQVIA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending him and a class of more than others the same form fax advertisements more than times by mass facsimile broadcast without prior express invitation or permission. The Defendant's "National Healthcare Census" faxes solicited healthcare providers to receive cash payments of $15 to $150 as compensation for answering an online survey, so Defendant could use the data to sell to third parties for profit. IQVIA is an American multinational company serving the combined industries of health information technology and clinical research. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X7lZq0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Jonathan B. Piper, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com - and - Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (412) 716-5800 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq. SAXTON & STUMP, LLC 280 Granite Run Dr., Ste. 300 Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: (717) 556-1080 E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com J.R. SIMPLOT: Dutra Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DENNIS TONY DUTRA, Plaintiff v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01054-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. On March 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action against the Defendant -- his former employer -- in San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Defendant removed to the Court on June 14, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), alleging state law claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay wages, including overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to pay timely wages at separation; (7) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and (8) violation of California's unfair competition laws. The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 20, 2021. It moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims, except for Claim Two. Claim One alleges the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of various sections of the California Labor Code and applicable wage orders. The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Claim One because the Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual details regarding a given workweek when he was not paid minimum wages, as required by Landers v. Quality Comm's, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014). It also argues Claim One's reference to Labor Code Section 1198 is improper as it does not apply to wages. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues Landers only applies to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims and thus does not apply to the state law claims at issue in the instant case. He further argues he has stated plausible claims for relief even if Landers applies. Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim One with leave to amend. He finds that although the Plaintiff alleges that he and other class members answered work-related communications throughout their workday, including during meal and rest periods, he fails to point to a specific instance where this took place. These overly general allegations are insufficient to support a conclusion that the Plaintiff or class members were paid less than minimum wage in violation of California law. Claims Three and Four allege the Defendant failed to provide meal periods and rest periods, respectively, in violation of various sections of the Labor Code and applicable wage orders. The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss these claims because the Plaintiff fails to specify at least a given week in which an overtime or meal/rest break violation occurred, as required by Landers. In arguing he adequately states his meal and rest period claims, the Plaintiff cites the same allegations regarding the Defendant's on-call policy. Judge Nunley holds that the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient. The Plaintiff does not allege at least one meal or rest break where they worked through the break and were not paid for that time, nor do they allege a given instance where the Defendant failed to provide them a meal or rest break in compliance with state law. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claims Three and Four is granted with leave to amend. Claim Five alleges the Defendant failed to timely pay wages due in violation of Labor Code Section 204. The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Claim Five because it is premised solely on its alleged failure to pay all wages earned. It argues derivative claims based on unpaid wages are improper because Section 204 only regulates the timing of wage payments -- not the wage amount. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues the Defendant's systematic failure to pay his minimum wages, overtime, and meal and rest premiums on time constitutes a violation of Section 204. The Plaintiff does not cite any case law to support his contention that these allegations are sufficient to state a Section 204 claim, nor does he rebut the Defendant's case law suggesting they are not. Absent any meaningful argument or contrary authority from the Plaintiff, Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Five with leave to amend. Claim Six alleges the Defendant failed to timely pay wages at separation or termination in violation of Labor Code Section 203. The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Claim Six because the Plaintiff fails to plead specific factual allegations to suggest the Defendant willfully refused to pay final wages in a timely manner. It also contends, in a footnote, that Claim Six is barred to the extent the Plaintiff seeks to recover derivative penalties for unpaid meal and rest premiums. In opposition, the Plaintiff cites the factual allegations already addressed as well as paragraph 109 of the FAC, which states the Defendants willfully failed and refused, and continue to willfully fail and refuse, to pay him and the Class Members who have separated from employment their wages, earned and unpaid wages, either at the time of discharge, or within 72 hours of their voluntarily leaving the Defendants' employ. Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Six with leave to amend. He finds that the Plaintiff's conclusory allegation essentially states the elements of the cause of action and adds no factual detail. It is insufficient to state a claim. Claim Seven alleges the Defendant failed to comply with wage statement provisions in violation of Labor Code Section 226(a). The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Claim Seven because it would result in improper double recovery as the claim is completely derivative of the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues his derivative claim for inaccurate wage statements is valid because he has alleged injuries specific to the inaccurate wage statement. Because Judge Nunley has dismissed the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims upon which the wage statement claim is premised, he also dismisses the Plaintiff's wage statement claim. Thus, he grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Seven with leave to amend. Claim Eight alleges the Defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on the Labor Code violations. The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss Claim Eight because the Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege he lacks an adequate remedy at law. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues there are inadequate remedies due to the difference in the statute of limitations between Labor Code and UCL claims. He also argues he is allowed to plead his UCL claim in the alternative. Based on the existing allegations, it appears the Plaintiff seeks the same sum in equitable restitution for the UCL as she requests in damages for the Labor Code violations, and she fails to explain how the same amount of money for the exact same harm is inadequate or incomplete. Accordingly, Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Eight with leave to amend. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than 30 days from the electronic filing date of the Order. If the Plaintiff opts not to file an amended complaint, the case will proceed on the sole remaining claim in the FAC. The Defendant will file a responsive pleading not later than 21 days from the filing of the amended complaint, or if the Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, not later than 21 days from the Plaintiff's deadline for filing an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fffmy4h from Leagle.com. JILL ACQUISITION: Serrieh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jill Acquisition LLC. The case is styled as Dina Serrieh, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Jill Acquisition LLC, Case No. S-CV-0049697 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Jan. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Jill Acquisition LLC provides retail store and mail order catalog services. The Company offers women's clothing, shoes, accessories, gifts, and mail order services.[BN] LIGHTINTHEBOX LIMITED: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lightinthebox Limited. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lightinthebox Limited, Case No. 1:23-cv-00162 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lightinthebox Limited -- https://www.lightinthebox.com/ -- offers to find the perfect affordable dresses and accessories for weddings, proms and other special occasions.[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 MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robert Kelly, Eryn Learned, Kerry Wano, Rhett Fussell, Dennis Montalbano, Iris Sheehan, Douglas Sheets, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The McClatchy Company, Case No. 8:22-mc-00026 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of California on Jan. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-00005-KJN to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The McClatchy Company -- https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- is an American publishing company incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and based in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy L. Pierce, Esq. Jeffrey Eric Schultz, Esq. John Stuart Poulos, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 2020 W El Camino Ave., Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) 646-8263 Email: amy.pierce@lewisbrisbois.com jeffrey.schultz@lewisbrisbois.com john.poulos@lewisbrisbois.com MDL 2873: Barry PFAS Suit Transferred D.S.C. -------------------------------------------- The case styled Barry et al. v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01560, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the United States District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston) on January 4, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00023-RMG to the proceeding. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 23, 2022, this class action was initially filed in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, under Case No. 01-CV-2022-903464.00 and was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Dec. 14, 2022. On January 3, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation released an order transferring this case to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873. This multi-district litigation involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS. The MDL also includes claims by firefighters and others alleging that direct exposure to AFFF caused them injuries. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: William Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Benjamin Phillip Harmon, Esq. Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq. M. Christian King, Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC 400 20th Street North; The Clark Building Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0786 Facsimile: (205) 581-0799 E-mail: lradney@lightfootlaw.com bharmon@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com cking@lightfootlaw.com MED-DATA INC: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing by 35 Days ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE TOKARSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MED-DATA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00631-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order that the current deadlines regarding class certification briefing are extended by 35 days. The current deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification is January 11, 2023. The parties have continued their combined and coordinated discovery efforts in each of the related pending matters, including this matter and the case pending in federal court in Texas and a state matter in Kansas. On January 3, 2023, third party Crowe LLP provided a supplemental production pursuant to subpoena of over 2,000 pages of documents. Defendant has also continued to produce documents, having produced an additional 4,000-page production on December 21, 2022. The parties' experts also continue their work as part of the ongoing discovery review process. The Plaintiff requires a small amount of additional time to finalize her motion for class certification and is seeking -- with agreement of Defendant -- an additional 35 days. Extending the current deadlines will allow the parties to review recently provided discovery and resolve any disputes without undue haste and to continue to coordinate the related cases to avoid duplication and wasted resources. For these reasons, there is good cause to extend the deadline for a motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Parties agree and stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to an extension as follows: Event Current Deadline New Deadline Deadline for Plaintiff to Jan. 11, 2023 Feb. 15, 2023 File Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Defendant to Feb. 10, 2023 Mar. 17, 2023 File Response on Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiff to Mar. 3, 2023 Apr. 7, 2023 File Reply on Motion for Class Certification Discovery Deadline 45 days after 45 days after Court's ruling Court's ruling on Class on Class Certification Certification MedData provides medical revenue cycle management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QvZZCU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com eadams@terrellmarshall.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. Teague Westrope, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Suite 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9081 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com teague@lawmontana.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan Maxey, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmaxey@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Ralph H. Palumbo, Esq. Lynn M. Engel, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 428-3150 Facsimile: (206) 428-3251 E-mail: rpalumbo@aretelaw.com lengel@aretelaw.com - and - Kent M. Adams, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER (HOUSTON) 909 Fannin Street, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 353-2027 Facsimile: (713) 785-7780 E-mail: kent.adams@wilsonelser.com MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses Ponce's Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maribel Ponce v. Medline Industries, LP et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00531-FWS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- A main class comprised of "all persons who are employed or have been employed by MEDLINE at any time within four years prior to the date this Complaint is filed as an hourly, non- exempt laborer or related position who worked in California." -- A "regular rate" subclass comprised of "all Class Members subjected to Defendant MEDLINE'S regular rate pay practices." -- An "overtime rate" subclass comprised of "[a]ll Class Members subjected to Defendant MEDLINE'S overtime rate pay practices." -- A "Labor Code, Section 203" subclass comprised of "all Class Members who have separated their employment from MEDLINE in the State of California who, within three years of the filing of this Complaint, have not been paid wages pursuant to Labor Code section 203 and are owed restitution for waiting time penalties deriving from wages." -- A "Labor Code, Section 226" subclass comprised of "all Class Members employed within one year prior to the date this Complaint is filed who were subjected to Defendant MEDLINE'S itemized pay record practices." The Plaintiff alleges Defendant Medline Industries, LP committed various wage and hour violations under California law. On November 4, 2022, Defendant opposed the Motion and filed a Request for Judicial Notice. On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply. On November 30, 2022, Defendant filed a Surreply after seeking leave from the court to do so. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant enforced and continues to enforce unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of California state wage and hour laws, including illegally docking pay; not providing meal periods; not providing rest periods; failing to pay employees who were discharged, laid off, or resigned in accordance with California Labor Code sections 201 through 203; and failing to maintain accurate records of earned wages and work periods. Medline is a healthcare company: a manufacturer, distributor and supplier focused on improving the overall operating performance of healthcare. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZGKP1 at no extra charge.[CC] MESA AIR GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit Over IPO for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mesa Air Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2022, that the company is subject to two putative class action lawsuits alleging federal securities law violations in connection with its initial public offering (IPO) in August 2018, one in the Superior court of the State of Arizona and one in U.S. District court of Arizona. These purported class actions were filed in March and April 2020 against the company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the company's IPO. The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, the company's IPO registration statement. On March 2, 2022, the parties in the federal lawsuit attended a mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in that action for the sum of $5 million, which will be paid by the company's directors' and officers' insurance carriers. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the federal court. Mesa Airlines is a regional air carrier providing scheduled passenger service to 107 cities in 39 states, the District of Columbia, the Bahamas, and Mexico, as well as cargo services out of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. META PLATFORMS: Gershzon Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mikhail Gershzon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for knowingly obtaining statutorily protected personal information, including names, disability information, and e-mail addresses, as well as confidential communications, from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (herein, "DMV") in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, ("DPPA") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Meta employs hidden tracking code, known as the Meta "Pixel," which sends to Meta time-stamped, personally-identifiable records of Plaintiff and Class members' personal information, activities and communications on the DMV website. Through the Pixel's surveillance, Meta obtains vast quantities of protected data on a daily basis from the DMV, including the first names of anyone who clicks into their "MyDMV" portal page; the identities of persons with disabilities who start disabled parking placard applications on the DMV website; the e-mail addresses belonging to users who check the status of pending applications; and the personally identifying contents of communications between users and the DMV. Meta combines this personal information with other information about each user gathered from other sources and uses it for unauthorized purposes. DMV website users are not advised about Meta's collection of their personal information, and Meta does not have their consent. This conduct is expressly prohibited by both the DPPA and the CIPA. Meta has intruded without consent upon such communications between the DMV and all members of the proposed Class. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and each member of the proposed Class, damages in an amount no less than all available statutory damages, injunctive relief and such other equitable relief as the court determines appropriate, including removal of the Meta Pixel from the DMV website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco County, California who used the website. Meta is an advertising company which sells advertising space on the social media platform it operates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Melissa Gardner, Esq. Jacob H. Polin, Esq. Nabila Abdallah, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415.956.1000 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 Email: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jpolin@lchb.com nabdallah@lchb.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Allen Carney, Esq. Courtney E. Ross, Esq. 519 W. 7th St. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC Little Rock, AR, 72201 Phone: 501.312.8500 Facsimile: 501.312.8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement in Employees' Labor Suit for Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mission Produce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2022, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit against the company is subject to final approval scheduled in 2023. On April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the company alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California, including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others. Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior court of the State of California for the County of Ventura against the company alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws. The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus other consequential and special damages. While the company believes that it did not violate any wage or labor laws, it nevertheless decided to settle these class action lawsuits. In May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the company agreed preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to resolve both class action cases for a total of $0.8 million, which the company recorded as a loss contingency in selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of income during the three months ended April 30, 2021. The parties executed a stipulation of settlement agreement on such terms in November 2021. This preliminary settlement was approved by the applicable courts in October 2022 and is subject to final approval which is currently estimated to be in the spring of 2023. Mission Produce, Inc. is into farming, packaging, marketing and distribution of avocados based in California. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bid to Dismiss Doe Class Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN DOE 8, JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, and JOHN DOE 12, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ANTHONY N. (AKA NINO) GIARRATANO, and TROY NAKAMURA, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-01559-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beelerof the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are former University of San Francisco Division I baseball players who are proceeding, respectively, as Does 1-3 (more recent players) and Does 4-12 (earlier players). The Plaintiffs allege that since 1999, USF head coach Anthony Giarratano and assistant coach Troy Nakamura created a sexualized environment -- by being naked, miming and discussing sexual acts, belittling players with vulgar names, and handing out sex toys, among other conduct -- and then berating and punishing players who did not participate. They sued the coaches for their behavior and USF and the NCAA for allowing the behavior to persist. There are three putative classes: a nationwide class of all student-athletes who participated in NCAA sports at NCAA member institutions in the last four years, a California subclass of all student-athletes who participated in NCAA sports at California-based NCAA member institutions in the last four years, and a USF Baseball subclass of all members of the USF baseball team since 2000. The complaint has 24 claims. The Plaintiffs and the USF baseball subclass assert 17 claims (numbered as in the complaint): (1) discrimination by USF by an intolerable sexualized environment and emotional abuse, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C Sections 1681-89; (2) retaliation by USF by the coaches' bullying the players to relinquish their scholarships and leave USF (known by USF because of parent complaints (John Does 6 and 8 in May 2014 and John Doe 1 in May 2021)), in violation of Title IX; (3) negligent supervision and retention of Coach Nakamura by USF and the NCAA; (4) negligent supervision and retention of Coach Giarratano by USF and the NCAA; (5) discrimination by USF in the form of an intolerable sexualized environment and emotional abuse, in violation of Cal. Educ. Code Section 66270; (6) inadequate notice by USF of its harassment policy, in violation of Cal. Educ. Code Section 66281.5; (7) gross negligence by all Defendants by breaching their duty of care to ensure players' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and abuse; (8) negligence by all Defendants on the same theory; (9) negligent failure to warn, train, and educate about the risks of sexual harassment and abuse by USF and the NCAA; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress by all Defendants; (11) negligent infliction of emotional distress by all Defendants; (12) ratification of the coaches' behavior by USF and the NCAA; (13) breach of fiduciary duty by the NCAA; (14) negligent misrepresentations and omissions by the NCAA by its knowing concealment of the risk factors that attend the coach-athlete relationship and the resulting belief by athletes that they were safe and their justifiable reliance on the NCAA; (15) breach of contract by the NCAA by its failure to prohibit and prevent sexual harassment and abuse by athletics departments, in violation of NCAA rules and the NCAA Division Manual, which are incorporated in the mandatory form that players sign to affirm that they read and will abide by the rules and manual; (16) breach of an implied contract by the NCAA on the same theory; and (17) breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary against the NCAA. The Plaintiffs, the nationwide class, and the California subclass assert seven claims (numbered as in the complaint) against the NCAA on the same theories as the corresponding claims by the USF player subclass (identified in parentheses): (18) gross negligence (claim seven); (19) negligence (claim eight); (20) breach of fiduciary duty (claim thirteen); (21) negligent misrepresentations and omissions (claim fourteen); (22) breach of contract (claim fifteen); (23) breach of an implied contract (claim sixteen); and (24) breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary (claim seventeen). The NCAA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. All Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that the claims of Does 4-12 accrued outside the limitations period. All Defendants moved to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The NCAA contends that it owed the plaintiffs no duty (for negligence or for breach of contract), and it is not vicariously liable. USF contends that (1) the Plaintiffs alleged behavior that is not gender discrimination under Title IX or California Education Code Section 66270 and also did not allege actual notice to USF, (2) the Plaintiffs did not allege that they engaged in protected activity and thus do not state a Title IX retaliation claim, (3) the Plaintiffs did not allege USF's failure to provide notice about the school's policies prohibiting gender discrimination and thus do not state a claim under California Education Code Section 66281.5, and (4) the Plaintiffs did not allege foreseeability for the negligence claims. The coaches generally contend that the Plaintiffs did not plausibly plead their tort claims. Judge Beeler dismisses the claims against the NCAA for lack of personal jurisdiction: it is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, and its activities there (including its regulation of athletes) are not the necessary minimum contacts with the forum. The statute of limitations bars the claims of Does 4 to 12 and is not tolled because they knew about the misconduct. The other Plaintiffs, according to Judge Beeler, plausibly alleged sex discrimination under Title IX and the California Education Code. However, they do not state a Title IX retaliation claim because they did not plead protected activity. They also do not state a claim under California Education Code Section 66281.5 because they did not allege deficiencies in the policy or notice. The remaining tort claims survive. The dismissal of all claims (except for lack of personal jurisdiction) is without prejudice to filing an amended complaint within 28 days. Any amended complaint must have as an exhibit a blackline of the amended complaint against the operative complaint. Judge Beeler's Order resolves ECF Nos. 64, 65, 67, and 68. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/f37ra987 from Leagle.com. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Fishell Sues Over Unlawful Business Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Fishell and Justin Fishell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. the Defendant MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00027-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to enjoin the Defendant from engaging in the unfair competition, unfair and unlawful business practice to require the Defendant to restore all monies that the Defendant has wrongfully obtained through its unfair competition, for compensatory damages attributable to the breach of the terms of its contracts with the Plaintiffs and the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Defendant's contracts with the Plaintiffs, for Compensatory and punitive damages attributable to the Defendant's breach of the special duty that it owes to the Plaintiffs, and for such other relief as allowed by law. Industry practice for insurers reimbursing their policyholders for costs incurred for increased mileage under the "additional living expenses" coverage is based upon the annually published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "Standard Mileage Rates" for business use. However, deviating from industry practice, the Defendant limits the rate at which it pays for increased mileage to which an insured is entitled by instead using the IRS Standard Mileage Rate for medical and moving purposes. An independent contractor conducts an annual study for the IRS of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile to determine the standard mileage rates for business, medical, and moving use. The standard mileage rate for business use is based on the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs, only. The IRS Standard Mileage Rate for business use is approximately three times higher than the IRS Standard Mileage Rate for medical and moving use, resulting in a substantial savings for the Defendant. the Defendant's use of the lower medical and moving use rate fails to compensate its policyholders for the fixed costs associated with operating an automobile and thus fails to fully indemnify them for their losses under the terms of their policies. Nowhere in its policies does the Defendant disclose to its insureds that they will be reimbursed for increased mileage under the "additional living expenses" coverage at the medical and moving use rate published by the IRS rather than the standard mileage rates published by the IRS for business use, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are individuals who are the Defendant homeowner insurance policy holders and who were subjected to the relocation mileage reimbursement limitation at any time during the four-year period. NATIONWIDE is the sixth leading writer of home insurance in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Paul Gignac, Esq. RIMON PC 200 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 695-4080 Email: jpaul.gignac@rimonlaw.com - and - Edward O. Lear, SBN 132699 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP 5200 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 345 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 642-6900 Email: lear@centurylawgroup.com NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Replies Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY WOOD AND CHASTITY WOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v. NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES, INC., NORTH MISSISSIPPI CLINICS, LLC, NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, INC., TUPELO SERVICE FINANCE, INC., ALLIANCE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., AND JOHN DOES 1-8, Case No. 1:20-cv-00042-NBB-RP (N.D. Miss.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for them to file their respective responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and supporting memorandum. On January 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and supporting memorandum, rendering a response deadline of January 17, 2023. Given that Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Motion involve complex issues, Defendants request that the deadline to respond to same be extended by 14 days. The Defendants have conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who has indicated he has no opposition to Defendants' motion. The Defendants request that the Court enter an Order granting Defendants until January 31, 2023 to file their respective responses to Plaintiffs' motion. North Mississippi is a 650-bed regional referral center located in Tupelo, Mississippi. A copy of the Court's order Defendants' motion dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vUH37g at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark N. Halbert, Esq. William M. Beasley, Jr., Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 105 East Main Street, Suite 201 Tupelo, MS 38804 Post Office Box 1220 Tupelo, MS 38802-1220 Telephone: (662) 842-7907 Facsimile: (662)842-3873 E-mail: mark.halbert@phelps.com will.beasley@phelps.com - and - Johanna M. Mcmullan, Esq. William V. Westbrook, III, Esq. PAGE , MANNINO , PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC 759 Howard Avenue Biloxi, MS 39530 Telephone: (228) 374-2100 Facsimile: (228) 432-5539 E-mail: johanna.mcmullan@pmp.org cwestbrook@pmp.org OPTAVIA LLC: Douglass Seeks Approval of Class Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-CCW (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X1pEWz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com OREGON STATE: Court Won't Revisit Dismissal Order in Pranger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIELLE PRANGER and GARRETT HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, a public body of the State of Oregon, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00656-HZ (D. Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denies Defendant OSU's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Certify a Question to the Oregon Supreme Court. Plaintiffs Pranger and Harris, students at OSU during the Winter, Spring, and Fall 2020 quarters, brought the class action lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated students. The Plaintiffs allege that OSU breached contracts with them and similarly situated students by refusing to refund or reimburse them the tuition and fees they paid for on-campus instruction after OSU closed on-campus services and facilities and provided only online classes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint in Multnomah County Circuit court on March 5, 2021, bringing four state-law claims and two federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against OSU and several individual OSU Board of Trustee members in their official capacities. The Defendants removed the case to this Court on April 30, 2021, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). During the conferral process before the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both federal claims and one state-law claim. On Jan. 25, 2022, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying in part and granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's state-law claim for unjust enrichment, thus, dismissing all of the individual Defendants from the case. The sole remaining claims are state-law claims for breach of contract and breach of implied contract against OSU. Now before the Court are OSU's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Certify a Question to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argues that the Court should retain jurisdiction and continue to adjudicate the state-law claims because: (1) the relevant factors weight in favor of the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction; and (2) the Court has original jurisdiction over the state-law claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Defendant asserts that the relevant factors favor the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the Court lacks jurisdiction under CAFA. First, the Defendant asserts that the litigation involves a novel question of state law -- namely, whether the educational malpractice doctrine applies to the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. But, Judge Hernandez points out that the Court's issued Opinion already answers this question. He finds no substantial reason why it should not continue to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' state-law claims. Thus, even though the Defendant's basis for removal and the Court's original basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the case are no longer present, Judge Hernandez exercises discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. In addition, although the factors under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3) weigh against original jurisdiction based on CAFA, the Court had original jurisdiction over the case at the time of removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 federal question jurisdiction. In the interest of fairness and justice and because of the significant amount of time the case has been pending, Judge Hernandez exercises its discretion to retain supplement jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) over the case and the state-law breach of contract claims. Next, the Defendant moves under Federal of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order denying its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. It contends that in denying its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' contract claims, the Court overlooked a dispositive issue. According to the Defendant, the Court failed to consider whether any alleged contracts to provide the Plaintiffs in-person classes necessarily terminated due to impossibility when the Oregon governor, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, issued an executive order prohibiting in-person instruction. Judge Hernandez finds the Defendant's argument unavailing. He says nothing prevented the Defendant making an impossibility to perform argument in its motion to dismiss. The Defendant cannot raise new arguments in a reply brief. Nor can it ask for reconsideration of the Court's opinion based on a legal theory it did not raise in its motion to dismiss. Even if the Defendant could raise an impossibility defense, that argument would not be dispositive of the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, Judge Hernandez denies the Defendant's Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider the Court's Opinion denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims. Finally, the Defendant moves the Court to certify the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court: Does the educational malpractice doctrine bar a student's breach of contract claim alleging a university breached a promise of in-person instruction and seeking damages equal to the alleged difference in value between in-person instruction and remote instruction? It asserts that the Court's disposition implicates and turns on unsettled questions of Oregon law. Judge Hernandez says that Court has already determined the answer to the Defendant's question and finds that the answer is clear under Oregon law. Thus, he finds no benefit in waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to make what would most likely be the same determination. Given the ongoing delay certification would cause in this already protracted case, Judge Hernandez declines to certify the Defendant's question to the Oregon Supreme Court. Moreover, the Defendant's objection to the Court's holding on its motion to dismiss does not establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion. Accordingly, Judge Hernandez declines the Defendant's request to grant interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). In view of the foregoing, Judge Hernandez exercises discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). He denies the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Certify a Question. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2kjax57 from Leagle.com. Alexander Graven -- alex@olsenbarton.com -- Neil N. Olsen -- neil@olsenbarton.com -- Paul B. Barton -- paul@olsenbarton.com -- Olsen Barton LLC, Lake Oswego, OR. Daniel Kurowski -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Chicago, IL. Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA. Jae Kook Kim, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Gregory J. Mina -- gmina@perkinscoie.com -- Sarah J. Crooks -- scrooks@perkinscoie.com -- Stephen F. English -- senglish@perkinscoie.com -- Alex Van Rysselberghe -- avanrysselberghe@perkinscoie.com -- Portland, OR, Attorneys for the Defendant. PACE GALLERY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pace Gallery, LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Pace Gallery, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pace -- https://www.pacegallery.com/ -- is a leading contemporary art gallery representing the most significant artists and estate of the 20th and 21st centuries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PEAK PERFORMANCE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Performance Life, LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peak Performance Life, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00160-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peak Performance Life -- https://buypeakperformance.com/ -- offers supplements that are created for the busy professionals, moms on-the-go, entrepreneurs and athletes.[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 PELHAM TRANSPORTATION: Conditional Status of Class Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BURLESON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PELHAM TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION and THEODORE DEJOURNETTE, JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Parties file a joint motion for conditional certification and notice to putative collective action members. The parties agree to this relief without prejudice to Defendants' right to move to decertify this collective at any appropriate time in this litigation. On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Collective Action Complaint under the FLSA seeking overtime wages for drivers employed by Defendants at Pelham Transportation Corporation in Reidsville, North Carolina. On December 13, 2022, the Plaintiff's counsel informed Defendants' counsel of Plaintiff's intention to file a Motion for Conditional Certification. During the Rule 26(f) Conference, counsel for the parties conferred as to Plaintiff's to-be-filed motion and reached agreement that the Court enter an order: a. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of: "all current and former drivers employed as full-time employees at Pelham Transportation Corporation at any time since September 27, 2019;" b. approving the Notice and Consent Form as Exhibit A; c. that within seven days following the Court's Order granting this Motion, the Defendants will provide to the Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing address(es), last known e- mail address(es), last known telephone number(s), and dates of employment for each current and former employee who falls within the collective definition above; d. that within seven days of receiving the Collective List from Defendants, the Plaintiff's counsel shall cause the approved Notice and Consent Forms to issue to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and Short Message Service (SMS)/text message, at their initial expense without prejudice to seeking reimbursement and shall include a self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the initial mailing; e. setting an opt-in period of 45 days from the issuance of the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form; f. that within 21 days following the close of the opt-in period, the Defendants shall produce the payroll and timekeeping data for all individuals who have opted into the action; g. that the parties shall engage in settlement negotiations, including mediation, in a good faith attempt to resolve this matter within 60 days following the close of the opt- in period; and h. that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by no later than for 70 days after the close of the opt-in period informing the Court whether the parties have reached a resolution and, if no resolution has been reached, proposing a schedule for the remainder of the litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zow1EV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle L. Cline, Esq. CLINE LAW GROUP, PLLC 6329 Oleander Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 661-2012 Facsimile: (910) 338-0557 E-mail: Janelle.cline@clinelawgroupnc.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kerry A. Shad, Esq. Zebulon D. Anderson, Esq. Shameka C. Rolla, Esq. SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P. Post Office Box 2611 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 Telephone: (919) 821-6672 Facsimile: (919) 821-6800 E-mail: kshad@smithlaw.com zanderson@smithlaw.com srolla@smithlaw.com PERFORMIX LLC: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERFORMIX LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01271-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta entered an order granting joint stipulated motion to extend class certification deadlines as follows: The Court modifies the following deadlines in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file May 17, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Deadline for Defendant to file July 19, 2023 its class certification opposition: -- The Court will schedule this August 23, 2023 case for a settlement conference with a United States Deadline for the Plaintiff to file class certification reply: A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GVMFoh at no extra charge.[CC] PERI & SONS: Appeals Consolidation Bid Denial in Guzman to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERI & SONS FARMS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LORENA SUAREZ GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERI & SONS FARMS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC; ROY ESTRADA; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00348-NONE-SKO, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Plaintiff initially filed this class action complaint against Defendants Peri & Sons and Roy Estrada in the Imperial County Superior Court, alleging violations of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq., on Aug. 31, 2020. The Defendants removed the action to the to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 2, 2020, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The case was transferred to the Eastern District of California after the Defendants' motion to change venue was granted on March 8, 2021. The Plaintiff also filed a representative action under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq., against the Defendants in the Imperial County Superior Court ("PAGA action") on Oct. 8, 2020. The Defendants a renewed motion to consolidate the class action with the PAGA action on April 30, 2021. The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations on May 4, 2021. The magistrate judge issued findings and a recommendation on Aug. 2, 2021, recommending that the Defendant's motion to consolidate be denied on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case sought to be consolidated. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dale A. Drozd of the Eastern District of California adopted in full the findings and recommendation issued on Aug. 2, 2021, and denied the motion to consolidate. The Defendants seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Lorena Suarez Guzman v. Peri & Sons Farms of California, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-80001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 4, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners PERI & SONS FARMS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, et al., are represented by: Anthony L. Hall, Esq. SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON, PC 690 Sierra Rose Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 785-0088 Plaintiff-Respondent LORENA SUAREZ GUZMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Diego Aviles, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fayad Sues Over Paralegals' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- MARYBELLE FAYAD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00032 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 4, 2023) contends that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant and is currently employed in the position of paralegal. The Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly work more than 40 hours per week but are not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs are not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. City of Philadelphia is the largest city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Kramer, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Carroll Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation d/b/a PAMPERS.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00010-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to a third-party. According to the complaint, part of Defendants' business plan involves persuading potential customers, including Plaintiff, to try Pampers products via the use of instructional videos showing consumers enjoying the products. As such, Defendants are "video tape service providers" under the VPPA because, as part of their business, they deliver "prerecorded video" content or other "similar audio visual materials." Whenever someone watches a video on www.pampers.com, the Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook including the visitor's identity, the titles watched, and more, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor expectations. The Defendants knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's personally identifiable information because it used that data to build audiences on Facebook and retarget them for its advertising campaigns, the complaint alleges. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com PROSEGUR SECURITY: Frattarola Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Frattarola and Luciano Carbone, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PROSEGUR SECURITY USA INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-00137 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, seeking to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated coworkers who work or have worked at Prosegur in New York. The Plaintiffs have been subject to the Defendant's decision, policy, plan, and common programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules of willfully failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Collective Members at the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and one- and one-half times this rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant also required the Plaintiffs and the Collective Members to work off-the-clock and without compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law requires it to pay employees minimum wage for all the hours they work. The Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law requires it to pay employees performing non-exempt duties an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Prosegur as security officers. Prosegur Security USA, Inc. is a privately-owned company that provides security services nationwide to a variety of industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 REALPAGE INC: Bertlshofer Alleges Rental Housing Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BERTLSHOFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v . REALPAGE, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; and SIMPSON PROPERTY GROUP, LLLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00018-GMS (D. Ariz., Jan. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater Phoenix Metro Area, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the contract, combination or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the rents they charge for residential units in the Greater Phoenix Metro Area and involved the exchange of competitively sensitive information between and among Defendants, causing anticompetitive effects without sufficient procompetitive justifications. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is per se an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in the Greater Phoenix Metro Area. The Plaintiff and the Class, who rent in the Greater Phoenix 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, adds the complaint. 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: Garrett Wotkyns, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 8068 East Del Acero Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 889-3514 E-mail: gwotkyns@scott-scott.com - and - Christopher Burke, Esq. Walter Noss, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 707 Broadway, Suite 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 625-5620 E-mail: cburke@koreintillery.com wnoss@koreintillery.com RIDGECREST REGIONAL: Ayers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ridgecrest Regional Hospital. The case is styled as Venita Anne Ayers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, Case No. BCV-23-100070 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Ridgecrest Regional Hospital -- https://www.rrh.org/ -- provides high-quality, comprehensive health services to people.[BN] ROC OPCO LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roc Opco, LLC. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roc Opco, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00167 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Roc Opco doing business as RoC Skincare -- https://www.rocskincare.com/ -- offers skin care products that are rooted in science.[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 ROCKET MORTGAGE: Gilburd Sues Over Mortgage Bankers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Gilburd, an Arizona Resident; Andrew Gebhart, an Arizona Resident; Daniel Featherstone, an Arizona Resident; Derek Martin, an Arizona Resident; Angela McGuire, an Arizona Resident; Kori Morin, an Arizona Resident, Katherine Redas, an Arizona Resident, Erin Salava, an Arizona Resident; David Vallejo, a Michigan Resident; and Nick Vincent, an Arizona Resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-CDB (D. Ariz., Jan. 4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful failure to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Members are current and former mortgage bankers employed by Defendant. They were allegedly compensated on an hourly basis and were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Rocket Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone and Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com SALUD FAMILY HEALTH: Alexander Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Karen Alexander, individually and on behalf of her minor children, and all others similarly situated v. Salud Family Health, Inc., Case No. 2022CV30848 was removed from the Weld County Colorado District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00037-PAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Salud Family Health -- https://www.saludclinic.org/ -- is a Federally Qualified Health (FQHC) operating 13 clinic locations, 11 school sites and a mobile unit.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie A. Sullivan, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 572-6500 Fax: (303) 572-6540 Email: sullivanjul@gtlaw.com SEEKING HEALTH: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seeking Health, LLC. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seeking Health, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00166 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seeking Health LLC -- https://www.seekinghealth.com/ -- offers the online sale of supplements, probiotics and multivitamins.[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 SOUTH BAY: Brachvogel Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Christian Brachvogel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTH BAY ENERGY CORP., Case No. 1:23-cv-00184-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought seeking to redress South Bay's deceptive and bad faith pricing practices that have caused thousands of commercial and residential customers in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois to pay considerably more for their electricity and gas than they should otherwise have paid. The Defendant has taken advantage of the deregulation of the retail electricity market by exploiting consumers hoping to save on electricity and gas costs. South Bay uniformly represents to its New York customers that its variable rates for electricity will reflect "the cost of energy, capacity, RECs, settlement, ancillaries, related transmission and distribution charges and other market-related factors; plus all applicable taxes, fees, charges, costs, expenses and margins." Similarly, South Bay uniformly represents to its New York customers that its variable rates for gas will reflect "market conditions." The Plaintiff was subject to the same contractual terms for his variable rate for electricity as all South Bay customers in New York, which is substantially similar to the variable rate contractual terms for all of South Bay's customers in the United States. South Bay's representations are false and deceptive, and designed to take advantage of consumers' good faith and their lack of knowledge about, and access to, accurate wholesale and retail energy pricing information. In reality, South Bay did not provide its customers with prices based upon market-related factors or market conditions, but rather used a pricing methodology that focused on maximizing profits. As a result of South Bay's unlawful acts described herein, thousands of unsuspecting consumers have been, and continue to be, fleeced by South Bay out of millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity and gas. Defendant's scheme, which often affects society's most vulnerable citizens, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous. The Plaintiff and other South Bay customers (the "Class") have been injured by Defendant's unlawful practices. Plaintiff and the Class therefore seek damages, restitution, statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief for South Bay's breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff leased property in the borough of Manhattan in New York City and received his electricity supply from South Bay in Manhattan. South Bay is an independent energy service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (914) 775-8862 Email: jbm@wittelslaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Joshua Cottle, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jcottle@fbfglaw.com SSM HEALTH: Doe Suit Alleges Disclosure of Private Medical Info --------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSM Health Care Corporation d/b/a SSM Health, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00012 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional, reckless, and negligent disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential and private medical information to Meta Platforms, Inc., d/b/a Facebook, in violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the complaint, Defendant's website https://www.ssmhealth.com/ contain a well-known Facebook tracking pixel that secretly enables the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential medical information to Facebook. In doing so, Defendant unlawfully discloses Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) contained in the confidential communications to Facebook, says the suit. The Defendant breached its obligations in one or more of the following ways: (i) failing to adequately review its marketing programs and web based technology to ensure the hospital website was safe and secure; (ii) failing to remove or disengage technology that was known and designed to share web-users' information; (iii) failing to obtain the consent of Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose their PII and PHI to Facebook or others; (iv) failing to take steps to block the transmission of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI through Facebook Pixels; (v) failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members; and (vi) otherwise failing to design, and monitor its website to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of patient PII and PHI, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff used the website to find and obtain a physician specialized in treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and he communicated information about his medical condition, treatments, and symptoms via the website. SSM Health is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation organized under, and governed by, Missouri law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011-2029 Telephone: (314) 541-0317 E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON LAW FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com TARGET CORP: Sadler Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled KRYSTAL SADLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, ABC CORPORATION 1-5 (fictitious names describing presently unidentified business entities) and JOHN DOES 1-5 (fictitious names describing Defendant), Case No. GLO-L-001281-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 4, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00030 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that during the course of her employment, Target failed to pay applicable wages under New Jersey law during both (a) mandatory pre/post-shift security screenings, and (b) during the time elapsed to walk long distances across the enormous warehouse floor to clock-in/out of their respective worksite. Target Corporation is an American big box department store chain headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 995-2800 Facsimile: (215) 995-2801 - and - Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Jessica L. Barranco, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 410-1303 TEAM SCHOSTAK: Cartmill Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Cartmill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEAM SCHOSTAK FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10043-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 6, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay the 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 is taking 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 does 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 January, 2022 to February, 2022. TEAM Schostak Family Restaurants, LLC operates a chain of restaurants known as Applebee's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com TESLA INC: Costello Sues Over Omitted and Concealed Material Facts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Costello and Megan Colonel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC.; TESLA LEASE TRUST; TESLA FINANCE LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00006-BO-KS (E.D.N.C., Jan. 9, 2023), is brought against Tesla for fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of statutory deceptive trade practices laws of North Carolina, and unjust enrichment as a result of the Defendant knowingly omitted, concealed, and suppressed material facts regarding the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, and misrepresented the standard, quality, or grade of the Class Vehicles which directly caused harm to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class. Tesla designed, tested, validated, marketed, and sold its advanced driver assistance system ("ADAS"), branded as its "Autopilot" system ("Autopilot") that is featured in every Tesla vehicle, including the "Class Vehicles." Furthermore, Tesla states that "standard safety features will continue to be active on all new cars" including "Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB)" which Tesla describes as "Designed to detect objects that the car may impact and applies the brakes accordingly." (Hereinafter, the "Autopilot AEB", "Autopilot", or "Autopilot System"). The problem at hand is that Tesla is rushing these features to market when the technology is not yet ready and not yet safe. This rush and thus omission of safety is the crux of this case. Tesla's Autopilot and AEB Systems have a defect that causes the Class Vehicles' brakes to falsely engage randomly, unexpectedly, and often with great severity (the "Phantom Braking Defect", "Sudden Unintended Braking Defect", or the "Defect"). The Sudden Unintended Braking Defect causes the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, thereby automatically engaging the Class Vehicle's brakes and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop, sometimes in the middle of traffic. Essentially, Tesla vehicles are now slamming on brakes in the middle of traffic due to Autopilot. Simply put, as a result of the Defect, the Autopilot and AEB systems at issue here are now a safety hazard rather than a beneficial safety feature. Many Tesla owners have reported significant and unexpected slow-downs or stops due to the improper engagement of their Class Vehicle's braking systems. When the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect Occurs, the braking turns what is supposed to be a safety feature into a frightening and dangerous nightmare for everyone in the Class Vehicle's proximity. The Sudden Unintended Braking Defect is substantially likely to materialize during the useful life of the Class Vehicles. Named Plaintiffs have experienced the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, and numerous Class Vehicle drivers have publicly complained about the problem to NHTSA and on various internet forums. Making matters worse, Tesla has known about its malfunctioning Autopilot and AEB systems for years but has remained silent about the malfunctions. Disclosing the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect would likely: put Tesla at a competitive disadvantage both in safety ratings and in the race to get autonomous safety features on the market; have a negative impact on Tesla's brand; and reduce profits from sales. Instead, Tesla markets its vehicles as safe, despite its copious knowledge that the vehicles are defective and unfit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter. Tesla has actively concealed the true nature and extent of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect from Plaintiffs and the other Class members and has failed to disclose it to them at the time of purchase or lease or thereafter. Had Plaintiffs and other Class members known about the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, they would not have purchased and/or leased the Class Vehicles on the same terms or would have paid significantly less for them. As a result of Plaintiffs' reliance on partial representations and/or omissions by Tesla, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered financial loss and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles. Tesla knew about the existence of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect from, among other things, pre-production testing, consumer complaints, warranty data, dealership repair orders, and NHTSA investigations. Despite Tesla's knowledge of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, Tesla has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Defect, has not offered Plaintiffs and the other Class members a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse Plaintiffs and the other Class members for the value consumers paid for the Autopilot AEB features in the first place Tesla has refused to repair or replace the Class Vehicles even though the Class Vehicles are under a comprehensive warranty. Thus, Tesla has wrongfully and intentionally transferred the cost of repair of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class by fraudulently concealing the Defect's existence, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a Tesla primarily for personal, family, or household use. Tesla, Inc. designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts, and all sorts of other products for sale in the United States and throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com TESLA INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Vaughn Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARCUS VAUGHN, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. TESLA, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A164053 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five, affirms the trial court's denial of Tesla's motion to compel arbitration. The Defendant, a manufacturer of electric vehicles, operates a factory in Fremont, California. Through staffing agencies, Plaintiff Monica Chatman began working at the Defendant's Fremont factory in November 2016 and plaintiff Hall began working there in March 2017. In July 2017 letters, the Defendant offered Plaintiff Evie Hall and Chatman employment at specified wages and with specified benefits. The Plaintiffs each electronically signed their offer letters. Those offer letters contain the Arbitration Provision. In November 2017, Plaintiff Vaughn filed a complaint alleging he suffered a racially hostile work environment at the Defendant's Fremont factory. He alleged that he and other Black workers had suffered severe and pervasive harassment. Vaughn alleged three causes of action under FEHA. Although the Defendant offered Vaughn direct employment, he never signed the offer letter, which contained an arbitration agreement. For that reason, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Vaughn's claims, and the Court of Appelas affirmed in Vaughn v. Tesla, Inc. (May 21, 2019, A154753) [nonpub. opn.]. In November 2020, the Defendant moved to deny class certification and to strike the class allegations in Vaughn's complaint, arguing among other things that, because Vaughn was not bound to arbitrate, he could not adequately represent the interests of workers who had agreed to arbitration. The trial court directed Vaughn to file an amended complaint "that asserts subclasses." In May 2021, Vaughn filed a first amended complaint with proposed subclasses. On the same day, Vaughn moved for leave to file a second amended complaint adding Chatman and Titus McCaleb as named plaintiffs. In June 2021, Vaughn sought leave to add Hall as a named plaintiff. The trial court granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (Complaint) in July. Among other allegations, the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Black co-workers were subjected to repeated instances of racial harassment and discrimination, including regularly being called racial slurs by co-workers and supervisors. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Black persons who worked in Defendant's factory at various times after November 2016. The Complaint asserts causes of action for "Race-Based Discrimination in Violation of FEHA," "Race-Based Harassment in Violation of FEHA," and "Failure to Prevent Race-Based Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA." The Plaintiffs are alleged to be part of a subclass of workers who were employed for portions of time by staffing agencies and subsequently became direct employees of the Defendant. They seek relief against the Defendant based on a "joint" or "dual" employer theory for periods they were employed by staffing agencies. In August 2021, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims. It pointed out that none of Chatman and Hall's allegations distinguish between the time they were employed by staffing companies and the time they were directly employed by Tesla and argued, among other things, that the Arbitration Provision mandated arbitration because all of the claims "related to" the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendant. It also argued the Plaintiffs could not seek a "public injunction" under FEHA. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that they were not obligated to arbitrate claims based on conduct before Aug. 2, 2017, which was the date the offer letter identified as the "first day of employment." They also argued they had the right to seek a public injunction in court because the Arbitration Provision prohibited such an award in arbitration. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Defendant's petition to compel arbitration in part and denied it in part. Regarding the scope of the Arbitration Provision, the court concluded that applying the plain language of the contracts, the arbitration clauses require the Plaintiffs to arbitrate disputes that arise on or after Aug. 2, 2017. It also concluded that any claims based on alleged wrongs before Aug. 2, 2017 are not within the temporal scope of the agreements. The trial court also denied the motion to compel arbitration to the extent that the Plaintiffs sought a public injunction. The present appeal followed, and the trial court stayed any portion of the case that was not automatically stayed by the filing of the notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals determines that the trial court properly relied on the language in an arbitration provision contained in the letters to exclude from arbitration those claims based on conduct occurring during periods the Plaintiffs were employed by staffing agencies rather than directly by the Defendant. It also concludes that the trial court properly declined to mandate arbitration of the Plaintiffs' request for a public injunction. On that issue, the Court of Appeals rejects the Defendant's two principal contentions. First, it holds that injunctions sought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, Sections 12900 et seq.) may be considered "public injunctions." Second, it rules the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.), as interpreted in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179] (Viking River), does not preempt the California rule prohibiting waiver of the right to seek such injunctions. For these reasons, the trial court's order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cn2k6tw from Leagle.com. Holland & Knight LLP, Sara A. Begley -- Sara.Begley@hklaw.com -- Christina T. Tellado -- christina.tellado@hklaw.com; Reed Smith LLP, Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Tyree P. Jones -- tpjones@reedsmith.com -- Brian A. Sutherland -- bsutherland@reedsmith.com -- for the Defendant and Appellant. Bryan Schwartz Law, Bryan Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com; California Civil Rights Law Group, Larry Organ; Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- Corinne Johnson -- cjohnson@altshulerberzon.com -- Jonathan Rosenthal -- jrosenthal@altshulerberzon.com -- for the Plaintiffs and Respondents. TRADER JOE'S: Grausz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing -------------------------------------------------- Eva Grausz, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00093 (C.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. Trader Joe's markets and sells Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate 85% Cacao bar [the "Product"]. 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 is the Product. the Trader Joe's Product tested at 127% of "California's maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead" and 229% of California's maximum allowable dose level 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, including the Plaintiff, who purchased the Product were injured by Trader Joe's acts and omissions concerning the presence of lead and cadmium. No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the Product contains heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. Worse, as companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit heavy metals in their dark chocolate products, Trader Joe's has stood idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and well-being. Trader Joe's knew that if the presence of toxic heavy metals in its Product was disclosed to Plaintiff and the Class members, they would be unwilling to purchase the Product or would pay less for them. In light of Trader Joe's knowledge that Plaintiff and the Class members would be unwilling to purchase the Product or would pay less for the Product if they knew that the Product contained toxic heavy metals, Trader Joe's intentionally and knowingly concealed this fact from Plaintiff and the Class Members and did not disclose the presence of lead or cadmium on the label of the Product, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Trader Joe's Product in reliance upon Trader Joe's labels that contained omissions. Trader Joe's sells the Product 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 UNITED BEHAVIORAL: R.B. Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.B., individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated; v. United Behavioral Health; Case No. 1:21-cv-00553-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification of the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a) and (b). United Behavioral provides 24-hour, 7-day access to County Mental Health Services and County Alcohol and Drug Services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ICaaUo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 E-mail: Jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Arthur M. Stock, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 800 S Gay Street -- Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (215) 875-5704 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: astock@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com WHOLE FOODS: Molock Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 24 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLOCK, et al., v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order that the following deadlines shall now apply per the parties' joint status report: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class February 24, 2023 certification is due on or before: -- Whole Foods' Response to April 24, 2023 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on or before: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support May 15, 2023 of Class Certification, if any, is due on or before: The nature of suit states contract -- recovery of overpayment & enforcement of judgment. Whole Foods, a subsidiary of Amazon, is an upscale American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***